Towards a Stage Model of Learning Organization Development

Towards A Stage Model Of Learning Organization Development

Yuraporn Sudharatna 1073866 Submitted in fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Adelaide Graduate School of Business The University of Adelaide

June 2004

Supervisor: Associate Professor Laubie LI

Contents

Contents ...... ii List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... xi Abstract ...... xii Declaration...... xiii List Of Publications...... xiv Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………………………….xv Chapter 1 Overview 1.1 Introduction...... 1 1.2 Background to the Research ...... 1 1.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses...... 2 1.4 Justification for the Research...... 3 1.5 Methodology ...... 3 1.6 Outline of the Thesis...... 3 1.7 Definitions...... 4 Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Introduction...... 7 2.2 The Concept of Learning Organization ...... 7 2.2.1 The meaning of ‘learning organization’...... 7 2.2.2 Sequential stages of developing into LOs ...... 8 2.3 Learning Organization Characteristics...... 9 2.3.1 Continuous knowledge acquisition: Finding evidence of learning in the organization ...... 9 2.3.1.1 The location of learning activities...... 10 2.3.1.2 Acquiring the right knowledge: Learning sources ...... 15 2.3.2 Knowledge sharing...... 31 2.3.2.1 The importance of knowledge sharing...... 31 2.3.2.2 Ways to share knowledge...... 32 2.3.3 Knowledge utilization...... 41 2.3.3.1 Organizational memory...... 42 2.3.3.2 The utilization of knowledge ...... 44 2.4 The Inventory Of Learning Organization Characteristics ...... 50 2.5 Readiness-to-change...... 55 2.6 Summarizing and a Conceptual Framework...... 62

iii

Chapter 3 Research Hypotheses and Methodology 3.1 Introduction...... 65 3.2 Conceptual Framework...... 65 3.3 Hypotheses to be Tested...... 71 3.4 Construct Measurement...... 73 3.5 Research Design ...... 75 3.5.1 Industry background...... 75 3.5.2 Sampling plan and Data collection ...... 76 3.5.3 Data analysis...... 78 3.6 Conclusion...... 83 Chapter 4 Results of the Study 4.1 Introduction...... 84 4.2 The Descriptive Analysis of Respondents’ Data ...... 84 4.2.1 Descriptive analysis of Gender, Age, Level of Education, Number of years working in the company, and position ...... 84 4.2.1.1Analysis of mobile phone service industry in Thailand...... 84 4.2.1.2 Analysis at Company A...... 86 4.2.1.3 Analysis at Company B...... 87 4.3 The Factor Analysis of the Inventory of LO Characteristics ...... 89 4.3.1 LO characteristics of cultural values...... 89 4.3.1.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregated Level...... 89 4.3.1.2 Analysis at Company A...... 91 4.3.1.3 Analysis at Company B...... 92 4.3.2. LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment ...... 94 4.3.2.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level...... 94 4.3.2.2 Analysis at Company A...... 96 4.3.2.3 Analysis at Company B...... 97 4.3.3 LO characteristics of communication...... 98 4.3.3.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level...... 98 4.3.3.2 Analysis at Company A...... 99 4.3.3.3 Analysis at Company B...... 101 4.3.4 LO characteristics of knowledge transfer ...... 102 4.3.4.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level...... 102 4.3.4.2 Analysis at Company A...... 103 4.3.4.3 Analysis at Company B...... 105 4.3.5 LO characteristics of employee characteristics ...... 107 4.3.5.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level...... 107

4.3.5.2 Analysis at Company A...... 108 4.3.5.3 Analysis at Company B...... 110 4.3.6 LO characteristics of performance upgrading...... 111 4.3.6.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level...... 111 4.3.6.2 Analysis at Company A...... 112 4.3.6.3 Analysis at Company B...... 113 4.4 The Descriptive Analysis of LO Characteristics ...... 115 4.4.1 Cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading...... 115 4.4.1.1 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at the industry aggregate level ...... 115 4.4.1.2 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company A ...... 116 4.4.3 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company B...... 117 4.5 The Factor Analysis of LO Development Stages ...... 118 4.5.1 LO development stage of knowledge acquisition (KA) ...... 118 4.5.1.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level...... 118 4.5.1.2 Analysis at Company A...... 121 4.5.1.3 Analysis at Company B...... 123 4.5.2 LO development stage of knowledge sharing (KS) ...... 125 4.5.2.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level...... 125 4.5.2.2 Analysis at Company A...... 128 4.5.2.3 Analysis at Company B...... 131 4.5.3 LO development stage of knowledge utilization (KU)...... 134 4.5.3.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level...... 135 4.5.3.2 Analysis at Company A...... 139 4.5.3.3 Analysis at Company B...... 142 4.6 The Factor Analysis of the Organization Readiness-to-Change ...... 146 4.6.1 Organizational readiness-to-change...... 146 4.6.1.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at the industry aggregate level ...... 147 4.6.1.2 Analysis at Company A...... 149 4.6.1.3 Analysis at Company B...... 151 4.7 The Correlation between LO Characteristics and the Organizational Readiness-to-Change.....153 4.7.1 The correlation between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change...... 153 4.7.1.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at the Industry Aggregate level ...... 153 4.7.1.2 Analysis at Company A...... 156 4.7.1.3 Analysis of Company B...... 158

4.8 The Correlation between the LO Development Stages and the Organizational Readiness-to- Change ...... 160 4.8.1 The correlation between LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change ...... 160 4.8.1.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at the industry aggregate level ...... 161 4.8.1.2 Analysis at Company A...... 161 4.8.1.3 Analysis at Company B...... 162 4.8.2 The correlation between the LO development stage of knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to-change ...... 162 4.8.2.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at industry aggregate level.....163 4.8.2.2 Analysis at Company A...... 163 4.8.2.3 Analysis at Company B...... 164 4.8.3 The correlation between the LO development stage knowledge utilization and organizational readiness-to-change ...... 165 4.8.3.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at industry aggregate level.....165 4.8.3.2 Analysis of Company A...... 165 4.8.3.3 Analysis at Company B...... 166 4.9 Conclusion...... 167 Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion 5.1 Introduction...... 169 5.2 The Discussion of Respondents’ Data...... 169 5.2.1 Gender ...... 169 5.2.2 Age...... 170 5.2.3 Education ...... 170 5.2.4 Years of service at the company level...... 172 5.2.3 Positions in organization ...... 172 5.3 Verification and Discussion of H1 (H1-1 to H1-6): LO Characteristics and Organizational Readiness-to-Change...... 174 5.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Verifying the validity of H1-1 to H1-6 ...... 174 5.3.1.1 Hypothesis1: H1-1 ...... 175 5.3.1.2 Hypothesis1: H1-2 ...... 178 5.3.1.3 Hypothesis1: H1-3 ...... 180 5.3.1.4 Hypothesis1: H1-4 ...... 183 5.3.1.5 Hypothesis1: H1-5 ...... 186 5.3.1.6 Hypothesis1: H1-6 ...... 188 5.3.1.7 Verify Hypothesis H1: H1-1 to H1-6...... 191 5.4 LO Development Stages...... 193

5.4.1 Hypothesis 2: Verifying the validity of H2-1 to H2-3 ...... 194 5.4.1.1 Sub-Hypothesis H2-1: correlation coefficient of knowledge acquisition (KA) and readiness-to-change...... 194 5.4.1.2 Sub-Hypothesis H2-2: correlation coefficient of knowledge sharing (KS) and readiness- to-change ...... 195 5.4.1.3 Sub-Hypothesis H2-3: correlation coefficient of knowledge utilization (KU) and readiness-to-change...... 196 5.4.1.4 Verifying Hypothesis H2: sub-hypotheses H2-1 to H2-3...... 198 5.5 Implications for Theory...... 199 5.6 Implications for Management and Practices ...... 200 5.6.1 The LO characteristics of cultural values...... 200 5.6.2 The LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment...... 204 5.6.3 The LO characteristics of communication ...... 208 5.6.4 The LO characteristics of knowledge transfer ...... 211 5.6.5 The LO employee characteristics...... 214 5.6.6 The LO characteristics of performance upgrading...... 216 5.5 Conclusion...... 219 5.5.1 Verification of Hypotheses...... 219 5.5.2 Limitations of the research ...... 220 5.5.3 Recommendations for further research...... 221 5.5.4 Contribution of the research...... 222 References ...... 223 Appendices...... 238

vii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 LO characteristics at the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition 29 Table 2.2 LO characteristics at LO development stage of knowledge sharing 40 Table 2.3 LO characteristics at the LO development stage of knowledge utilization 49 Table 2.4 An inventory of LO characteristics 50 Table 2.5 Key success factors for high readiness-to-change 61 Table 3.1 LO characteristics developed at different stages of LO development stages 66 Table 3.2 Summary of questions for accessing the inventory of LO characteristics and the LO development stages 75 Table 3.3 The return rate at Company A 77 Table 3.4 The return rate at Company B 78 Table 3.5 The total return rate at Industry Aggregate Level in this survey 78 Table 3.6 Structure of Data 79 Table 4.1 Descriptive data of gender, age, level of education, number of years working in the company and position of respondents at mobile phone service industry in Thailand 85 Table 4.2 Descriptive data of gender, age, level of education, number of years working in the company and position of respondents at Company A 86 Table 4.3 Descriptive data of gender, age, level of education, number of year working in the company and position of respondents at Company B 87 Table 4.4 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values 90 Table 4.5 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for cultural values 90 Table 4.6 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values 91 Table 4.7 Item total correlation and Cronbach alpha for cultural values 92 Table 4.8 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values 92 Table 4.9 Item total correlation and Cronbach alpha for cultural values 93 Table 4.10 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for leadership commitment and empowerment 94 Table 4.11 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for leadership commitment and empowerment 95 Table 4.12 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for leadership commitment and empowerment 96 Table 4.13 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for leadership commitment and empowerment 96

viii

Table 4.14 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for leadership commitment and empowerment 97 Table 4.15 Item total correlation and Cronbach alpha for leadership commitment and empowerment 97 Table 4.16 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication 98 Table 4.17 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for communication 99 Table 4.18 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication 100 Table 4.19 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for communication 100 Table 4.20 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication 101 Table 4.21 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for communication 101 Table 4.22 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer 102 Table 4.23 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge transfer 103 Table 4.24 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer 104 Table 4.25 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge transfer 104 Table 4.26 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer 105 Table 4.27 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge transfer 106 Table 4.28 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics 107 Table 4.29 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for employee characteristics 108 Table 4.30 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics 108 Table 4.31 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for employee characteristics 109 Table 4.32 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics 110 Table 4.33 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for employee characteristics 110 Table 4.34 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading 111 Table 4.35 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for performance upgrading 112 Table 4.36 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading 112 Table 4.37 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for performance upgrading 113 Table 4.38 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading 113 Table 4.39 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for performance upgrading 114 Table 4.40 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at the industry aggregate level 115 Table 4.41 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company A 116 Table 4.42 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company B 117 Table 4.43 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition 118 Table 4.44 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge acquisition 120 Table 4.45 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition 121 Table 4.46 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge acquisition 122

Table 4.47 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition 123 Table 4.48 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge acquisition 124 Table 4.49 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing 126 Table 4.50 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge sharing 127 Table 4.51 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing 128 Table 4.52 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge sharing 130 Table 4.53 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing 132 Table 4.54 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge sharing 133 Table 4.55 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization 135 Table 4.56 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge utilization 137 Table 4.57 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization 139 Table 4.58 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge utilization 141 Table 4.59 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization 142 Table 4.60 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge utilization 144 Table 4.61 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for organizational readiness-to-change 147 Table 4.62 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for organizational readiness-to-change 148 Table 4.63 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for organizational readiness-to-change 149 Table 4.64 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for organizational readiness-to-change 150 Table 4.65 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for organization readiness-to-change 151 Table 4.66 Item total correlation and Cronbach alpha for cultural values 152 Table 4.67 Correlation matrix of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change 153 Table 4.68 Correlation matrix of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change 156 Table 4.69 Correlation matrix of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change 158 Table 4.70 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change 161 Table 4.71 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change 161 Table 4.72 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change 162 Table 4.73 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to-change 163 Table 4.74 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to-change 163 Table 4.75 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to-change 164

Table 4.76 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge utilization and organizational readiness-to-change 165 Table 4.77 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge utilization and organizational readiness-to-change 166 Table 4.78 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge utilization and organizational readiness-to-change 166 Table 4.79 Correlation coefficient of LO development stage and organizational readiness-to-change 167 Table 5.1 Correlation between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change 191 Table 5.2 Correlation between the three LO development stages and organizational readiness-to- change 198 Table 5.3 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics of cultural values at industry and company levels 200 Table 5.4 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment at industry and company levels 205 Table 5.5 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics communication at industry and company levels 208 Table 5.6 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics of knowledge transfer at industry and company levels 211 Table 5.7 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics of employee characteristics at industry and company levels 214 Table 5.8 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics of performance upgrading at industry and company levels 217

List of Figure

Figure 2.1 Conceptual model guiding this study 64

xii

Abstract

Becoming a Learning Organization (LO) is widely recognized as a process through which organizations can develop characteristics that enable them to be competitive in an increasingly competitive business environment. While there is an assumption that LOs have the ability to manage change, few empirical studies are available to prove whether an organization with strong LO characteristics also has a high level of change-readiness. In developing itself into an LO, an organization seems to gain possession of relevant characteristics through knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization. There is, however, a lack of clarity on what LO characteristics are developed at each of the three stages. The relationship among these stages is also confusing.

The purpose of this research is to confirm whether organizations with a high level of LO characteristics also have a high level of readiness-to-change. It also attempts to verify the relationship among the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization.

A questionnaire has been designed following an extensive review. It incorporates “an Inventory of LO Characteristics” to measure the level of LO characteristics formed in an organization. There are also questionnaire to gauge the level readiness-to-change. The questionnaire has been distributed to employees in two leading mobile phone service companies in Thailand. The industry is selected because of its changing business environment. Thailand has been chosen for as the location for the research because few studies in LO have been conducted outside the more developed economies.

The findings demonstrate two major insights. Firstly, the correlation coefficient between the six categories of LO characteristics - cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading - and readiness-to-change confirms that if an organization has a high level of LO characteristics, it will also have a high level of readiness-to-change. Secondly, the correlation coefficient between the three LO development stages - of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization - and readiness-to-change, support the hypothesis that they follow a sequential order.

Results of the research are analysed and discussed, providing valuable contributions to both research and practice in the area.

xiii

Declaration

I certify that this work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree in any university or institution; and to the best of my knowledge and belief it contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text.

I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying.

Signed ______Dated ______(Yuraporn Sudharatna)

xiv

List Of Publications

The following is the list of publications and presentations completed during the research.

Sudharatna, Y & Li, L. (2002), Management Practices as Determinants of a Learning Organization attributes: A Thai Agenda. In Proceedings of The Third Conference of the Asia Academy of Management, Bangkok, Thailand.

Sudharatna, Y & Li, L. (2003), An Organizational Readiness-to-change towards the Development of a Learning Organization. In Proceedings of The Fifth International conference of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Lancaster, UK.

Sudharatna, Y & Li, L. (2004), Leadership and Employee Characteristics as Determinants of Learning Organizations. In Proceedings of Academy for Global Business Advancement Conference. New Delhi, India.

Sudharatna, Y & Li, L. (2004), Knowledge Acquisition: An Essential Step on Becoming a Learning Organization. In Proceedings of Workplace Learning Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark. (Abstract)

Sudharatna, Y & Li, L. (2004), LO Characteristics Contributed to Its Readiness-to-Change. Under reviewing process of Managing Global Transitions International Research Journal.

Acknowledgements

The completion of this research project has been a terrific learning and life experience with encouragement and support from many special people. I owe a debt of gratitude to them for their encouragement and assistance throughout the learning process.

Thanks to Associate Professor Preeyanuch Apiboonyopas and Professor Theera Sutaboot from Kasetsart University for providing career advice, financial support and academic guidance.

I would like to record my gratitude to Ms Suprabha Moleeratanond, Ms Sirijin Wongjarupan, Ms Putita Fusakul, Mr. Christopher Graves, Ms Sharon Wilson, Mr. David Pinder and Dr. Roberto Biloslavo for their friendship and support during my time in Adelaide.

I would also like to thank academic and general staffs of Adelaide Graduate School of Business, for their unfailing support and assistance during my 4 years of study at the School. Special mention has to be made of Dr. Fred Robins, Dr. Amal Karunaratna and Dr. Jill Thomas for academic advice they provide from time to time.

I must sincerely thank my supervisor, Associate Professor Laubie Li, who has provided invaluable guidance and support throughout my candidature.

Finally, to my family, I would like to record my thanks to my two brothers who have always loved and supported me. My gratitude to my parents for providing the role model of self-discipline, patience and diligence for my doctoral work, and for their unconditional love and support me at all times.

1 CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction

To survive in a turbulent global economy, organizations continue to search for management prescriptions to develop competitive capabilities for survival and growth. The concept of learning organization (LO) has for over a decade been applauded by researchers and practitioners as a tool for organizations to acquire competitiveness in an ever-changing business environment (DiBella, 1997; Roth & Kleiner, 1998; Van der Bent, Paauwe & Williams, 1999; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995). It has been proposed that an LO is an approach not only for gaining a competitive advantage in a highly dynamic environment, but also for keeping ahead of the dramatic pace of change (Hedgetts, Luthans & Lee, 1994; Hitt, 1995; Senge, 1990b; Stata, 1989).

1.2 Background to the Research

Numerous researchers have attempted to identify various “ways” for organization to develop into an LO. For example, Senge (1990a) promotes ‘The Fifth Discipline’, which is composed of five activities to be undertaken in organization: personal mastery, mental model, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking.

Garvin (1993) recommends the acquisition of ‘skills at five main activities’ of: systems problem solving, experimentation with new approaches, learning from one’s own experience and past history, learning from the experiences and best practices of others, and speedy and efficient transfer of knowledge throughout the organization.

Bennett and O’Brien (1994) suggest “12 key factors that influence an organization’s ability to learn and change”. Goh (1997) suggests “core strategic building blocks” for learning in an organization to take place, with organization structure and design, and employees’ skill and competencies as supporting foundations. There are also suggestions to follow “constructs and processes of organizational learning”, encompassing knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory (Dibella, Nevis & Gould, 1996; Huber, 1991).

From the above snapshots of theories, it appears that a learning organization needs to develop through the continuous learning of its members individually and collectively - both at team and

2 organizational levels. Likewise, an organization’s members must share knowledge in order to create new knowledge, and store and organize knowledge in an organizational memory in a retrievable form. Moreover, the organization’s members must utilize knowledge to adjust to and generate change. As a result, continuous learning, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization are the major development stages of an LO. In spite of this, the processes of developing into an LO seem to be unclear. There are inconclusive reviews of these developing processes in terms of whether an organization should acquire knowledge before sharing, or whether an organization can make use of their knowledge without obtaining and sharing. Although researchers such as Dibella et al. (1996) and Huber (1991) suggest the processes of knowledge acquisition, sharing, and utilization, none of them has suggested how, when, and in what order do they occur.

The existing literature seems to assume that becoming “a learning organization” is a tool to use to adapt to change (Crossan, Lame & White, 1999; Hedgetts et al., 1994; Hitt, 1995; Senge, 1990b; Stata, 1989) There is, however, a lack of conclusive evidence to suggest a causal relationship between the learning organization and readiness-to-change. This study argues that an organization with a high level of LO characteristics should also possess a high level of organizational readiness- to-change, as previous research appears to be inconclusive and limited.

1.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses

This study attempts to clarify two major gaps in the study of learning organizations. Firstly, it answers the layman’s question: ‘Do organizations displaying a high level of LO characteristics have a high level of readiness-to-change?’ Secondly, ‘Do the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization follow a sequential order?’

The hypotheses in this study are there: Hypothesis 1: If an organization displays a high level of specific LO characteristics, it will also possess a high level of readiness-to-change.

Hypothesis 2: If an organization has completed the all three LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization it should have a higher level of readiness-to-change than if it has not.

3 1.4 Justification for the Research

Researchers have made various suggestions to turn organizations into learning organizations. So far there is a lack of empirical study of what organizations need to do in order to become LOs. This study, through literature review, will develop an inventory of LO characteristics to fill this gap. The inventory will be used to measure the extent to which an organization has developed itself into an LO. Existing literature implies that LOs are adaptive to change, but again there is little empirical evidence to support that implication. This study will test the relationship between organizations with high level of LO characteristics and their level of readiness-to-change. The inundation of publications on LOs in the market has caused considerable confusion among researchers and practitioners over the processes to turn an organization into an LO. This study will attempt to provide an answer as to whether these processes occur concurrently or in a sequential order.

1.5 Methodology

This study focuses on the mobile phone service industry in Thailand and assesses LO characteristics and LO development stages in relation to organizational readiness-to-change. The industry has been chosen because it is undergoing rapid changes due to privatization. Thailand is selected for this study due to the fact that few research studies in LO have been conducted outside the more developed economies. Two companies are selected for the study because they are the market leaders in the industry which is a duopoly. However, at the companies’ request, their names are concealed.

The survey method of self-administration, delivery and collection of a questionnaire has been used. It is designed by the researcher to test the research hypotheses. A seven-point Multiple Rating Scale is adopted in the design of the questionnaire. The survey was conducted in Thailand from the middle of February to the beginning of April 2003.

The data collected has been analyzed by the computer program SPSS version 11.0 for Windows. Factor Analysis is applied to measure the latent variables. Descriptive statistics, cross tabulation as well as correlation coefficient are employed in this study.

1.6 Outline of the Thesis

The thesis is made up of five chapters.

4 Chapter 1 is the introduction. It describes the background of this research. Research questions and hypotheses are stated and justification for the research is explained. An outline of this research is then given, followed by definitions of terms.

Chapter 2 covers a literature review. It first reviews the concept of learning organization. The learning organization development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization are then explored. The inventory of learning organization characteristics is subsequently proposed and measures for readiness-to-change in organizations is reviewed, culminating in the development of the conceptual model for the research.

Chapter 3 details the research hypotheses and methodology for the study. Firstly, it presents the conceptual framework based on which hypotheses are developed and subsequently tested. The construct of measurement is then explained. After that, the research design is described, including the industry background review, a data-sampling plan, the data collection method and data analysis structure and schedule.

Chapter 4 presents the research results of the study. The chapter first provides the descriptive analysis of the respondents’ data at both industry aggregate and company levels. The Factor Analysis of the LO characteristics as well as the descriptive analysis of LO characteristics are then demonstrated. Subsequently, the Factor Analysis of LO development stages and organizational readiness-to-change is presented. The correlation between LO characteristics and the organizational readiness-to-change, and the correlation between LO development stages and organizational readiness-to-change are illustrated.

Chapter 5 discusses results of the research and draws conclusion from them. After an examination of the respondent data, this chapter moves onto discussion of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change, culminating in the verification of the first hypothesis. It then discusses the development of LO development stages, leading to the verification of the second hypothesis. Finally, this chapter pinpoints the limitations and contributions of the research and provides recommendations for further research.

1.7 Definitions

For the purposes of this research, the following definitions are provided for relevant key concepts.

5 Learning in an LO is defined as an activity for acquiring knowledge at individual, team and organizational levels. It can be obtained by training and education, learning from past experience, learning from others, and experimentation. (Garavan, 1997; Garvin, 1993; Huber, 1991; Sambrook & Stewart, 2000; Srikantia & Pasmore, 1996).

A learning organization is defined as an organization that continuously learns through its members individually and collectively to create a sustainable competitive advantage by effectively managing internally and/or externally generated change (Ahmed, Loh & Zairi, 1999; Appelbaum & Reichart, 1997; Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; DiBella, 1997; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Nevens, 1992; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000; Porth, McCall & Bausch, 1999; Senge, 1990b; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995).

Individual level learning is defined as the learning of individual members in an organization in order to expand their ability (King, 2001).

Team level learning is defined as a group of skilled-individuals learning from each other’s experiences and knowledge. It can be learning within team and/or learning across teams within the organization (McCain, 1996; Ober, Yanowitz & Kantor, 1996; Robert Jr., 1998; Senge, 1991).

Organizational level learning is the integration of all levels of learning – individual, team and organizational – that aims of improving and developing an organization’s performance so that it can, adapt to an unstable environment. It begins with individual members sharing insights, knowledge, mental model and skill collecting and progresses on to team and organizational levels of learning (Cavaleri & Fearon, 1996; Dibella et al., 1996; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Kim, 1993, p.41; Nonaka & Johansson, 1985; Stata, 1989).

Learning sources are defined as resources from which an organization can obtain knowledge. An organization can learn from its employees, customers, suppliers, competitors and stakeholders (McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993).

Knowledge is defined as a creation by individuals deriving from a cyclical process of learning, and training through experience (Cavaleri & Fearon, 1996; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Ensign, 1999; Fahey & Prusak, 1998; Newell, Robertson, Scarbrough & Swan, 2002).

6 Organizational knowledge is defined as the knowledge which is acquired, shared and distributed by employees within an organization, and is embedded in either formal documents or organizational routines, processes, practices and norms (Garvin, 2000a; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001).

Organizational memory is defined as an implicit and explicit stock of organizational knowledge. If it is implicit knowledge, it is embedded mostly at the individual level, while explicit knowledge is generally at the team and organizational level. Therefore, an organizational memory is a structure for organizational knowledge storage or a repository, and must be accessible in order to be useful (Argote, 2000; Croasdell, 2001; Huber, 1991; Olivera, 2000).

LO characteristics is defined as the features of learning organizations, which reflect the capability to continuous acquire, share and utilize knowledge (Dibella et al., 1996).

Organizational readiness-to-change is defined as an organization’s capability to adjust to a changing environment, including its ability to predetermine change and to exploit those changes (Drew & Smith, 1995; Rowden, 2001).

7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This literature review aims to develop a framework for research into the relationship between: a) Learning Organization (LO) characteristics and the level of readiness-to-change, and b) LO development stages and the level of readiness-to-change.

2.2 The Concept of Learning Organization

This section will examine what an LO is in order to lay down the conceptual framework for the identification of LO characteristics in subsequent sections.

2.2.1 The meaning of ‘learning organization’ There have been many attempts to define what an LO is. Senge (1990b), who popularized the LO concept in his book The Fifth Discipline, emphasizes expanding organizational capability through system thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Garvin (1993) also highlights LOs as having the capability for problem solving, experimentation, learning from past experience, learning from the best practices of others, and quick and efficient transfer of knowledge. His idea is echoed by Goh (1998) who identifies LOs as possessing certain strategic building blocks, such as shared leadership and involvement, teamwork and cooperation, transfer of knowledge across organizational boundaries and an emphasis on mission and vision.

Bennett and O’Brien (1994) point out some key factors which have an effect on an organization’s ability to learn and change. Their ideas encompass the following: a) strategic vision, executive practices and appropriate managerial practices; b) a climate of openness and trust; c) an organizational structure that supports continuous learning; d) information flow, individual and team practices, the use of work processes that encourage continuous learning; e) performance appraisal systems that support customers’ needs; f) training and education programs to help people learn from their own and others’ experiences and become more adept at problem solving; g) individual and team development; and

8 h) a reward and recognition system that supports and encourages individual and organizational learning.

From a learning and change perspective, Watkins and Golembiewski (1995) emphasize that a learning organization continuously learns and transforms itself. They suggest that learning takes place at individual, team and organizational levels. Learning is continuous, purposeful, procedure- integrated, and operates parallel to work. They conclude that learning enhances organizational capability for innovation and expansion and that an LO has embedded systems to capture and share learning. These ideas are supported by Gephart and Marsick (1996) who emphasize an improvement in the organizations’ ability to learn, adapt and change for innovation.

Thus, learning organization means organizations that expand their capability through continuous learning, such as learning from past experience, experimentation or best practice of themselves and others and then distribute the acquired knowledge to other organizational members for further creation relevant to their work.

2.2.2 Sequential stages of developing into LOs Based on preceding discussions, learning organizations seem to have a capability to learn so as to create a sustainable competitive advantage for their ability to manage change. This capability is seemingly developed through the three stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization (Crossan et al., 1999; Dibella et al., 1996; Huber, 1991). Knowledge acquisition is a stage in the development process during which members in an organization must be able to learn independently and cooperatively from past experiences and the best practices of others; from others’ success or failure; from experimentation; and from training and educational activities. As a result, members in organizations obtain knowledge from continuous learning.

The second stage in the development of LO is knowledge sharing. After individual members learn and acquire new knowledge, the whole organization can only benefit if the knowledge is transferred to or shared with other members both within (between employees) and outside the organization (such as customers, suppliers, or other stakeholders). Therefore, the sharing of knowledge involves members individually and collectively in the organization.

Finally, an improvement in the ability to adapt to change is the main objective for an organization to become an LO. It can only be achieved if organizational members are able to utilize the learning or

9 knowledge acquired. This stage of development requires the management of learning at individual, team and organizational levels. Thus, an LO is an organization that continuously learns through its members individually and collectively to create a sustainable competitive advantage by effectively managing internally and/or externally generated change.

2.3 Learning Organization Characteristics

As stated in the existing literature, an LO is an organization that continuously learns through its members to increase its capability to gain knowledge, with the aim of creating a sustainable competitive advantage. Appelbaum and Reichart (1997) propose that learning plays a key role in the creation of knowledge, while Lucus (2000) suggests that knowledge is the outcome of learning, and the product of human thinking and experience (De Long & Fahey, 2000), which is framed for evaluating and adding new experience and information (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001). Therefore, the development of a learning organization means building an environment within an organization which encourages employees to continuously learn, share and disseminate their knowledge, experiment to facilitate knowledge creation, and use available knowledge effectively according to changing task and business circumstances. After going through the three stages of the development process, organizations are expected to display certain characteristics of learning organizations.

This section first reviews how continuous knowledge acquisition forms the first of three stages of an LO’s development, and illustrates the relevance of learning levels to developing LO characteristics. Learning in organizations occurs at different levels. There are individual, team and organizational learning levels which are fundamental for knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization. Literature related to knowledge acquisition will be reviewed, including where knowledge can be obtained. This will be followed by a review of the literature on knowledge sharing. Finally, characteristics of organizations with utilization activities are examined, including organizational memory as a vital part of relevant knowledge management systems.

2.3.1 Continuous knowledge acquisition: Finding evidence of learning in the organization When examining the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition, it is important to recognize where learning in organizations takes place and who the learners are. The learning levels of individuals, teams and the organization itself are therefore discussed in this section. In addition, where the right knowledge in an organization comes from should also be recognized.

10 2.3.1.1 The location of learning activities Learning is regarded as the central key to prosperity for every human (Sambrook & Stewart, 2000), and is the heart of an organization’s ability to adapt to a rapidly changing environment (Prokesch, 1997). However, organizations are composed of people. With the popularization of teamwork, it is now common that people are organized in groups or teams in performing their job. As a result, it is recognized that learners or knowledge acquirers in organizations can be individuals, a group of individuals and groups of individuals. Baldwin, Danielson & Wiggenhorn (1997) suggest that in managing learning, initial focus should be on individual employee development, then expanded to teams or groups and the entire organization in order to identify business needs and achieve business development. Many researchers also suggest that learning takes place at three levels: individual, team or group, and organization (Dutrenit, 2000; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Inkpen & Crossan, 1995; Redding, 1997; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995). The following section will describe how individuals, teams and organizations learn, and their importance to the development of LO characteristics.

2.3.1.1.1 Individual level learning Individual level learning is important for organizational level learning (McDougall & Beattie, 1998) because organizations are composed of individuals and an LO is an organization that learns through its members and groups of members (Kim, 1993). Individual members in an organization expand their ability through learning and sharing their insights with colleagues, such that new knowledge and competence are generated. Since an organization’s capabilities reflect the collective skills of its individual members (Cohen, 1991), individual learning contributes directly to the development of LO characteristics.

Individuals can learn in many forms. Srikantia and Pasmare (1996) suggest that individuals can learn from the dialogue among individuals who share an interest in learning. Observation of others who take actions to learn successfully is another form of individual learning. The rotation of work assignments to allow fresh perspectives to bear on existing methods is suggested. Moreover, learners need to learn from both successes and failures and learn to improve their ability from those experiences (Rowley, 1998). Apart from that, short- and long-term education can reform individuals’ interpretation of the existing environment and future possibilities. King (2001) supports the idea that training and education is an individual level learning strategy which helps to creates an LO. In this learning process, managers, peers, subordinates and customers can assist with the learning (Rowley, 1998).

Ahmed et al. (1999) cite Amabile (1988) and Oledham (1985) that motivation factors, either intrinsic motivation or extrinsic interventions, have been identified as drivers of learning. Managers need to reward their people (Burgoyne, 1995; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Jones, 2001; McGill, Slocum Jr. & Lei, 1992), provide learning opportunities (Hill, 1996), and give personal time to development such as reviewing and analyzing activities associated with learning (Rowley, 1998). To ensure individual development, managers have to encourage employees to generate their own development plans (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994).

The focus of individual level learning strategy is on the improvement of the value of an organization’s human resources (King, 2001). King (2001) suggests that an effective individual level learning strategy is the creation of highly valued human resources through the transfer of both explicit and tacit knowledge. However, organizational level learning is not merely the sum of each member’s learning. Organizations, unlike individuals, develop and maintain a learning system (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Similarly, Popper and Lipshiptz (2000) cite Hedberg (1981) that organizations do not have brains, but that they have cognitive systems and memories, while individuals develop their personalities, personal habits and beliefs over time. As a result, LOs depend upon not only the individual level learning but also other organizational systems and memories. The latter will be the subject of the literature review on knowledge sharing and utilization in a subsequent section of this Chapter.

Although there is a general agreement that there is no single prescription for development of LOs, Rowley (1998) suggests that individual level learning is a central component of an LO. Learning takes place at the individual and then ultimately at the organizational level. Nonaka (1985) proposes that the basic building blocks for organizational level learning come from the knowledge and skill at the individual level. Therefore, managers must encourage individual members to learn and develop to their full potential. Furthermore, individual level learning provides the starting point for learning in teams and organizational systems.

Individuals can learn from both formal and informal learning activities. However, the results of learning may vary among individuals even if the same learning experiences are provided. There are individual differences among people, hence the outcome of individual learning will vary depending on age, educational background, learning style, reason for learning, level and types of intelligence, belief and attitude (Stuart, 1992). However, such factors that impact on how well individuals learn are outside the scope of this study.

It is significant to note that incentive and motivation are essential to drive learning. Therefore, not only must formal and informal learning activities and an appropriate learning environment be provided for individuals, but reward systems should also be addressed in an organization.

In summary, individual level learning is the foundation for an LO. Organizations that encourage knowledge acquisition at the individual level have the following characteristics: a) formal and informal learning activities such as education, training, rotation of work, and review of successes or failures; and b) incentive, motivation and rewards to drive learning.

2.3.1.1.2 Team level learning Team level learning is a group of skilled-individuals learning through each other’s experiences and knowledge. It could be learning within team and/or across teams within the organization. It is important as it is the link between individual and organizational level learning (Bhatt, 2000; Garavan, 1997; Sadler-Smith, Gardiner, Badger, Chaston & Stubberfield, 2000). Team level learning occurs through sharing and members can share their knowledge and insights, new knowledge can be acquired. Hence, knowledge can be acquired through individual and team level learning.

To become a learning team, team members must actively ask questions, discuss errors, engage in experimentation and reflection, and seek external feedback. A shared sense of supportiveness and trust among team members is essential for learning to occur in teams (Cunha & Louro, 2000 cite Edmanson’s (1999); Elliott, Smith & MaGuinness, 2000; Leitch, Harrison, Burgoyne & Blantern, 1996; Lynn, 1998; McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995). There is also the need to have a clear and forceful team goal, adequate resources, information and rewards, and supportive leadership to foster a shared sense of trust, cooperation and confidence of the team’s capacity to achieve positive results.

Team level learning is influenced by the ability of individuals, team composition, team characteristics and team processes (Ahmed et al., 1999). Individuals as team members contribute their own sets of experiences, beliefs, thoughts, and feelings to the team process (Ober et al., 1996). To become a learning team, all team members must continuously learn and adjust behaviours to individual differences confronted (Robert Jr., 1998). Team level learning will take time to develop and requires openness and trust (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; DiBella, 1997; Leitch et al., 1996; McGill & Slocum Jr.,

13 1993; McGill et al., 1992; Robert Jr., 1998), co-operative planning, interaction management, supportive relationships between individual, and effective group performance (McCain, 1996). Moreover, team level learning requires members to share information freely in order to facilitate new insights on ordinary problems (Vowles, 1993).

Lynn(1998) suggests that there are three different forms of team level learning. The first is learning which occurs within the context of the team itself. The second is learning from the experience of being members of multiple teams within an organization and from the communication between teams. The last form of learning is knowledge gained from working in teams involving external members such as competitors, suppliers and customers. For the purposes of this study, this (last) form of learning will be elaborated on as a learning source in section 2.3.1.2 of this Chapter.

Teams play a critical role in the development of LO characteristics (Roth, 1996) because they provide the essential platform for individuals to interact with each other for the purposes of learning (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1997). Indeed, Sambrook and Stewart (2000) opine that teams are the building blocks of an LO.

In summary, team level learning is a group of skilled-individuals learning from each other defferent forms. Teams are essential for an organization to develop into an LO since they are the link between individual and organizational level learning. The purpose of team level learning is to share and disseminate experiences, skills and knowledge among individual members. Consequently, members can use that new knowledge to improve their ability to create innovative products or processes and to solve problems.

It has to be recognized that team level learning takes time to develop as individual backgrounds and perceptions are different. Managers need to create an environment conducive not only to individual level learning but also to team level learning within the organization. Characteristics of organizations that encourage knowledge acquisition at the team learning level are: a) an appropriate team level learning environment encompassing unobstructed and open communication; b) freely-shared information; c) an atmosphere of trust; d) a supportive relationship between members; and e) co-operative planning.

14 It is expected that when such an environment is created, teams mature and develop into learning teams and join with others within the organization, thereby creating the appropriate structure and culture for the next level of learning - organizational level learning.

2.3.1.1.3 Organizational level learning Learning at the organizational level is built on the ability of individuals and teams to learn and share knowledge and experience. It is learning that flows from individual members to teams and finally to the organization level (Inkpen, 2000). It is also related to the process of improvement and the ability to learn in an organization.

Organizational level learning cannot occur without individual learning (Francis, 1997). However, organizational level learning and team level learning are not simply the sum of each individual’s learning (Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Redding, 1997). ‘An organization learns through individual members and is affected either directly or indirectly by individual learning’ (Kim, 1993,p. 41), along with the collaborative effect of multiple individuals learning together that create organizational level learning (Francis, 1997). Kim (1993) suggests that organizational level learning depends on individuals improving their thinking, and that making it explicit is crucial to the development of new shared thinking. Srikantia and Pasmore (1996) suggest that organizational level learning involves confronting one’s own behaviour openly and discussing inquiries among organizational members. Thus, organizational level learning is more complex and dynamic than a simple enlargement of individual and team level learning, and creates a culture of learning that affects every member in the organization (Kim, 1993 cites Argryis and Schon, (1978)).

Organizational level learning occurs through shared insights, knowledge and mental model (Stata, 1989). While individuals can learn without the organization or the group, organizations synthesize and institutionalize individuals’ intellectual capital embedded in their core competencies and memories such as knowledge system, routines, and organizational culture (Gephart & Marsick, 1996), thereby reinforcing continuous learning. Organizational level learning is therefore learning at the organization level.

Organizational learning integrates learning at each level, from individual to team and finally the organization. Through this process, errors are detected and corrected by an organization’s members (Sambrook & Stewart, 2000). Citing the seminal work by Argyris (1996), this can be done by restructuring the organizational theory of action, and then embedding the results of the inquiry into

15 organizational images. Thus, organizational learning is the process of improving the competencies of an organization by providing an environment conducive for open reflection and enquiry.

Organizational learning is one ingredient in the organization’s capabilities (King, 2001 cites Cyert and March (1963)), and is therefore an important characteristics of an LO. The focus of organizational learning is on the development of general competency and capacities such as teamwork, anticipation of change and the ability to deal with change and continuous improvement (King, 2001), all of which are essential conditions for learning to take place. Certainly, the creation of these conditions would be significantly facilitated by the demonstrated initiatives and commitments of senior management in the organization (Vowles, 1993; West, 1994).

In summary, organizational learning is the development of a particular structure, culture, and norms that facilitate individuals and teams to share knowledge, skills and experience to work effectively in a rapidly changing environment. Organizational learning occurs when there exist institutionalized practices conducive to learning at individual, team and organization levels.

Knowledge acquisition in an organization occurs at three levels: individual, team, and organizational. Individual learning occurs through training and education, experimentation, learning from others, observation, and dialogues among members. It can be both formal and informal. When members of an organization share their knowledge, skill, and experience among themselves, team learning occurs. Subsequently, individual and team learning, evolving around a well-organized organizational memory system, can be enhanced and facilitated by organizational routines, norms and culture. These are conditions that can be institutionalized by senior management and is referred to as organizational learning. The three levels of learning are important activities for organizational knowledge acquisition and reflect specific organizational features and hence the foundations for developing characteristics of LOs. Beyond learning levels, it is essential to note where knowledge in organizations comes from, thus the next section will clarify learning domains under the theme of knowledge acquisition.

2.3.1.2 Acquiring the right knowledge: Learning sources While learning at different levels of organization is important, learning the right knowledge is equally vital for developing LO characteristics for knowledge acquisition. It is suggested from the literature, an organization can acquire knowledge through interaction with employees, customers or clients, vendors, suppliers, and competitors (Anonymous, 1995; Choo, 2001; McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993;

16 Prokesch, 1997; Rowden, 2001; Sivula, Van Den Bosch & Elfring, 2001; Stambaugh, 1995). Furthermore, these learning sources provide vital data that an organization needs. There is also a need to establish cooperative relationships with suppliers, customers as well as competitors (Chen, 1997). The following section will elaborate on these learning sources in the acquisition of knowledge.

2.3.1.2.1 Employees Human resources are the most significant basis for developing the wealth of nations (Gustavsson & Harung, 1994). Similarly in an organization, employees are the most valuable assets (Hedgetts et al., 1994) since they are the ones who produce the organization’s goods and services. Saffady (2000) suggests that education, experience and intelligence are factors that determine the limitation of employees’ knowledge. Educating, giving the employees the right knowledge, skills and experience, as well as providing them with a learning culture in the organization will help them improve their performance, and hence the organization’s (Cross & Baird, 2000).

Employees are considered to be a valuable source of organization knowledge, especially information gathered by those working on the front line -- those who deal directly with routine work and problems in their work units (Nonaka, 1991).

It has been recognized that individual employees are specialists in their work areas. They have different work experience, skills and training, so they have different individual knowledge. This individual knowledge is an important part of organizational memory, which refers to the implicit and explicit stock of organizational knowledge. Managers need to make the individual knowledge, called tacit knowledge, more explicit; otherwise there is always a risk of losing it when people leave an organization (Cross & Baird, 2000). In using the skill and experience of employees, Atkinson (1994) suggests that organizations need to be sure to analyze previous training and experience against business needs, and allow expansion of employees’ roles, thereby benefiting both the organization and employee in terms of knowledge acquisition.

As one of the most important learning sources in an organization, employees should be encouraged to develop new working relationships, build teams, acquire problem solving skills, and identify and prioritize problems (Gephart & Marsick, 1996). As a result, it can be concluded that an employee is a source of learning at mainly the individual level. When they are grouped together and members share individual knowledge, they can then be able to extend their learning to the team level. With the appropriate organizational structure, systems and culture, learning can take place at the

17 organizational level. From the above arguments, it is evident that employees constitute an important source of learning at all levels of the organization.

2.3.1.2.2 Customers Customers are a key part of an organization’s vision (Evans, 1998), since the latter evolves around the former’s needs. The success of a business depends critically on its ability to meet customer needs (Bierly & Hamalainen, 1995). Generally, organizations must recognize who their customers are, why they buy from them, what benefits their products or services provide, how to deliver more value than their competitors, and how to turn satisfied customers into loyal customers (Stewart, 1999). Therefore, an organization must learn from its customers in order to develop a match between the customers’ needs and its core capabilities (Maani, 1999).

Bhatt (2000) suggests that if an organization, as a supplier, has free exchange of information with customers, it can often gain an advantage in cutting product development cycle time. In addition, working closely with customers can lead to development of new concepts and methods to improve product design and quality.

Similarly, Huang (1998) proposes that there is strong demand to focus on customer knowledge management as business adapts to customer-centered operations. A successful organization needs to respond quickly to customer needs. Nonaka (1991) argues that an organization’s ability to react quickly to unmet customer demands, to create new markets, to develop new products and to dominate emergent technologies are success factors for Japanese organizations. Mohanty and Deshmukh (1999) concur that organizations have to learn and relearn as dictated by customers’ choices and their requirements. As a result, organizations benefit from obtaining information from customers or through customer interactions, as both lead to the creation of new ideas and solutions.

Although customer focus is a key part of vision in an organization, information from customers may not always be comprehensive or accurate. Therefore, Lynn (1998) suggests that organizations should check the information with competitors’ learning.

Given the fact that relationships with customers are developed mainly at the individual employee level, organizations must strive to keep customer knowledge within the organizational memory by making it explicit. Otherwise when employees leave, the organization may lose the customers who choose to follow those employees to a new organization (Bendapudi & Leone, 2001).

Because customers are a main component of an organization’s vision, organizations must be aware of their needs and wants. In the current knowledge-based economy, a key to business success is meeting customers’ individual needs, not mass production, mass distribution or uniformity and standardization (Harari, 1997). Therefore, managers need to be concerned about existing and prospective customers, and mobilize the organization’s core competencies in order to improve customer services. Sustained organizational growth and increased market share can only be achieved if customers’ needs are learned and met.

2.3.1.2.3 Competitors Organizations must take competitors into consideration. As Porter (1985) suggests, competitors are one of the five forces that determine the competitiveness of a business. From a learning organization perspective, competitors are also an important learning source for an organization. McAulay and Russell (1997) advise that an organization can gather knowledge from observing a competitor’s performance results, products or services and the ways in which they are developed, delivered and marketed. Furthermore, organizations can learn from their competitor’s successes or failures, and apply relevant learning to their future plans. Hence, organizations within an industry can learn from each other as well.

Moreover, competition is the key to productivity and innovation (Ramsey, 1999). Ramsey (1999) suggests that competitors can be used as a basis for comparison by supplying benchmarks. Without competitors, the organization may not be able to determine how well it is doing.

In formulating strategy, it is common for organizations to consider current and potential rivals in the market (Porter, 1985). This is a form of learning from competitors. Dowling and Roering (1996) suggest that relationships with competitors do not have to be competitive at all times, but can take the form of joint ventures, collaborative research groups or licensing agreements. With such relationships, organizations can share knowledge and resources for mutual gains in competing against others. Additionally, Chen (1997) and Parise and Henderson (2001) advocate that cooperation among partners such as suppliers, distributors, customers and competitors is essential for organizations to manage and transfer knowledge.

Learning from competitors can be conducted at individual, team and organizational levels. If learning is solely based on observation, it may take place at an individual level and then be passed on to

19 teams and then the entire organization. However, if learning occurs in other forms of cooperation, it may be established at an organizational level, passed through teams and finally, the individual can learn from this cooperative effort. Therefore, learning from competitors involves all three levels of learning in the organization.

Competition is one of the main sources of knowledge acquisition for productivity and innovation. All organizational members should be aware of any newly developed activities undertaken by competitors (Hardy, 1996) so they can learn from what a competitor does to beat its rivals. This reflection process provides an organization with the opportunity to turn its weaknesses into strengths, or through cooperation, turn head-to-head competition into collaboration. Thus, competitors are an important source of knowledge acquisition for an organization in building up a competitive advantage.

2.3.1.2.4 Suppliers Suppliers are important since the purchase of goods and services impacts on costs and quality of production, and brings risk into the organization (Torok, 1998). If the cost of raw materials is high, so is the cost of the finished product. It is the same with quality of products. If the organization’s supplier does not provide quality inputs, there is likely to be negative impact on the quality of the goods and services produced (Handfield & Krause, 2000). Therefore, suppliers can provide information for the continuous improvement of an organization’s operations.

An organization can develop competitive advantage through supplier management. It is suggested that the organization ask not just one supplier to do what it wants, but rather ask a number of suppliers how they would respond to the request (Torok, 1998). Therefore, an organization can learn from the ideas of more than one supplier before deciding on a supplier according to its customers’ needs.

Organizations can learn from their suppliers through collaboration. Suppliers or vendors are able to offer knowledge management seminars or conferences to their customers (Dykeman, 1998). For instance, Motorola develops partnerships with its suppliers by giving them training through the Motorola Supplier Institute and requiring them to upgrade production systems (Gephart & Marsick, 1996).

20 Stambaugh (1995) gives the examples of Motorola, the Marriott Hotel, SAS, Xerox and Disney as successful organizations which continuously learn from their employees, customers, competitors, and suppliers. However, organizations cannot expect these partners to fully share their knowledge and resources unless an organization has a strong relationship with them (Prokesch, 1997). Rowley (1998) concludes that an extended learning culture which includes customers, suppliers and other major stakeholders is a characteristic of an LO. While employees, customers, suppliers, and stakeholders are important sources of learning, they must be able to share the benefits derived from knowledge acquisition in order to develop the right relationship. As a result, managers must manage these sources of knowledge effectively to enable organizational members to acquire new ideas and new ways of thinking which can lead to creativity and innovation. In summary, the main learning sources in organizations include employees, customers, competitors and suppliers.

After individuals, teams or the organization as a whole learn from the above-described sources of learning, the product is organizational knowledge. Organizations must have a place to store this knowledge which is labelled “organizational memory”. For the purpose of this study, the concept of organizational memory will be discussed in 2.3.3.1 as a part of knowledge utilization.

2.3.1.2.5 Continuous learning Continuous learning is a means by which an organization develops and obtains its knowledge. From the preceding discussion, an organization can acquire knowledge from both within and outside the organization. Staples, Greenaway and McKeen (2001) suggest that continuous learning is the foundation for the long-term success of an organizational knowledge base.

Both researchers and practitioners point out that continuous learning to acquire new skills is an important features of LOs (Addleson, 2000; Appelbaum & Reichart, 1997; Barrett, 1995; DiBella, 1997; Leitch et al., 1996; Nevens, 1992; Porth et al., 1999; Robinson, Clemson & Keating, 1997; Teare & Dealtry, 1998; Wong, 1996). The reason is that an organization’s ability to adapt to uncertainty and change stems from an ability to update itself (Popper & Lipshitz, 2000; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993); and continuous learning facilitates the development of this updating ability (Porth et al., 1999). From this perspective, managers must promote continuous learning in organizations.

Additionally, Popper and Lipshitz (2000) suggest that continuous learning is essential for an organization’s survival and requires valid information, clarity, accountability and responsibility. In conjunction with continuous learning, allocating financial resources for these activities is essential

21 (Jones, 2001; Kahle, 2000a). Ahmed et al. (1999) propose that the ability to learn in itself is not sufficient but that the ability to continuously improve is also vital (Barrett, 1995; Huang, 1998). From these suggestions, continuous learning is probably best described as a pervasive attitude that allows organizations to see beyond the present and builds determination for organizational competitiveness in the future.

Knowledge acquisition through continuous learning has to be supported by experimentation. With this type of acquired learning, managers must be willing to innovate and try out new ideas in cognizance of the possible risks involved (Ahmed et al., 1999; Liedtka, 1999; Nevens, 1992; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993). At the same time, encouragement of risk taking, acceptance of mistakes and absence of punishment for mistakes or failures are the critical norms of learning. Moreover, individuals must be supported by an organization’s structure and systems to experiment with new work methods and innovative processes to further improve job performance.

Organizations can also acquire knowledge by learning from their own experience and past history (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; Garvin, 1993; Hill, 1996). Organizations must review their successes or failures, learn from these, and record the lessons or encode the individual learning in a form that members can easily access.

Researchers suggest that commitment to knowledge acquisition is another vital characteristics of LOs. It refers to an organization demonstrating a commitment to learn by constantly looking for new ways of working and building learning opportunities for all into its strategy. Apart from this, it is providing and sustaining a total environment which positively encourages employees to seek learning and self-development opportunities (Hill, 1996; Jones & Hendry, 1994; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993). Furthermore, strong emphasis is placed on training and skill development, through either formal or informal training programs. Beyond this emphasis, an organization can create ideas by going outside its boundaries and learning from what other companies do or by benchmarking for development as well as imitation (Burgoyne, 1995; Luthans, Rubach & Paul, 1995).

Cultural values that facilitate knowledge acquisition From the preceding discussion, it is evident that continuous learning goes beyond the identification of learning locations and sources. It also involves cultural values in terms of learning culture, lifelong learning, learning environment and the boundary-less organization which are essential in continuous learning and finally lead to obtaining new knowledge. The organization’s commitment to a culture of learning, sharing and creating is recommended for learning organizations (Pedersen, 1998).

Cultural values are important because problems and situations are all interpreted through organizational culture (Mahler, 1997). Hence, the culture of each organization is reflected in its routine activities. Organizational culture is formed from many sources such as the individual employee’s background education, experience professional, and work settings; the history of events and personalities in the organization; and an accumulation of collective efforts to make sense of all these over time (Mahler, 1997). Each organization develops its own unique culture through its accumulated learning in terms of how to think, feel and perceive an environment that has contributed to its durability (Smith, 2002). It is agreed by Coutu (2002) that culture-changing programs are regular activities of today’s organizations. As learning facilitates an organization’s ability to adapt to the rapidly changing environment (Prokesch, 1997), it reflects the culture in an LO.

Learning is essential for an organization’s continued existence, as it brings flexibility and adaptability (Lucus, 2000) for successful cultural change. For this reason, an organization which intends to develop into an LO needs to have a learning culture. The heart of such a learning culture is an understanding of an organization’s ability to learn and translate that learning into action (Abernathy, 1999). However, learning culture and values need to be supported by a climate of openness, the encouragement of responsible risk taking and the willingness to acknowledge failure and learn from it (McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993). This point will be further elaborated upon under “communication that facilitate knowledge acquistion” on page 26.

An organization with a learning culture typically has several features. Firstly, it has a lifelong learning process. This is evidenced by a continuous process of learning and training; encouragement and facilitation of members’ learning and experimentation (Anonymous, 1991; Barrett, 1995; Leitch et al., 1996). Secondly, it has a learning environment, demonstrated by the freedom to try things and fail, acceptance of mistakes and failure without punishment (Ahmed et al., 1999; Barrett, 1995; Mayo & Lank, 1995). Thirdly, it has no boundary in the sense that members desire learning and are forced to share (Abernathy, 1999; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993). Finally, continuous innovation (Hitt, 1995; Waldersee, 1997) is another feature of an organization with a learning culture.

Moreover, another feature which helps organizations enhance their learning culture is a corporate culture that celebrates the capabilities of units or members who create the culture of learning. Such a corporate culture also rewards and promotes team players who are learning continuously and sharing knowledge with each other (Miller, Eisenstart & Foote, 2002; Solomon, 1999). This is the

23 culture of emphasizing learning and innovation, as well as sharing among units (Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Miller et al., 2002).

Rewarding those who strive to learn is an extrinsic motivation for both employees and managers themselves. Schein (1993) suggests that the creation of incentives for people to do the right thing will have an impact on their behaviour. Likewise, he claims that there should be an immediate reward for correct behaviour. These rewards could be either material or psychological (Rowley, 1998). Encouraging such practices demonstrates management preferences for rewarding knowledge acquisition. Zack (1999b) advocates that an organizational climate and rewards system that values and encourages cooperation, trust, learning and innovation is essential for effective knowledge creation, sharing, and leveraging. In any case, recognition and rewarding must be given at all levels, individual, team and organization, depending on who has collected and transferred the knowledge (Marquardt, 1999).

In conclusion, cultural values facilitating knowledge acquisition are displayed by: a) Ability to learn and translate that learning into action (Abernathy, 1999); b) Flexibility and adaptability supported by a climate of openness (McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993); c) The encouragement of risk taking and the willingness to acknowledge failure and learn from it (McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993); d) The continuous process of learning and training; encouragement and facilitation of members’ learning and experimentation (Anonymous, 1991; Barrett, 1995; Leitch et al., 1996); e) Freedom to experiment, acceptance of mistakes and failure without punishment (Ahmed et al., 1999; Barrett, 1995; Mayo & Lank, 1995); f) The boundary-less organization within which members desire to learn and are forced to share (Pedersen, 1998); and g) Rewards and promotion of members or teams who are learning continuously and sharing knowledge with each other (Miller et al., 2002; Solomon, 1999)

Leadership commitment and empowerment that facilitate knowledge acquisition The LO development stage of knowledge acquisition also requires leadership commitment and empowerment since leaders have vital roles in encouraging members to learn as well as inspiring a clear and shared sense of teamwork within an organization (Locke & Jain, 1995). Leaders act as role models for learning and acquiring knowledge.

24 Leaders have important roles in an LO since they not only initiate the commitment to change themselves or their organizations (Senge, 1996), but also facilitate an employee’s ability to learn. Additionally, leaders’ or managers’ actions impact on organizational structure, decision making processes and teamwork (Ulrich, 1993). An organization cannot learn if leadership is not involved (Linder, 2000). It is therefore suggested that to develop an organization into an LO, the initiative must come from the top. Senior managers must demonstrate to employees their own intentions and commitment to learn (Vowles, 1993), otherwise action will not take place (Buckler, 1996). Therefore, the achievement of the organizational goals of learning must be committed to by leaders (Goh & Richards, 1997).

However, Mayo and Lank (1995) suggest that leadership skill is important not only for leaders, but also to staff at all levels of the organization who are asked to demonstrate their leadership characteristics. Leadership also makes organizations living systems in that people learn and develop to meet new requirements over time (Smith, 1997).

Senge (1990a) suggests that a leader’s new task in building an LO is to act as a designer, teacher and steward which involves the responsibility for learning and to people continually expanding their capabilities. A leader as a designer has the role of designing an organization’s policy and strategy to integrate vision, value and purpose. Meanwhile, a leader as a teacher has the role of not merely teaching but also of encouraging members to learn. In the final role, a leader as a steward needs to see the way individuals are devoted to their work in expressing their own sense of purpose.

Locke and Jain (1995) advise that a leader’s key tasks are to instill a clear, shared sense of purpose to encourage teamwork, empowerment, investigation and risk taking within the organization. Other researchers (Ahmed et al., 1999; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Goh, 1998; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000) suggest that leadership provides a role model for employees’ learning and continuous improvement, and is instrumental in encouraging an experimental culture as well. Additionally, Johnson (1998) cites Barrow and McLaughlin (1992) that leadership involves four main responsibilities, namely creating vision, creating an atmosphere of trust, scanning the environment for opportunities and threats, and developing employees.

Kuwada (1998) proposes that leadership is essential for strategic change. The leader’s critical role is to interpret previous strategic learning and lead the organization in the direction indicated by a new assumption. McCain (1996) suggests that leaders have responsibilities for the development and outcomes of high performance teams. They can fulfill their duty by giving the team feedback

25 regarding goal accomplishment or providing the resources necessary for a successful outcome. Likewise, managers must create an organizational culture that leverages knowledge assets across the organization (Unruh, 1997). Buckler (1996) advocates that organizational success depends on the superiority of leadership presented by managers and team leaders. Therefore, leaders have an important role in accelerating and fortifying learning in the organization.

However, not only do leadership skills need to be embedded at all levels in an LO, leaders should also pursue the aim of empowering all members to take part in the organization’s goal. Managers must encourage individuals and teams to wear a “learning hat” and adjust their behaviour based on the particular difficulties that the organization is dealing with (Robert Jr., 1998).

Moreover, to build up such learning habits and skills, management must motivate its employees. Senge (1990a) recommends that motivation of employees’ to learn should not be viewed as just an idea but that managers have to facilitate employee ownership of learning as an internalized value. Furthermore, Ulrich(1993) suggests that a sense of corporate responsibility and sense of ownership is essential for motivation to learn. Therefore, it should be an intrinsic desire for an employee to have skills of learning-to-learn which are essential for the development of a learning organization.

Members of the organization, be they managers or employees, must take responsibility and be committed to their own work. Therefore, empowerment is suggested, as it allows the employees to lead from whatever position they hold (Gephart & Marsick, 1996). Ellinger, Watkins and Barnas (1999) advocate that the new style of management must focus on facilitating and empowering employees as a replacement for command and control orientation. Consequently, managers have to give power to their employees so that they understand their roles within the organization (Nesan & Holt, 2002). As a result, managers or leaders are involved in stimulating and supporting employees rather than actually controlling them.

Empowerment is a self-development process, involving self-understanding, the establishment of true cooperation and reflexive thinking (Lee, 1995). Additionally, empowerment demands continuous learning and risk taking activities (Kouzmin, Loffler, Klages & Korac-Kakabadse, 1999). Thus, it can only be developed by individuals themselves through facilitation by the leader. Therefore, leaders should participate in empowerment of employees in organizations.

Waldersee (1997) suggests that effective leaders facilitate self-regulation of employees by finding ways to set goals as well as helping them set their own goals. This should be followed by the

26 provision of feedback on performance. As members become more empowered, they understand themselves better so that they can manage themselves in positive ways; are able to cope with uncertainties; can manage their boundaries with others; can manage and be managed by others; and also help others to help themselves (Lee, 1995).

Leaders play a vital role in an LO, in that a) They design organizational policy and strategy (Senge, 1990a); b) They are role models for employee learning and continuous improvement (Ahmed et al., 1999; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Goh, 1998; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000); c) They actively encourage an experimental culture (Ahmed et al., 1999; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Goh, 1998; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000); and d) They encourage leadership skills at all levels and also encourage empowerment in their organization (Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Waldersee, 1997) Moreover, leaders’ or organizational members’ commitment to organizational goals is the key factor in developing LO characteristics of continuous learning. All of these activities need to be emphasized and entrenched into the routines of each organization.

Communication that facilitates knowledge acquisition Leaders have a responsibility to communicate organizational missions and goals to all members. As a result, everyone can head in the same direction. Communication among employees is essential in supporting learning in an organization. It means both giving and receiving information (Beck, 1989). West III and Meyer (1997) propose that an effective and efficient communication network in an organization promotes learning by providing access to tacit knowledge which leads to the creation of new knowledge. Communication between management and employees, both upward and downward and among members, allows enhanced improvement of knowledge, insight and meaning within an organization (King, 1996; Nesan & Holt, 2002; Stambaugh, 1995; West III & Meyer, 1997). Additionally, such channels provide the link between individuals’ communicative behaviour and organizational performance (Lundberg & Brown, 1993). Therefore, communication is an important characteristics of an LO.

Effective organizational communication that facilitates cultural values involves an open-minded attitude to what has been learnt which in turn increases information distribution (Day, 1994). This requires the development of effective relationships between management and non-management personnel (Gardiner & Whiting, 1997) so that risk-taking, freedom of experimentation, expectation for the employees and innovation (Ahmed et al., 1999).

Jones and Hendry (1994), Goh (1998), and Prokesch (1997), suggest that in order to facilitate communication in an LO, the organizational structure must be flat or with few levels of management. It must be flexible and supportive of team empowerment (Buckler, 1996; Stambaugh, 1995). In addition, cross-functional teamwork (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; Teare & Dealtry, 1998; Ulrich, 1993), combined with face-to-face interaction, is recommended so as to form deep personal relationships for effective communication (Prokesch, 1997).

In summary, effective communication is an essential feature of knowledge acquisition. Effective communication in a learning organization should display the following characteristics: a) Communication must be free, open and shared between members, customers, suppliers, competitors, and all stakeholders (Ahmed et al., 1999; Beck, 1989; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Hill, 1996; McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993); b) Communication must be fast, clear, and focused (Goh & Richards, 1997); c) Communication must expect and accept conflict (Ahmed et al., 1999; Barrett, 1995); d) Communication must facilitates mistakes as a shared opportunity for learning (Gephart & Marsick, 1996); e) Communication must entail a willingness to share ideas and opinions (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; Liedtka, 1999); and f) Communication must be conducted in a climate of trust; a blame-free culture in which members feel free to report errors (Elliott et al., 2000) In this way, members in an organization are learning, sharing and utilizing knowledge over time.

Employee characteristics that facilitate knowledge acquisition Employee characteristics are highly relevant to the LO characteristics of knowledge acquisition. All knowledge in an organization stems from individual learning as a result of willingness and ability to learn on the part of individual organizational members and it is this that form the foundation for continuous learning and knowledge acquisition.

An important characteristic of an LO at the knowledge acquisition stage of development is that employees need to understand their purpose and how the work they do contributes to the mission of the organization. Managers also need to clarify the difference between vision for the future and the current situation. If this is provided, employees will understand the direction of the organization so that they can anticipate the future and all parties can travel in the same direction to move the organization forward.

Exceedingly successful Japanese organizations such as Honda, Canon, Matsushita, NEC, Sharp and Kao, respond quickly to customers, create new markets, rapidly develop new products and dominate emergent technology (Nonaka, 1991). Above all, this is the result of an enormous focus on the company’s human resource strategy. This notion is supported by Rowley (1998) who argues that making human resource development (HRD) central to business policy as a strategic plan is essential. In an LO, Stambaugh (1995) advocates that employees not only know how to do their job, they also understand why they are important and how they contribute to the organization’s goals.

To have such employees, an LO must possess an appropriate selection process. The human resource policy should emphasize hiring people who fit the organization, not just a particular job (Bhasin, 1998). Buckman (1998) suggests that the quality of the people that a company hires is critical to its future success. Marquardt (1999) suggests that it begins with recruiting and hiring people who continuously learn and who take pleasure in expanding and exploring their potential.

Gilley (2001) advocates that a human resource policy which emphasizes planning, recruiting and selection processes is the most important tool for an organization to find people who can accomplish business objectives and gain competitive advantage. Hitt (1995) recommends that an employee with the ability to learn must be a focus at this step. McGill and Slocum (1993) concur that an LO must recruit people not simply for what they know, but for whether they are able to learn.

It is generally accepted that an organization learns through its employees. Hill (1996) clarifies that in LOs there is a high proportion of people who take pride in having well honed, self-developed and learning-to-learn skills. Once an organization has the “right employee”, continuous training and learning to acquire new competencies should follows. At GE, knowledge acquisition involves educating their employees and upgrading workers’ skills through intensive and continuous training (Welch, 1993). Management needs to encourage employees’ commitment to learning and experimentation (Keys, Fulmer & Stumpf, 1996). Day (1994) suggests that an organization which would like to develop into an LO has to be serious about continuous experimentation. Human resource development as well as investment in employees are dominant ways of showing management commitment to the future (Kahle, 2000b).

Once these employees who have an ability to learn join an organization, training and skill development are highlighted (Goh, 1998). Solomon (1994) agrees that all employees must receive

29 learning support and lifelong development. Consequently, employees in LOs should have the following skill sets: a) The ability to learn (Hitt, 1995); b) Shared leadership and coaching behaviour (Goh, 1998); c) Ability in teamwork, creative workplace problem solving and innovation (Amstrong, 2000; Bhasin, 1998); d) A strong commitment to generating and transferring new knowledge and technology (Hedgetts et al., 1994; Martinez, 1998); e) A commitment to lifelong learning (Hill, 1996); f) Knowledge and understanding of how their jobs are important and contribute to organizational goals (Stambaugh, 1995); and g) A strong commitment to the mission and vision of the organization (Porth et al., 1999) which is a key success factor (Evans, 1998).

In developing itself into an LO, an organization must have employees with specific characteristics that facilitate knowledge acquisition. Organizations must first have an appropriate selection process as well as the human resource policy which emphasizes planning, recruiting, selecting and hiring people who fit the organization. Then, continuous educating, training and upgrading employees’ skill are suggested. All employees must understand the organizational purpose and how their work contributes to the organizational mission. In an LO, there should be a high percentage of people who take pride in the well-honed, self-developed and learning-to-learn skills mentioned previously.

In short, the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition involves continuous learning in order to acquire new knowledge or competence. To get to this LO development stage, organizations must display specific characteristics in terms of cultural values of the organization, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, and valuing employees as organizational members. These characteristics are summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 LO characteristics at the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition LO development stage Description of LO characteristics Knowledge acquisition Cultural values • An understanding of the ability to learn and the translation of that learning into action • Flexibility and adaptability supported by a climate of openness to experience • Member’s willingness to expand their abilities through learning and sharing their insights with colleagues • Continuous learning and training in order to acquire knowledge and

30 new skills • An organization’s desire to update itself • A continuous process of learning and training; encouragement and facilitation of members’ learning and experimentation • Recognition of learners’ need to learn from both successes and failures and to improve their abilities from those experiences • Short and long-term education of members and training, both of which can reform the existing environment and future possibilities • Education - giving the employees the right knowledge, skills and experience as well as providing them with a learning culture which will help them improve their performance; as experience and intelligence are factors that determine the limitation of employees’ knowledge • Encouragement of employees to develop new working relationships, build teams, acquire problem solving skills, identify and prioritize problems • Perception of competitors’ successes or failures as an opportunity for learning as well as give a basis for comparison via benchmarking • An organizational learning from the ideas of various suppliers and decision based on a supplier according to customers’ needs • An organizational learning from its own experience and history by reviewing successes and failures • Freedom to experiment, acceptance of mistakes and failures without punishment • Encouragement of risk taking • Support of employees by an organization’s structure and systems to experiment with new work methods and innovative processes to get the job done • Rewards and promotions for members and team players who learn continuously • Incentive and motivation as essential drivers of learning

Leadership commitment and empowerment • Teaching and encouraging members to learn and develop to their full potential • Enhancing employees’ ability to learn and providing learning opportunities and personal time for development such as reviewing and analyzing activities associated with learning • Taking responsible for organizational members’ learning in order to expand their capabilities, and encouraging them to generate their own development plans • Encouraging a culture of experimentation and scanning the environment for opportunities and threats so that it supports the attribute of knowledge acquisition • Motivating employees to learn; a sense of ownership or sense of corporate responsibility is suggested so that employees will have an intrinsic desire for learning to learn skills • Providing and sustaining an environment which positively encourages employees to seek learning and self-development opportunities for training and skill development in both formal and informal programs • Modelling by senior managers of their intentions and commitment to learn • Encouraging leadership skill at all organizational levels • Role of leadership in making an organization a living system, which means people learn and develop to meet new requirements over time

Communication

• Free and open communication between employees, customers, suppliers and competitors • Fast, clear, focused and shared communication • Expectation and acceptance of conflict, view mistakes as a shared opportunity for learning • Willingness to share ideas and opinions; conducted in a climate of trust, a blame free culture

Employee characteristics • Ability to acquire, share and utilize knowledge; hence all knowledge in organizations stems from individual learning as a result of willingness and ability to learn • Demonstrate a commitment to learn by constantly looking for new ways of working and building learning opportunities • Highlighting of planning, recruiting and the selection process of human resource policies in order to attract people who are eager to learn • Education, experience and intelligence • Employees need to know not only how to do their jobs but also understand the important contribution their work makes to the organization • Individual learning should meet the needs of individuals and the needs of an organization • Employee skill set that includes o the ability to learn, o shared leadership and coaching behaviour, o ability in teamwork, o creative problem solving and innovation, o having strong commitment to generate and transfer new knowledge and technology, o commitment to the mission and vision of organization • A high proportion of people who take pleasure in well honed, self- developed learning-to-learn skills

2.3.2 Knowledge sharing Following knowledge acquisition, it is suggested that knowledge be amassed in an organizational memory system as well as allocated within teams or other units. For that reason, knowledge is distributed across teams within organizations and members can retrieve this knowledge for the purposes of modification and innovation. When organizations are able to do this, they have moved on to the process of knowledge sharing in the LO development stage.

2.3.2.1 The importance of knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing is the distribution of knowledge or what has been learned. Conversely, if individuals acquire learning and share nothing with each other, it is difficult to develop the organization into an LO. Shared knowledge or sharing what individual employees have learned is significant for organizational learning. Fielden (2001) argues that knowledge is useful when it is

32 freely available, so getting information into the hands of employees is critical for successful knowledge sharing. Dixon (1999) suggests that knowledge sharing starts with every team doing something that others in the organization could make use of and the team themselves using what others know. Likewise, King (2001) concurs that knowledge sharing is a culture that contributes to the success of knowledge management strategy. Therefore, management has to take a leading role in knowledge sharing.

Many scholars attempt to clarify the necessity of sharing knowledge in an organization. Hong and Kuo (1999) suggest that learning through sharing becomes the operational core of knowledge management. Thus, an organization may develop important characteristics of an LO if it has placed great emphasis on learning through sharing.

Goh (1998) suggests that transfer of knowledge is the ability of an organization to disseminate useful information within and from outside the organization. Not only can employees learn from transfer of knowledge between each other within organizations, they can also learn from outside or other companies, as pointed out in sections 2.3.1.2.1 – 2.3.1.2.4 in relation to learning sources. Sometimes powerful insights may come from outside an organization. Therefore, learning from the experiences of others, namely ‘benchmarking’, is suggested for developing LOs (Burgoyne, 1995; Garvin, 1993; Luthans et al., 1995; Ulrich, 1993). Through this process, human knowledge, which is more implicit or tacit, becomes more explicit and shared and, through sharing, its power grows exponentially (Huang, 1998). This leads to the question of how knowledge can be shared in an organization.

2.3.2.2 Ways to share knowledge According to the literature, knowledge sharing relates to a sharing mindset – a sharing of vision, sharing of values, sharing of knowledge, sharing of communication and information, and an openness and trust (Addleson, 2000; Ahmed et al., 1999; Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; Black & Synan, 1997; DiBella, 1997; Jones & Hendry, 1994; Liedtka, 1999; McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993; McGill et al., 1992; Porth et al., 1999; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995). In addition, sense of ownership, sense of responsibility and leadership commitment, localized decision making and teamwork are important factors contributing to knowledge sharing (Elliott et al., 2000; Hill, 1996; Leitch et al., 1996; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000).

33 Culture values that facilitate knowledge sharing Shared-mindset, which includes shared vision, shared value, shared communication and information, is an important LO characteristic. Ulrich (1993) describes shared mindset as the behaviour of encouraging a norm of reciprocity. In addition, it is a management activity to motivate personnel at all levels within the organization to create shared vision and leadership.

Senge (1990a) suggests that the skills involved in building shared vision include encouraging personal vision, blending extrinsic and intrinsic vision, distinguishing positive from negative goal setting, and visioning as an ongoing process. At the same time, knowledge sharing does not belong only to managers at all levels, individuals in LOs should be empowered to lead from whatever position they hold (Gephart & Marsick, 1996).

Not only is shared vision important to the LO, but also openness and communication. Senge (1990a) emphasizes that openness is the norm of speaking openly and honestly about important issues. There are two types of openness. Participative openness is the freedom to speak one’s mind. Reflective openness is based on the skill of reflection and inquiry. Moreover, in a climate of open communication among organization members, problems and errors are shared while conflicts are acceptable as ways to solve problems (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1997; DiBella, 1997; Elliott et al., 2000).

It is suggested that one of the key elements required to create company distinctiveness is a sense of ownership on the part of the individual. This sense stems partly from understanding exactly what they have to do to create value, since a company can learn to do something better from its own experience, suppliers, contractors, partners, customers and other companies (Prokesch, 1997). The development of a sense of ownership increases the sense of pride, motivation and self-esteem and the long-term impact is the increase in productivity (Cook, 1992). In this view, sense of ownership does not mean an economic ownership but an emotional ownership and a feeling of ownership of the workplace (Block, 2000). Moreover, sense of ownership is the basis for corporate accountability or responsibility. If managers lose it, they will also lose motivation and the desire to do their best (Brown, 1990).

Team building and shared purpose are fundamentals of an LO (Porth et al., 1999). Senge (1990a) indentifies team learning and advocates that the ability of teams is comprised of the ability of its individual members. Team learning also takes place in each team when members are open to give and receive information (Dixon, 1999). Through knowledge sharing, teamwork not only helps

34 develop innovative ideas (Goh, 1998), but also contributes to the more practical outcomes of better efficiency and safety (Erickson, 1999).

It is not only knowledge sharing that involves a shared mindset, vision, communication and team learning but also a learning culture as well as the use of information systems and communication media (Wijnhoven, 2001). To set up an organizational environment where knowledge sharing is part of the culture, it is essential that employees feel confident enough to share knowledge with each other (Sunoo, 1999). Indeed, the heart of knowledge sharing organizations is a culture of teamwork, collaboration, and trust (Eckhouse, 1999; John, 1998; Pan & Scarborough, 1999). These cultural values are among the key success factors for developing an organization into an LO (Storck & Hill, 2000).

In summary, cultural values that contribute to knowledge sharing are: a) Shared-mindset which includes shared vision, value, communication and information (Ulrich, 1993); b) The culture of openness in communication with i) a norm of speaking openly and honestly about important issues ii) the freedom to speak one’s mind including inquiry iii) a climate of open communication among organization members, where problems and errors are shared and conflicts are acceptable as ways to solve problems (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1997; DiBella, 1997; Elliott et al., 2000; Senge, 1990a); c) The culture that encourages risk taking, acceptance of mistakes and absence of punishment for mistakes or failures (Ahmed et al., 1999; Liedtka, 1999; Nevens, 1992; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993); d) The culture of lifelong learning, and boundary-less environment (Pedersen, 1998); e) The environment culture in which employees feel confident in sharing knowledge with each other (Sunoo, 1999); f) The culture of teamwork, collaboration and trust (Eckhouse, 1999; Pan & Scarborough, 1999); and g) Rewards and promotions for employees who are learning continuously and sharing knowledge with colleagues (Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Miller et al., 2002; Solomon, 1999) Some cultural values facilitate the LO development stages of both knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing. Thus, it has to be noted that characteristics described in b), c), d) and g) are also found in the knowledge acquisition stage of the LO development process.

35 Leadership commitment and empowerment that facilitate knowledge sharing The knowledge sharing process is also built upon a sense of corporate responsibility and leadership commitment. Management’s commitment and support have been found to be critical to the success of change programs in general (Goh, 1998; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000). Roth and Kleiner (1998) propose that developing leadership for learning is critical. A successful organization inspires leadership at all levels. Hence, managers have to commit to the accomplishment of the organizational goal of knowledge sharing (Goh & Richards, 1997). Moreover, leaders cannot just say ‘go and do it’, they have to be role models in knowledge sharing activities (Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Kahle, 2000a; Prokesch, 1997; Teare & Dealtry, 1998). Apart from that, localized or decentralized decision making is another way to give people a sense of responsibility for their actions (Liedtka, 1999).

Knowledge sharing is implicated with leadership commitment and empowerment. Leaders can both encourage people in an organization to learn and can also share what they have learnt so that knowledge is transferred either within or outside the organization. Unruh (1997) suggests that senior management has a critical role in creating value for customers, highlighting the role of managers in developing an organizational culture that fosters knowledge sharing, and using technology to facilitate value creation. Pan and Scarborough (1999) point out that top management should serve as a role model for learning and knowledge sharing, hence contributing to the creation of an organizational knowledge culture.

From the literature, characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment that facilitate knowledge sharing include: a) Leaders commit to the accomplishment of the organizational goal of knowledge sharing (Goh & Richards, 1997; Unruh, 1997). Their actions will shape organizational structure, decision-making processes and emphasize teamwork (Ulrich, 1993); b) Leaders have to be a role model in knowledge sharing activities (Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Kahle, 2000a; Prokesch, 1997; Teare & Dealtry, 1998) including of inspire leadership at all levels, both management and non-management (Roth & Kleiner, 1998); c) There is localized and decentralized decision making by employees (Liedtka, 1999); d) Leaders encourage members to learn as well as inspiring a clear, shared sense of team work, empowerment within an organization (Locke & Jain, 1995); e) Senior managers demonstrate to employees their own intention and commitment to learn (Vowles, 1993) as well as goal of learning must be committed by leader (Goh & Richards, 1997);

36 f) Leaders have the role of designing organization’s policy, strategies that integrated vision, value and purpose (Senge, 1990b); g) Leaders’ key tasks are to instill a clear, shared sense of purpose to encourage teamwork, empowerment investigation and risk taking within the organization (Locke & Jain, 1995); h) Leaders facilitate self-regulation of employees by finding ways to set goals as well as helping employees to set their own goals and provide feedback on performance (Waldersee, 1997); i) Leaders are involved in creating vision; creating atmosphere of trust, scanning environment for opportunities and treats, and developing employees (Johnson, 1998 cites Barrow and McLaughlin, 1992); and j) Leaders in an LO empower their staff by developing a shared common vision and delegation of authority (Hitt, 1995; Symon, 2000) It should be noted that points a), d), e), f), g), h), I) and j) above are also important in facilitating knowledge acquisition according to the literature review.

Communication that facilitate knowledge sharing Communication is considered a catalyst used to accelerate learning in an organization. The more knowledge is communicated, the higher is the level of knowledge sharing. Sinclair (2001) advocates that to encourage communication is a way to encourage knowledge sharing and consequently knowledge expansion (Sunoo, 1999).

Communication as a characteristic of knowledge sharing should have a clear purpose and there should be a vision of how it can be achieved. All employees should have a chance to take part, discuss, share and contribute to this major activity (Leitch et al., 1996), ensuring that the vision and purpose of communication is effectively disseminated to all its members (Hill, 1996; Prokesch, 1997). As a result, members in an organization receive information and knowledge and are able to see that they are heading in the same direction.

Generally, communication in organizations is important as a basis of knowledge sharing. It can be communication within the organization, between management and employees, among employees, or communication outside the organization. Communication whether it is with outside parties, such as customers, the general public, suppliers, stakeholders and competitors, or within the organization, among employees, must be unobstructed and open (Hill, 1996) and requires management attention so that it can lead to effective learning outcomes.

37 The basis of effective communication practices is conversation and coordinated action (Kofman & Senge, 1993). Effective communication in an LO needs to be clear, fast, and focused (Goh & Richards, 1997). Garvin (1993) advocates that knowledge must be spread quickly and effectively through communication. Moreover, it must be available to whoever needs it and presented in a form that facilitates its use (McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993). Gephart and Marsick (Gephart & Marsick, 1996) agree that a free and open system for communicating knowledge and information is an important LO characteristic and as such needs to be embedded in organizational culture.

The materialization of effective communication is dependent on a climate of trust (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; Elliott et al., 2000; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Roberts, 2000). The latter is necessary to develop a blame-free culture within an organization. Welch (1993) asserts that trust is enormously powerful in corporations. People will do their best if they have trust in and feel trusted by senior management. As a result, it is management’s responsibility to create an organizational environment of trust and openness. Welch (1993) goes on to suggest that the only way to create this kind of trust is to lay down values and then “walk the walk” or, say what you mean and do what you say (Chan, 1994).

LO characteristics of communication that facilitate knowledge sharing therefore include: a) Encouragement of communication as a way to encourage knowledge sharing (Sinclair, 2001; Sunoo, 1999); b) The chance for all employees to take part, discuss, share and contribute to major activities (Leitch et al., 1996); c) The effective communication of vision and purpose to all members (Hill, 1996; Prokesch, 1997); d) The communication which is free and open between organizational members, customers, suppliers, competitors and all stakeholders (Hill, 1996); e) Communication practices which are i) Fast, clear, and focused (Goh & Richards, 1997); ii) Open and shared (Ahmed et al., 1999; Beck, 1989; Gephart & Marsick, 1996; McGill & Slocum Jr., 1993); iii) Allow mistake to be shared and viewed as opportunities for learning (Gephart & Marsick, 1996); iv) Conducted in a climate of trust, a blame free culture in which members feel free to report error (Elliott et al., 2000); and

38 f) Communication between management and non-management which allows improvement of knowledge, insights within an organization Again, it should be noted that communication practices in item d), e) and f) above also facilitate knowledge acquisition.

Knowledge transfer that facilitates knowledge sharing Another important characteristic of organization enacting the knowledge sharing is knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer generally takes place both within and across organizational boundaries (Bhagat, Harveston & Triandis, 2002). For the purposes of this study, discussions on the transfer of knowledge will be limited to those activities within an organization. Knowledge transfer arises when knowledge is circulated from one individual to another (Robert Jr., 1998). Filden (2001) suggests that knowledge is useful when it is freely available. The transfer of knowledge provides opportunities and an information base for members, groups or teams in organizations who are learning so that they can continuously innovate products or services, and processes. Therefore, knowledge transfer is one of the important characteristics for an LO.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of organizational knowledge: tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Tacit knowledge, is embedded in individuals, and its transfer requires more sophisticated contexts and media. It is also difficult to accomplish. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, can be codified and transferred more simply and formally (Bhagat et al., 2002; Bresman, Birkinshaw & Nobel, 1999 cite Zander, 1991; Pan & Scarborough, 1999).

Knowledge transfer is supported by communication. Bresman et al. (1999) cite Meyer (1991) and Haspeslagh and Jemison (1991) in stating that the more interaction between individual employees is encouraged, the higher the level of knowledge transfer. Moreover, knowledge transfer can be observed in the quick and efficient spread of knowledge throughout an organization (Garvin, 1993). Advanced technology and the web are suggested as a means to obtain and distribute information. Indeed information technology, if used properly, facilitates communication among employees and ensures that members gain data relevant to their jobs (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994).

From the preceding discussion, knowledge sharing seems to be another critical stage for organizations to develop into LOs. To distribute knowledge among employees, teams or other departments in an organization, requires a shared mindset, shared vision, shared communication with open-mindedness based on a culture of trust and honesty. Additionally, it is suggested that a sense of ownership be built within the organization. Knowledge sharing is involved in both individual

39 learning and team learning. Individual employees share their own knowledge, skills, and experience within their team. Once it is shared, the individual and team learn, and with appropriate support, it can expand to organizational learning.

Moreover, the motivation of employees is important and required for ensuring knowledge transfer (Sinclair, 2001). Incentives have to be used to encourage all members and teams to get involved in both learning and sharing activities. Once knowledge is shared, it is suggested that it be stored in an explicit form of organizational memory where it is available for members when they need to access it.

In summary, knowledge sharing is facilitated by the following knowledge transfer activities in the organization: a) Knowledge transfer takes place within and across organizational boundaries (Bhagat et al., 2002); b) Knowledge transfer is circulated from one individual to another (Robert Jr., 1998); c) Knowledge transfer provides opportunities and information base for members to continue an innovation of products or services and processes (Fielden, 2001); d) Knowledge transfer can be observed by quick and efficient spread of knowledge throughout an organization (Garvin, 1993) and can be stored within an explicit form of organizational memory; e) Knowledge transfer can be obtained and distributed through advanced technology (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994); and f) Knowledge transfer can be ensured by the possitive motivation of organizational members (Sinclair, 2001)

Employee characteristics that facilitate knowledge sharing Employees are the most important assets of organizations (Hedgetts et al., 1994) and as such contribute to LO development stages. At the knowledge sharing stage, employees should display shared mindset, vision, and communicate with open-minds (Ulrich, 1993). Additionally, strong commitment to generating and transferring new knowledge at both management and non- management level is a focus (Limerick, Passfield & Cunnington, 1994).

Sharing and distributing information and knowledge in an organization involves people. Storck and Hill (2000) emphasize that employees should possess interaction and facilitation skills, and use common expressions internally to support a strong sense of organizational culture.

40 In conclusion, employee characteristics that facilitates knowledge sharing are a) Shared knowledge, insights, mindset, vision and open-minded communication (Hedgetts et al., 1994; Martinez, 1998; Ulrich, 1993); b) Strong commitment to generate and transfer new knowledge (Limerick et al., 1994); c) Interaction and facilitation skills (Storck & Hill, 2000); and d) Ability to work in team (Amstrong, 2000; Bhasin, 1998) It should be noted that points b) and d) above are also found to facilitate knowledge acquisition.

Thus, organizations at the LO development stage of knowledge sharing reflect specific characteristics in terms of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer and employee characteristics. These characteristics are summarized in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 LO characteristics at LO development stage of knowledge sharing LO development stage Description of LO characteristics Knowledge sharing Cultural values • Individuals and team members share insights with colleagues • Team learning is engaged in improvement of product quality and speed, innovation and customer satisfaction • Every team doing something that others in the organization could make use of and themselves using what others know • Members desire learning and are encouraged to share • Individuals as team members contribute their own set of experiences, beliefs, thoughts and feeling to the team process • Members shared mindset, vision, values, knowledge, communication and information; a norm of reciprocity is encouraged • Problems and errors are shared while conflicts are accepted as ways to solve problems • Development of a sense of ownership that increases a sense of pride, motivation and self-esteem and long-term impact is the increase in productivity • Members are willing to share and distribute knowledge, consequential learning of interaction and facilitation skills; internal use of common expressions that support a strong sense of organizational culture • An organization as a supplier should have a free exchange of information with customers in order to match customer needs and its core capabilities • A culture in which employees feel confident to share knowledge with each other • The heart of knowledge sharing organizations is a culture of teamwork, collaboration, co-operative planning, freely-shared information, open communication • Interaction management entails a supportive relationship between members and an atmosphere of trust • Norm of speaking openly and honestly about important issues • Promoting and rewarding members and team players who share knowledge with each other • Inclusion/Availability of adequate resources, information and rewards • A sense of corporate responsibility and leadership commitment

• Role models in knowledge acquisition and sharing activities • Organizational culture are highlighted to fosters knowledge sharing and uses technology for facilitating value creation • Instilling a clear, shared sense of purpose to encourage; teamwork; foster a shared sense of trust, cooperation and confidence of the teams’ capacity to achieve positive results • Encouragement of sense of ownership, sense of responsibility and leadership commitment

Leadership commitment and empowerment • Developing a shared common vision and delegating authority • Facilitating self-regulation by finding ways to set a goal helping employees to set their own goals and providing feedback on performance • Localizing and decentralizing decision making in order to give people a sense of responsibility for their actions

Communication: • All employees should have a chance to take part, discuss, share and contribute to key concerns • Ensuring that organizational vision and purpose is communicated effectively to members • A process in organization is supported by effective communication • Making organizational knowledge freely available for members • Members are quickly and efficiently spread of knowledge throughout organization • Advanced technology is suggested as a means to obtain and distribute information • Facilitating cultural values of open-minded knowledge sharing that, in turn, increases information distribution • Organizational structure must be flat, flexible and support team empowerment

Knowledge transfer • Sharing knowledge through team • Members are quick and efficient in spreading knowledge throughout an organization • Obtaining and distributing of knowledge through advanced technology • Motivating employees to ensure knowledge transfer • Storing knowledge within an explicit form which is available for members who need it

Employee characteristics • Organizational members have ability to work in team • Organizational members have a strong commitment to generate and transfer new knowledge

2.3.3 Knowledge utilization After knowledge is acquired and shared among members within and without an organization, it is important to encourage its utilization. A basic requirement is to be able to accumulate knowledge in

42 a location where it can easily be retrieved for application when needed. Therefore, organizational memory is regarded as an integral part of knowledge utilization.

2.3.3.1 Organizational memory Organizational memory is the accumulation of organizational knowledge, it is important to clarify the latter concept and its importance to the organization.

Organizational knowledge is a key component of organizational learning (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000 cite Dodgson, 1993); (Huber, 1991) and can therefore be used to improve organizational performance and to generate profit (Barchan, 1999). Moreover, organizations which have a knowledge-based competitive advantage can be consistently ahead of their competitors in a highly competitive environment (Clarke, 2001; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Davis & Botkin, 1994; Harari, 1994; Lado & Zhang, 1998; Lubit, 2001). Therefore, knowledge is becoming more important for organizations and its value may be even higher than that of financial resources, market position, technology or any other company asset (Marquardt, 1996). This view is supported by McAdam and McCreedy (1999) who cite Drucker in stating that knowledge is an important resource followed by labour, land and capital. It is an organization’s intangible asset that calls for effective management for its capture, recollection, codification, dissemination and use (Kransdorff & Williams, 1999). Knowledge management is therefore a part of the management of a learning organization (Garvin, 2000b).

Organizational knowledge is the knowledge which is obtained, shared and distributed by employees within an organization, and it is embedded in either documents or organizational routine, processes, practices and norms. Moreover, a resource of knowledge is claimed to be a resource-based perspective for competitive advantage (Kransdorff & Williams, 1999). As a result, knowledge is generally considered to be one of an organization’s most important assets (Dooley, Andnerson & Liu, 1999) cite Porter (1985). An organization’s knowledge system consists of several levels of knowledge such as individual, group, department, division and corporation (Brown & Woodland, 1999). Nonaka (1991) suggests that the secret of successful Japanese companies is the unique approach to creation of new knowledge. Therefore, organizational knowledge is important for an organization to compete with changing business context.

Knowledge management includes storage, retrieval, dissemination, retention and protection of organizational knowledge (Saffady, 2000). These are the processes of organizational memory

43 described by Romme and Dillen (1997), citing Walsh and Ungson (1991), as involving the structure of storage possibilities, the information stored and the process by which this information can be stored and retrieved. Moreover, Van der Bent et al., (1999) cite Huber (1991) to state that the usability of knowledge depends on the effectiveness of organizational memory and that information acquisition depends on attention directed by previous learning. Therefore, organizational memory is one of the factors that facilitate learning to occur (Olivera, 2000).

Organizational memory is an implicit and explicit stock of organizational knowledge. Implicit knowledge is embedded mostly at the individual level, while explicit knowledge is generally located at the team and organizational level. Therefore, organizational memory is a structure for organizational knowledge storage or, in other words, a repository.

Croasdell (2001) cites Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) and defines memory as “ the power or process of reproducing or recalling what has been learned and retained, especially through associative mechanisms”. Organizational memory is a part of learning process. Organizational memory or knowledge storage means that information is organized in the form of the knowledge- base of an organization (Kanter, 1999). Pan and Scarborough (1999) identify that the advantages of organizational memory are the binding of organizational core competencies and increased learning.

Researchers consider the concept of organizational memory from different approaches. Using the process approach, Hackbarth and Grover (1999) agree with Walsh and Ungson’s (1991) suggestion that organizational memory is composed of the process of information acquisition, retention and retrieval of knowledge and experience from retention repositories. These ideas are supported by Croasdell (2001) who argues that organizational memory is a general concept used to describe saving, re-presenting and sharing corporate knowledge. Correspondingly, Kim (1993) suggests that memory is concerned with retention of whatever knowledge the individual or organization has acquired. Therefore, it is a place where knowledge can be stored and retrieved.

Organizational memory can also be grouped into internal and external components (Anand & Manz, 1998, cite Harris, 1980). The former is information known personally by individuals and group members, which is generally called tacit knowledge. The latter, however, is the opposite and can be retrieved when information is required and is normally called explicit knowledge. It has been agreed by most researchers that individuals are the most important form of storage of organizational knowledge. They are a source of retained information and they determine what information will be acquired and retrieved from other memory stores (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Similarly, Cross and

44 Baird (2000) suggest that knowledge in organizations resides within the individual employees who enter and exit the workplace and, as such, is always at risk of being lost. As a result, systems for capturing and coding this knowledge are critical, especially for protection from the risk of loss. In addition, capturing and coding systems facilitate the organization’s ability to see its knowledge more clearly, to solve the organization problems (Cross & Baird, 2000; Olivera, 2000), to make decisions (Olivera, 2000), and to create new knowledge (Cross & Baird, 2000). At the same time, these systems form a part of the organizational memory, and help preserve behaviours, norms, values and mental maps over time (Gephart & Marsick, 1996).

Captured tacit knowledge can be stored in many forms such as a computer databases or file cabinets (Anand & Manz, 1998; Cross & Baird, 2000), formal procedure sheets for operators, handbooks and other written documentation (Bohn, 1994; Olivera, 2000). Therefore, this knowledge becomes transparent and can be available for other members whenever needed. As a result, organizational knowledge does not depend on particular individual employees, when they quit, the organization will not lose this knowledge.

In summary, organizational memory emphasizes retention and retrieval while learning is more focused on information or knowledge acquisition (Kim, 1993). The more an organization acquires, spreads out and uses the knowledge, the higher the employees’ performance may be expected due to continuous learning and use of the knowledge base. It is essential to note that organizational memory must be easily accessible so that an employee can utilize this knowledge for their work. All things considered, the process of organizational memory is a means by which knowledge from the past is applied to the future. In conclusion, characteristics that demonstrate the existence of an effective organizational memory, compiled on the basis of preceding discussions, are a) An effective systematic method of storing and using knowledge (Romme & Dillen, 1997); b) Knowledge as a resource-based should embedded in both documents and organizational routine, processes, practices and norm (Kransdorff & Williams, 1999); and c) Organizational knowledge stored in explicit forms such as work manuals, instruction sheets, data files and computer databases (Bohn, 1994; Olivera, 2000)

2.3.3.2 The utilization of knowledge Knowledge utilization is using and extending knowledge in the decision-making process and effectively applying it to a new situation. As a consequence, knowing where knowledge is located is important for effectively management and use of knowledge (Bohn, 1994).

However, because of the different value placed on different types of knowledge in an organization (Martiny, 1998), management must focus on critical business knowledge and use only the knowledge that gives an advantage to the organization. Martiny (1998) also suggests that not only is knowledge utilization important to the success of a business, but also the re-use of knowledge. The following section will examine from this perspective.

Knowledge utilization is different from knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing (Rich, 1997). It depends on the effectiveness of an organization’s memory and knowledge acquisition in previous learning. For that reason, understanding the utilization process is significant when managers need their employees to understand and use knowledge to create action and for decision-making. Therefore, knowledge utilization at this point means that knowledge has contributed to a decision or an action, and has also been received, understood, and has led to some concrete action.

However, it is suggested by Miles, Miles, Perrone & Edvinsson (1998) that the heart of knowledge utilization is a collaborative or shared process. It can be the collaboration between employees within the organization or the transfer and utilization of knowledge between firms. They propose that a new form of organization designed to generate knowledge, such as advanced networks and alliances, is required for collaborative behaviour. Thus, managers have to provide appropriate encouragement for this behaviour.

Additionally, Huang (1998) suggests that the creation, use and re-use of knowledge are steps in the knowledge cycle process. The re-use of organizational knowledge as intellectual capital is one of the most effective ways of improving speed of response and encouraging innovation (Huang, 1998). Cahill (1997) cites Garvin (1991) that the ability to think creatively and to use knowledge is sought as an LO. In brief, most scholarly points of view attempt to maximize organizational knowledge. Therefore, management practice needs to organize the information for easy retrieval by a particular user. The information or knowledge of their organizations is stored in a data bank, on a library shelf, a work-manual procedure or a computer-based retrieval system - and that it is organizational memory.

Cultural values contribute to knowledge utilization Based on literature review, a cultural value which is easily recognizable in the LO development stage of knowledge utilization is the learning culture. It refers to members in an organization having the

46 ability to learn and translate that learning into action (Abernathy, 1999). This characteristic is also facilitated by knowledge acquisition

Leadership commitment and empowerment that facilitate knowledge utilization Knowledge utilization requires leadership commitment and empowerment. A leader needs to make use of organizational knowledge in accordance with organizational competencies and in line with its goal. However, from the review of existing literature, it appears that various LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment facilitate knowledge utilization. Leadership characteristics essential for knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization are that senior managers have a critical role in fostering knowledge sharing, and using technology to facilitate values creation (Unruh, 1997). Moreover, the design of organizational policies, strategies that integrate vision, value and purpose are all necessary in the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization (Senge, 1990b).

In summary, characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment that contribute to knowledge utilization are: a) Leaders who make use of organizational knowledge in line with its competencies and its goals (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1997); b) Senior managers who have critical role models in fostering knowledge sharing, and using technology to facilitate values creation (Unruh, 1997); and c) Design of organizational policies and strategies that integrate vision, value and purpose (Senge, 1990b). These characteristics also facilitate knowledge acquisition and sharing.

Knowledge transfer that contributes to knowledge utilization Organizational memory provides a knowledge base for knowledge transfer in organization. This point is elaborated in section 2.3.3.1. The LO characteristics of knowledge transfer that contribute to knowledge utilization are as follows: a) Organizations are suggested to employ advanced technology as a means to obtain and distribute organizational knowledge (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994); and b) Organizational knowledge is useful when it is freely available and the transfer of knowledge provides an information base for members so that they can continuously innovate products or services and processes (Fielden, 2001). It should be noted that knowledge transfer also contributes to the LO development stages of both knowledge sharing and utilization.

Employee characteristics that facilitate knowledge utilization In LOs, employees who fit the organization are hired (Bhasin, 1998) and are encouraged to develop continuous commitment to lifelong learning (Welch, 1993). The following characteristics are needed from employees in the stage of knowledge utilization: a) Employees need to understand their propose and how their work contributes to organizational goals (Stambaugh, 1995; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993); b) Employees need the skill sets such as ability in teamwork; creating workplace problem solving and innovation (Amstrong, 2000; Bhasin, 1998); and c) Employees should be empowered to lead from whatever position they hold (Gephart & Marsick, 1996) Apart from these characteristics, organizations should have systems that support the utilization of knowledge which is available for members to access their work and thereby facilitate the transfer of knowledge in the organization. Then, because employees are the person who acquire, share and utilize this knowledge, the capability of employee characteristics is vital for knowledge utilization. That is to say, employees must know how to utilize knowledge to strengthen their capabilities and learning and training can help develop this characteristic.

Performance upgrading facilitates knowledge utilization As for performance upgrading, it is an important yardstick for checking whether an organization is on the right track. Hence, an organization needs to be able to measure to what extent knowledge that employees have learned or obtained and shared is utilized to adjust to new situations.

Performance upgrading means continuous improvement and innovation, both of which can be achieved in processes, products and services (Buckler, 1998). The former is doing things better over time while the latter is doing better things. This requires behavioural changes in employees and this change of behaviour stems from learning; for example, the acquisition and development of new knowledge, attitude and skills. Thus members of an organization are expected to learn, which leads to an improvement in their performance.

Scholars recommend new paradigms for the advancement of an organizational performance. For example Gill (1995) suggests that there a number of requirements for a high performance. Firstly, all business functions must be integrated. Once this is the case, all activities become a part of processes of continuous improvement. Next, there must be the assumption that there are no quick fixes in an organization and problems require analytical solutions. A long-term view is needed for

48 meaningful results that leveraged change must be emphasized and finally, all employees must be responsible for the systems in which they work.

From Locke and Jain’s (1995) point of view, there are five inter-related dimensions in continuous improvement, which are: a view of what an organization should become (vision); the culture of continuous improvement for everybody in the organization; how the firm organizes things as a reflection of how key tasks are carried out; leadership; and, finally, management.

Furthermore, Bennett and O’Brien (1994) suggest benchmarking is an effective tool for measuring change in behaviour through a continuous and systematic process of measuring products, services, and practices against other organizations considered to be superior (Kouzmin et al., 1999). Hitt (1995) recommends a balance scorecard in which critical indicators for performance include excellence in these areas: a) on-time and better delivery, superior quality, increased market shared and zero rejection; b) financial performance improvement which can be seen from revenue, cost and project overruns; organization renewal; and c) cross-functional teams, networking, staff development, investment in research and development, process design and so on (Garvin, 1993; Hitt, 1995).

Performance upgrading characteristics that should be displayed at the knowledge utilization stage of LO development are: a) Benchmarking to determine whether an organization is on the right track (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994); b) Doing things better and doing better things (Buckler, 1998); and c) Organization which is excellent in: i) on time and better delivery ii) superior quality, increased market share, zero rejection iii) performance improvement (Hitt, 1995)

In summary, knowledge utilization as the highest stage of LO development process, facilitates the use and re-use of organizational knowledge. At this stage, organizations display characteristics tabulated in Table 2.3.

49 Table 2.3 LO characteristics at the LO development stage of knowledge utilization LO development stage Description of LO characteristics Knowledge utilization Cultural value • An organization has the ability to learn and translate that learning into action

Leadership commitment and empowerment • Organization highlights the organizational culture that foster knowledge sharing and use; • Leaders review policies, strategies that integrate visions and purpose; • Leaders encourage use of organizational knowledge in line with competencies and goals

Knowledge transfer • Organizational knowledge embedded in documents, organizational routines, processes, practices and norms; • Systematic method of storing and using knowledge; and organizational culture; • Organizational knowledge stored in explicit forms such as work manuals, instruction sheets, data files, and computer databases; • System for capturing and coding organizational knowledge which facilitates ability to see knowledge more clearly, solve problems, make decisions, and create new knowledge; • Individual knowledge - implicit and explicit – is important part of organizational memory; the more explicit the form, the lower the risk of information being lost when people leave an organization; • Individual learning is recorded and encoded in a form that employees can easily access; • Organizational memory systems support the utilization of knowledge

Employee characteristics • Front line people treated as a source of information and organizational knowledge; • Employees utilize knowledge to solve problems, generate new ideas for processes, products and services; • Employees collaborate and share in order to transfer and utilize knowledge across the organization and between firms; • Employees have knowledge and understanding of how their job are important and contribute to organizational goal; • Members know how to utilize knowledge to solve problems, generate new ideas for processes, products and services

Performance upgrading • An organization need to check whether it is on the right track, it needs to measure to what extent members learn to acquire, share, and utilize knowledge; • The activities shown in performance upgrading are: o Doing things better and doing better things; o Integrated business functions or cross-functional teams; all activities are part of a process of continuous improvement; long-term view is needed; o Excellence in on-line delivery, superior quality, increased market share and zero-rejection; o Financial performance improvement such as revenue, cost and project overruns

From preceding discussions, the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization reflect characteristics that can be classified into six areas: cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading. It could be assumed that if organizations demonstrate possession of all these characteristics, they will have successfully completed the development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization.

2.4 The Inventory of Learning Organization Characteristics

From the preceding literature review, organizations seem to go through three stages of development in becoming LOs: knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization. At each of the development stages, certain characteristics are displayed. These characteristics can be classified into six categories, namely, cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading. Not all individual characteristics are present in each and every stage of the LO development process. These characteristics are tabulated in Table 2.4, to form the basis for the development of an inventory to assess LO characteristics of organizations. Table 2.4 An inventory of LO characteristics LO LO Development characteristics Code* Individual characteristic stages Knowledge Cultural Cv1 • An organization which has the ability to learn and acquisition values translate that learning into action Cv2 • An organization which has individual members who expand their abilities through learning and sharing their insights with colleagues Cv3 • An organization which can learn from its competitors’ successes and failures Cv4 • An organization which can learn from the ideas of its suppliers and decide on a supplier according to customers’ needs Cv5 • An organization which has a continuous process of training and learning; Cv6 • An organization which encourages and facilitates its members’ experimentation Cv7 • An organization which encourages and facilitates its members learning from their own and others’ experience Cv8 • An organization whose members learn from both successes and failures and learn to improve their abilities from those experiences Cv9 • An organization whose employees develop new working relationships, build teams, acquire problem

51 solving skills, identify and prioritize problems Cv10 • An organization which invests in learning, measurement and tracks learning Cv11 • An organization whose members regard learning and training as routine Cv13 • An organization which has freedom to try things and fail; and has a culture of accepting mistakes without penalty Cv18 • An organization which is boundary-less in which members desire learning and are encouraged to shared, facilitate learning culture Cv19 • An organization which has rewards systems to reward its employees Cv20 • An organization has incentive and motivation to drive learning Leadership LeadCE1 • Leaders are role models of knowledge acquisition commitment and sharing activities and empowerment LeadCE3 • Leaders design an organization’s policy and the strategy that integrates vision, value, purpose LeadCE4 • Senior management has a strong commitment to the organization LeadCE5 • Leaders are role models of learning and continuous improvement LeadCE7 • Leaders Involve in learning initiatives LeadCE10 • Leaders scan the environment for opportunities and threats LeadCE11 • Leaders motivate employees to have intrinsic desire for learning to learn skills, a sense of ownership, a sense of cooperate responsibility LeadCE15 • Leaders teach and encourage members to learn and develop to their full potential and encourage them to generate their own development plans LeadCE16 • Leaders enhance an employee’s ability to learn, provide learning opportunities LeadCE18 • Management engages in teaching leaders to coach and facilitate their members learning LeadCE19 • Leaders ensure that the learning environment is maintained LeadCE21 • Leaders directly reward LO behaviours, including their own Communi- Comm2 • Communication is free and open between members, cation customers, suppliers, competitors and all stake holders Comm7 • There is a culture of allowing mistakes to be shared and viewed as an opportunity for learning Employee Emp1 • Members have the ability to learn characteristics Emp7 • Members have a strong commitment to generating and transferring new knowledge Emp8 • Members have a commitment to lifelong learning Emp10 • Members demonstrate a commitment to learn by constantly looking for new ways of working and building learning opportunities Emp11 • Management focus on HRD as a central policy

52 Emp12 • Management emphasis on recruiting employees who fit the organization Emp13 • Organization has a high proportion of people who take pleasure in well honed, self-development and learning to learn skills Emp14 • Members have short- and long-term education and training can reform the existing environment and future possibilities Emp15 • Employees have appropriate education, experience and intellect Knowledge Cultural values Cv2 • An organization whose individual members expand sharing their abilities through learning and sharing their insights with colleagues Cv9 • An organization whose employees develop new working relationships, build teams, acquire problem solving skills, identify and prioritize problems Cv12 • An organization which is willing to acknowledge failure and learn from it Cv14 • An organization which has a supportive climate of openness Cv15 • An organization which has continuous innovation Cv16 • An organization which has a norm of speaking openly and honestly about important issues Cv17 • An organization which has a norm of supportive relationships between members and an atmosphere of trust Cv18 • An organization which is boundary-less in which members desire learning and are encouraged to share, facilitate learning culture Cv19 • An organization which has rewards systems to reward its employees Cv20 • An organization has incentive and motivation to drive learning Leadership LeadCE2 • Leaders highlight the organizational culture that commitment fosters knowledge sharing and use technology to and facilitate value creation empowerment LeadCE3 • Leaders design an organization’s policy, the strategy that integrates vision, value, purpose LeadCE4 • Senior management has a strong commitment to the organization LeadCE6 • Management engages in selecting leaders who teach and have vision LeadCE8 • Leaders develop their vision and delegate authority LeadCE9 • Leaders create an atmosphere of trust LeadCE12 • Leaders instill a clear, shared sense of purpose to encourage teamwork; foster a shared sense of trust, cooperation and confidence in the teams’ capacity to achieve positive results LeadCE20 • Leaders help employees to select their own goals Communi- Comm1 • Vision and purpose is communicated effectively to Cation members Comm2 • Communication is free and open between members, customers, suppliers, competitors and all stake

53 holders Comm3 • Knowledge is shared and break-through thinking is encouraged throughout the firm Comm4 • Knowledge is communicated quickly, clearly, and with focused Comm5 • Listening culture is effective in the organization Comm6 • Members expect and accept conflict in communication Comm7 • Communication culture allows mistakes to be shared and viewed as an opportunity for learning Comm8 • Members feel free and unafraid to share ideas and speak their mind Comm9 • Members feel free to report errors Comm10 • Employees have a chance to take part in the discussion and sharing of key concerns Comm11 • No barriers between management and employees Comm12 • Organizational structure is flat in order to facilitate communication Comm13 • Cross-functional teamwork and face-to-face interaction in the organization Knowledge Kt4 • Organizational members share knowledge through transfer every team doing something that others in organization could make use of and themselves using what others know Kt5 • Members in organization at both an individual and team level share insights with colleagues Kt6 • Organizational members desire to learn and share knowledge and engage in improvement of product quality and speed, innovation and customer satisfaction Kt7 • Knowledge is freely exchanged with customers so as to match customer needs and the organizations’ core capabilities Kt8 • Members feel confident to share knowledge with each other Kt9 • Individuals as a team members contribute their own set of experiences, beliefs, thoughts and feelings to the team process Kt10 • Knowledge is transferred through share mindset, vision, value, knowledge, communication and information Kt11 • Employees within organizations can learn from past failure and from other organizations Kt12 • Knowledge in organizations is spread quickly and efficiently Kt17 • Members in organizations are motivated to share or transfer knowledge Employee Emp4 • Employees have the ability to work in teams characteristics Emp7 • Employees have a strong commitment to generating and transferring new knowledge Knowledge Cultural Cv1 • An organization which has the ability to learn and utilization values translate that learning into action Cv15 • An organization which has continuous innovation Leadership LeadCE2 • Leaders highlight the organizational culture that

54 commitment fosters knowledge sharing and use technology to and facilitate value creation empowerment LeadCE3 • Leaders designing an organization’s policy, the strategy that integrates vision, value, purpose LeadCE13 • Leaders encourage the use of organizational knowledge in line with competencies and goals LeadCE14 • Leaders facilitate self-regulation of employees LeadCE15 • Leaders teach and encourage members to learn and develop to their full potential and encourage them to generate their own development plans LeadCE17 • Leaders help members to integrate what they have learnt and empower staff through localized and decentralized decision making in order to give them sense of responsibility for their actions LeadCE22 • Leaders facilitate adequate resources and information Knowledge Kt1 • Knowledge in organizations is freely available for transfer members Kt3 • Organizations have advanced technology to obtain and distribute knowledge Kt4 • Organizational members share knowledge through every team doing something that others in organization could make use of and themselves using what others know Kt6 • Organizational members desire to learn and share knowledge and engage in improvement of product quality and speed, innovation and customer satisfaction Kt13 • Knowledge is encoded, recorded and displayed for learning purposes Kt14 • Knowledge is embedded in documents, organizational routines, processes, practices and norms Kt15 • Knowledge is stored in explicit forms such as work manuals, instruction sheets, data files, and computer databases Kt16 • Individual knowledge is recorded and encoded in an explicit form as a part of an accessible organizational memory Kt18 • Organization has a systematic method of storing and using knowledge Employee Emp3 • Employees know how to utilize knowledge to solve characteristics problems, generate new ideas for processes, products and services Emp5 • Employees have shared leadership behaviour Emp6 • Employees have the ability to problem solve Emp9 • Employees have knowledge and understanding of how their jobs are important and contribute to organizational goals Emp10 • Employees demonstrate a commitment to learn by constantly looking for new ways of working and building learning opportunities Performance Pfu1 • All business functions are integrated upgrading Pfu2 • A benchmark of performance indicators is sought

55 Pfu3 • Continuous improvement in processes and products or services Pfu4 • Rewards system encourages learning and sharing Pfu5 • Alternatives to financial rewards motivate members Pfu6 • The organization is perceived as excellent in on-time delivery and as having superior quality Pfu7 • The organization has zero rejection of product Pfu8 • The organization has an increasing rate of market share Pfu9 • The organization has excellent financial performance * Code is the abbreviation of LO characteristics used to labelled the variables/questions in this study. Cv=Cultural values, LeadCE= Leadership commitment and empowerment, Comm.= Communication, Kt= Knowledge transfer, Emp=Employee characteristics, and Pfu=Performance upgrading

2.5 Readiness-to-change

Today’s business environment is becoming increasingly uncertain and unstable. The main changes are in the areas of technology, politics and international trends – globalization, deregulation, newly competitive economies, and demographic and social trends including education (Bates & Bloch, 1996; Chodak, 2001; Drew & Smith, 1995). The ability to change is a key driver for superior performance (Lubit, 2001). As a result, organizations have to undergo change within this dynamic business environment in order to stay ahead of other organizations in the industry and to maintain a competitive advantage. To achieve this, an organization must learn faster than its competitor, as well as learning how to ensure its superiority in the future through utilization of acquired knowledge (Chodak, 2001), hence the emergence of learning organizations.

Rowden (2001) advocates that a constant readiness to prepare for change is one of the LO characteristics. The general hypothesis deduced from this popular assumption is that learning organizations should have a high level of readiness-to-change.

There are numerous models to assess readiness-to-change in organizations. Trahant and Burke (1996) suggest that change must be implemented at two levels, which are transformational and transactional. The former involves organizational mission, strategy, vision, and culture, while the latter engages systems that facilitate people’s work, including policies, procedures, rewards and communication. They suggest the assessment of these two levels of activities in order to get a picture of an organization’s readiness-to-change. Parker (1997) applies the same tool to assess organizational readiness-to-change. He suggests that an organization should have the best plan to implement change initiative, examining its external environment, mission and strategy, leadership,

56 cultures, structure, management practices, systems/policies/procedures, work climate, skill and job match, motivation, individual needs and values, and performance.

Maurer (2001) proposes another instrument to assess the readiness of an organization for change by examining the following areas: a) History of change, which observes that if the ideas have been openly accepted in the past, then it is possibly reasonable to expect that a new initiative will meet with similar agreement; b) Direction, which refers to members’ understanding and acceptance of the direction in which the company is moving; c) Cooperation and trust, which examines the level of information sharing within the organization as well as the atmosphere of trust which is critical for change; d) Culture of organization which is observed in terms of its support of risk taking; e) Resilience is examined in terms of whether members can handle more change, otherwise, no matter how critical the change is, they will resist it, stemming from a lack of resilience; and f) Rewards, respect, and saving face are examined. Leaders are advised to create situations in which all can win, by talking with members and listening to their concerns. If low scores are indicated in this matter, it can be interpreted that members view change as disruptive and stressful; and finally, skill at managing change is observed. Leaders must be proficient at planning and implementing change. It is suggested that leaders need to be skilled in creating alignment among various interests; listening, hearing concerns, fears and interests; anticipating and responding appropriately to resistance; and communicating by keeping members informed.

In contrast, Duke Rohe from Duration Software Inc. (Rohe, 2002) puts forward that implementation support, rewards and recognition, communication, commitment and strategy, knowledge transfer, customer focus, measurement and management decisions are the areas to assess readiness-to- change in an organization.

At the Razorfish Company (Anonymous, 2002), it is suggested that the dimensions of change are comprised of leadership and management, coaching and training, reward systems, decision making, innovation, information knowledge, culture and communication. Moreover, at the AIMM Consulting Company, readiness-to-change is measured in four areas which are the willingness and ability to change one’s position, initiate actions, make decisions and work with others.

57 From the assessment tools described above, there are several areas in common. They are: a) External environment Parker (1997) and Trahant (1996) suggest that an organization needs to ensure its position in the industry in relation to competition in the marketplace as well as the customers’ perception of organizational members. Similarly, Duke Rohe from Duration Software Inc. suggests that customer focus needs to be appraised as one of the readiness-to-change areas. It highlights honour in serving customers, and adding to and taking from customer experience.

In summary an organization with the characteristics of readiness-to-change should recognize: i) The future in order to understand and predict possible changes in technology; and ii) The economy, demographics, lifestyles and public policies which will be critical factors for creating and determining the new processes, products and services, and markets (Laczniak & Lusch, 1997). Therefore, a consideration of the external environment will prepare an organization for its readiness- to-change. b) Leadership An organization with a high level of readiness-to-change should have leadership that supports organizational goals and missions; motivates members to work as a team; conducts trustworthy and ethical processes; communicates clearly and consistently about changes that affect members and their jobs; and is consistent and decisive (Parker, 1997; Trahant & Burke, 1996). The assessment of leadership as a key area of readiness-to-change is supported by the Razorfish Company. It is advocated that the commitment of senior management and managers’ competencies are one of the dimensions of readiness-to-change, while Duke Rohe from Duration Software Inc. suggests that management support, receptivity to new ideas and a willingness to act, and also resources such as financial support to make it happen are major areas in reviewing organizational readiness-to-change. Leadership in an organization with the characteristics of readiness-to-change should: i) Be directly involved in the organization’s future perspective; and ii) Motivate strategic initiatives for their organizations Thus, a vision of executives or leaders is highlighted. c) Organizational culture Organizational culture also impacts on an organization’s level of readiness-to-change. The prevalence of cultural empowerment in organizations has a significant impact in contrast to bureaucracy and oppression. Sweeney and McFarlin (2002) cite Steaward, T.A. (1994) to state that

58 ‘red tape’ in an organization needs to be identified and eliminated. The organization’s culture needs to support organizational members to perform their work (Parker, 1997; Trahant & Burke, 1996). On the other hand, Maurer (2001) describes the readiness-to-change in terms of support of risk taking and change. At the Razorfish Company, the culture of readiness-to-change is considered in terms of vision and value, information technology, in-house experience availability, comfort level with new technology, and value chain target.

The following characteristics of organizational culture are considered essential for a high degree of readiness-to-change: i) Organizational culture that views change as the normal, ongoing practice of extending organizational capabilities; and ii) Employees understand and prepare to meet the change, while management encourages and ensures its implementation. Under these conditions it is easy to adapt to a changing environment (Smith & Mourier, 1999). d) Management practices Readiness-to-change is also influenced by management practices. Management style is influential in an organization, such as the manager encouraging members to make decisions, to be frank and open, and to develop in both formal and informal ways (Parker, 1997; Trahant & Burke, 1996). Maurer (2001) outlines these practices in terms of cooperation and trust; whether people in an organization share information and a friendly relationship. Emphasizing the ability of each individual to work in a team with trust, cooperation, recognition and an appreciation of diversity in the working group is suggested as being the work climate of readiness-to-change (Parker, 1997; Trahant & Burke, 1996).

To summarize, management practices that are observed as characteristics of high readiness-to- change are: i) Leaders encouraging members to make decisions, to be frank and open, and to develop in both formal and informal ways; ii) Leaders emphasizing sharing of information, as cooperation and trust; and iii) Leaders emphasizing the ability of each individual to work in a team with trust, cooperation, recognition and an appreciation of diversity in the working group. e) Communication

59 Rohe (2002) appends that, to communicate new ideas, openly share and distribute them to other members; to build standards and procedures into the work place, and to have clear, concise communication, are schemes for assessing organizational readiness-to-change. At the Razorfish Company, communication of change is emphasized to review whether an organization is ready to change.

In brief, communication that facilitates readiness-to-change involve: i) Communication of new ideas, openly shared and distributed to other members are essential in every organizational process; and ii) Organizational change needs to be explained in terms of what, how and when. f) Skill and job match Another important assessment of readiness-to-change is related to skill and job match. This area is investigated to check whether employees are clear in what they need to do and that their skills match their job. Additionally, the organizational members’ feeling of work challenge needs to be ensured (Parker, 1997; Trahant & Burke, 1996). Maurer (2001) suggests that skill at managing change is a criterion of readiness-to-change assessment. He demonstrates that people leading change need to be capable at a number of skills such as creating alignment among diverse interests; listening to and eliciting concerns and fears; working with others to create a shared vision; anticipating and responding appropriately to resistance; and communicating by keeping people informed. Additionally, at the Razorfish Company, coaching and training as well as commitment to staff development are recommended as areas which describe readiness-to-change.

Briefly, skill and job matching is vital as a checklist for employees’ skills and capabilities; the latter impact on an organization’s readiness-to-change. Characteristics of skill and job matching that facilitate readiness-to-change are: i) Members feel that their work is challenging; ii) Members are capable of a number of skills such as creating alignment among diverse interests; listening to and eliciting concerns; and iii) Members work with others to create a shared vision; anticipate and respond appropriately to resistance; and communicate by keeping people informed g) Rewards and recognition Maurer (2001), Rohe (2002), and the Razorfish Company suggest that rewards and recognition is another area in need of consideration. They suggest that rewards, compensation or recognition

60 should be linked to organizational success. Moreover, it is necessary to determine whether people believe that change will benefit them. In a similar vein, Trahant and Burke (1996) and Parker (1997) suggest motivation, which emphasizes job satisfaction, the level of employees’ morale, the feeling of being empowered in their jobs as well as that of contributing to the organization’s goals.

Reward and recognition are recognized as a key success factor for change implementation. The following are indicators for organizations with high readiness-to-change: i) Rewards, compensation and recognition are linked to entire organizational success; ii) Employees believe in change that is directly beneficial to them; and iii) Members are satisfied with their job, have high level of employees’ morale, have the feeling of being empowered in their jobs as well as of contributing to the organization’s goals. h) Organizational structure Organizational structure impacts in readiness-to-change. Here it broadly refers to all systems, policies and processes in an organization. Trahant and Burke (1996) and Parker (1997) suggest that the understanding of the organization’s goals, the role of members in achieving that goal, and the perception of making progress in an organization are measured as mission and strategy. Organizational structure must help organizational members to perform their work. If an organization is in the process of restructuring, employees’ understanding of change should be examined. The systems, policies and procedures in the organization determine whether the organizational structure helps or hinders employees in doing their work. It includes technology as well as compensation, benefits, training, and policy. Organizational structure highlights feelings of job security and self- worth, and the balance between employees’ work and their personal lives. Likewise, organizational structure affects the perception of people outside the organization, the organizational goal’s reputation, the organization’s profitability and productivity, and the members’ perceptions of level of performance.

To foster readiness-to-change in an organization, its structure must support members to perform their work; if this is provided, they can adjust to new situations. A supportive structure is evidenced by i) Members understanding of the organization’s goals, their role of achieving that goal, and the perception of making progress in an organization; ii) The usefulness of organizational structure in assisting organizational members to perform their work;

61 iii) Members’ knowledge and understanding of the process of restructuring; and iv) Emphasis in feelings of job security and self-worth, and the balance between employees’ work and their personal lives.

A summary of the key success factors for organizations to achieve high readiness-to-change developed from obtainable tool and is shown in Table 2.5 Table 2.5 Key success factors for high readiness-to-change Key success factors Description 1. External environment • Members have knowledge of the organization’s position in the industry in relation to competition in the marketplace • Members have an awareness of how customers perceive the organization • Organization’s members have knowledge of customers 2. Leadership • Leaders support organizational goals and mission • Leaders motivate members to work as a team • Leaders conduct trustworthy and ethical processes • Leader communicate clearly and consistently about changes that affect members and their jobs • Leaders are consistent and decisive • Senior management’s commitment to and a manager’s competencies in supporting members, receptivity to new ideas, and willingness to act • Financial support from management 3. Organizational culture • Organization should have a culture of empowerment • Culture of supporting organizational members to perform their work including risk taking and change • Culture of readiness-to-change is considered in terms of vision value, information technology, in house experience availability, comfort level with new technology and value chain target 4. Management practices • Management style involves encouraging members to make decisions, to be frank and open and to develop in both formal and informal ways • Members in organization share information and have friendly relationships • Emphasis is on the ability of each individual in terms of trust, cooperative, recognition and appreciation of diversity in the working group 5. Communication • New ideas are communicated openly and shared with other members, to build standards and procedures into the work place • Clear, concise communication is used as a way of assessing organizational readiness-to-change • Communication of change is emphasized to determine whether organization is ready for change 6. Skill and Job matching • Checking whether employees are clear in what they need to do and that their skills match their jobs • Ensuring organization members’ feelings of work challenge. • Ensuring people leading change are capable in a number of skills: o Creating alignment among diverse interest o Listening to and eliciting concerns and fears o Working with others to create share vision o Anticipating and responding appropriately to resistance

o Communicating by keeping people informed 7. Rewarding and • People have to believe that change will benefit them Recognition • Rewards and compensation should link to organization success • Motivation emphasized in job satisfaction, level of employees moral, the feeling of being empowered, contributing to the organization’s goal • The feeling of job security and self-worth in an organization 8. Organizational structure • Organizational structure must help members to perform their work • Members have to understand the organization’s goal and their roles in achieving that goal • If the organization is in the process of restructuring, it is essential to examine the employees’ understanding of change • The organization has to determine whether systems policies and procedures help or hinder employees in their work • Technology must support members in doing their work

These success factors will form the basis for the development of an instrument to assess organizations’ level of readiness-to-change.

2.6 Summarizing and a Conceptual Framework

In line with the learning organization definition, members in a learning organization are continuously learning either individually or collectively to manage change in order to survive and sustain a competitive advantage in a dynamic environment. Therefore, an LO should have a high capability to adapt change, that is, a high level of readiness-to-change. Consequently, the hypothesis for this study is that there should be a positive relationship between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change.

In developing into LOs, organizations need to go through the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization.

To reach the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, members in an organization must learn continuously or have life-long learning characteristics. To foster this, management has to first clarify the organization’s purpose and objectives and individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole have to learn continuously in different ways, thereby heading in the same direction. In addition, to facilitate knowledge acquisition, organizations need to recognize sources of knowledge, namely employees, customers, suppliers and competitors. Employees are people who have direct experience of their work therefore the information from them is critical to improve the quality of products and services. Customers are a key part of organizational vision, therefore companies must know what they need, want and the trends of their preferences. Suppliers have a significant effect on an organization’s product in terms of quality and cost as well as a production schedule in terms of

63 delivery. Competitors are another source of knowledge which organizations can learn from in terms of cooperation or replication.

Unless organizational members learn and share the knowledge that they have obtained at the stage of knowledge acquisition, it is difficult to develop the organization into an LO. The next stage of the LO development stage is knowledge sharing. At this stage, members in the organization need to share their visions, values, communication, information and mindset. Therefore, knowledge in organizations is distributed across the teams and the organization.

After knowledge is acquired and distributed among employees, it needs to be kept in an organizational repository system. This memory system must be easy for employees to access so that they can utilize organizational knowledge for application and adapt action in their work whenever they want. This stage of development is knowledge utilization, and it represents the highest stage of LO development stages.

A Conceptual model To assess whether an organization has successfully completed the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing, and utilization, this study has developed “an Inventory of LO Characteristics” based on literature review as summarized in Table 2.4. The inventory is categorized into cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading.

Organizations that have gone through the three stages of LO development are assumed to be flexible enough to cope with environmental changes and have become LOs. Therefore, there should be a positive relationship between LO characteristics and the readiness-to-change in these organizations. However, there have been few empirical studies which show the relationship between these two variables – LO characteristics and the organizational readiness-to-change. This study also attempts to ascertain the sequential order of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization in the development processes of LOs, since so far there is no conclusive answer to the relationship between the three stages of LO development. The model guiding this study is shown in Figure 2.1

A learning organization

High Knowledge Stage 3 utilization LO development Readiness processes Knowledge to Stage 2 sharing change

Knowledge acquisition Stage 1 Low

An Cultural Leadership Com- kknowle Employee Performa LO Commitment Organi- values muni- dge Charac- nce up- charac- zation and empowermen t cation transfer teristics grading teristics

Figure 2.1 Conceptual model guiding this study

The relationship between the LO development stages are illustrated in the conceptual model of an LO in Figure 2.1. The organization must keep this conceptual model as a basic structure. It is claimed that as an organization progress through each of the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing, and utilization, it develops different combinations of the LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge sharing, employee characteristics and performance upgrading. Consequently, it will be ready to adjust to a changing business environment.

65 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the conceptual framework of the study and the method used to undertake the research. Hypotheses that guide the research are then presented. The research design, including the industry background, sampling plan, data collection and data analysis is presented. The structure of analysis to prove the hypotheses is then outlined.

3.2 Conceptual Framework

This study is developed from theories and concepts related to learning organizations (LOs). These theories and concepts are reportedly able to make organizations competitive by generating and managing change effectively (Goh & Richards, 1997; Mariotti, 1999; Norman & Zawacki, 2002; Vowles, 1993; Wong, 1996). Organizations which have developed LO characteristics are able to adjust themselves to the rapidly changing business environment and stay ahead of their competitors (Bhasin, 1998; Chodak, 2001; Kanter, 1992; Slater & Narver, 1995). There are also suggestions that to develop LO characteristics, organizations go through different stages and that, organizations progressing to a more advanced stage of the LO development stages have a higher level of LO characteristics and hence, a high level of organizational readiness-to-change. This relationship will be examined in 3.3 of this chapter with the hypotheses to be tested.

From the literature review in Chapter 2, organizations which are defined as LOs seems to evolve through the following development stages. 1) Continuous knowledge acquisition; 2) Knowledge sharing throughout the organization; and 3) Knowledge utilization i.e. the exploitation of knowledge (Garvin, 1993; Nevis, Dibella & Gould, 2000; Porth et al., 1999; Waraniak, 2001).

As they progress through each of these development stages, organizations displayed specific characteristics. These characteristics can be categorized into cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance

66 upgrading. The existing literature also implies that organizations with these LO characteristics are more change ready, hence more competitive.

To assess whether organizations possess relevant LO characteristics, this study develops “an Inventory of LO Characteristics”. LO characteristics individually and in different combinations contribute to an organization’s knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization capabilities – reflecting various stages of the LO development stages.

Based on literature review, at each of the LO development stages, organizations need to develop specific characteristics as follows: Table 3.1 LO characteristics developed at different stages of LO development stages LO Characteristics Cultural values Leadership Commu- Knowledge Employee Perfor- Stage commitment nication transfer Charac- mance Empowerment teristics upgrading KA Cv1.An LeadCE1 Comm2 Emp1 organization Leaders act as Communication is Members which has the role models of free and open have the ability to learn knowledge between ability to and translate acquisition and members, learn that leaning into sharing activities customers, Emp7 action LeadCE3 suppliers, Members Leaders design competitors and have a Cv2.An an organization’s all stake holders strong organization policy, the Comm7 There commitment which has strategy that is a culture of to generating individual member integrates vision, allowing and who expand their value, purpose mistakes to be transferring abilities through LeadCE4 Senior shared and new learning and management viewed as an knowledge sharing their has a strong opportunity for Emp8 insights with commitment to learning Members colleagues. the organization have a Cv3. An LeadCE5 commitment organization Leaders are role to lifelong which can learn models of learning from its learning and Emp10 competitors’ continuous Members successes and improvement demonstrate failures LeadCE7 a Cv4 An Leaders are commitment organization involved in to learn by which can learn learning initiatives constantly from the ideas of LeadCE10 looking for its suppliers and Leaders scan the new ways of decide on a environment for working and supplier according opportunities and building to customers’ threats learning needs LeadCE11 opportunities Cv5. An Leaders motivate Emp11 organization employees to Management which has a have intrinsic focus on continuous desire for learning HRD as a process of to learn skills, a central policy

67 training and sense of Emp12 learning ownership, a Management Cv6. An sense of emphasis on organization cooperate recruiting which encourages responsibility employees and facilitates its LeadCE15 who fit the members’ Leaders teach organization experimentation and encourage Emp13 Cv7 An members to learn Organization organization and develop to has a high which encourages their full potential proportion of and facilitates its and encourage people who members learning them to generate take from their own their own pleasure in and others’ development well honed, experience plans self- Cv8 An LeadCE16 development organization Enhance an and learning which has employee’s ability to learn skills members who to learn, provide Emp14 learn from both learning Members successes and opportunities have short- failures and learn LeadCE18 and long- to improve their Management term abilities from engages in education those experiences teaching leaders and training Cv9. An to coach and can reform organization facilitate their the existing which has members learning environment employees who LeadCE19 and future develop new Leaders ensure possibilities working that the learning Emp15 relationships, environment is Employees build teams, maintained have acquire problem LeadCE21 appropriate solving skills, Leaders have education, identify and directly reward LO experience prioritize behaviour and intellect problems themselves Cv10. An organization which invests in learning, measurement and track learning Cv11. An organization which has members who regard learning and training as routine Cv13. An organization which has freedom to try things and fail; and has a culture of accepting mistakes without penalty Cv18. An organization

which is boundary-less in which members desire learning and are encouraged to share, facilitate learning culture Cv19. An organization which has rewards systems to reward its employees Cv20.Organizatio ns have incentive and motivation to drive learning KS Cv2. An LeadCE2 Comm1 Vision Kt4 Members Emp4 organization Leaders highlight and purpose is share knowledge Members which has the organizational communicated through every have the individual culture that effectively to team doing ability to members who fosters knowledge members something that work in expand their sharing and use Comm2 others in teams abilities through technology to Communication is organization could Emp7 learning and facilitate value free and open make use of and Members sharing their creation between themselves using have a insights with LeadCE3 members, what others know strong colleagues Leaders design customers, Kt5 Members in commitment Cv8. An an organization’s suppliers, organization at to organization policy, the competitors and both an individual generating which has strategy that all stake holders and team level and members who integrates vision, Comm3 share insights transferring learn from both value, purpose Knowledge is with colleagues new successes and LeadCE4 Senior shared and break- Kt6 knowledge failures and learn management has through thinking is Organizations’ to improve their a strong encouraged members desire abilities from commitment to throughout the to learn and share those experiences the organization firm knowledge and Cv9 An LeadCE6 Comm4 engage in organization Management Knowledge is improvement of which has engages in communicated product quality members who selecting leaders quickly, clearly, and speed, learn from both who teach and and with focused innovation and successes and have vision Comm5 There is customer failures and learn LeadCE8 an effective satisfaction to improve their Leaders develop listening culture Kt7 Knowledge is abilities from their vision and Comm6 freely exchanged those experiences delegate Members expect with customers so Cv12 An authority and accept as to match organization LeadCE9 conflict in customer needs which is willing Leaders create communication and the to acknowledge an atmosphere Comm7 There organizations’ failure and learn of trust is a culture of core capabilities from it LeadCE12 allowing Kt8 Members feel Cv14 An Leaders instill a mistakes to be confident to share organization clear, shared shared and knowledge with which has a sense of viewed as an each other supportive purpose to opportunity for Kt9 Individuals as climate of encourage learning a team members openness teamwork; foster Comm8 contribute their Cv15 An a shared sense Members feel own set of organization of trust, free and experiences,

which has cooperation and unafraid to beliefs, thoughts continuous confidence in share ideas and and feelings to innovation the teams’ speak their mind the team process Cv16 An capacity to Comm9 Kt10 Knowledge organization achieve positive Members feel is transferred which has a results free to report through share norm of LeadCE20 errors mindset, vision, speaking openly Leaders help Comm10 value, knowledge, and honestly employees to Employees have communication about important select their own a chance to take and information issues goals part in the Kt11 Employees Cv17 An discussion and within organization sharing of key organizations can which has a concerns learn from past norm of Comm11 No failure and from supportive barriers between other relationships management organizations between and employees Kt12 Knowledge members and Comm12 in organizations is an atmosphere Organizational spread quickly of trust structure is flat and efficiently Cv18 An in order to Kt17 Members in organization facilitate organizations are which is communication motivated to boundary-less in Comm13 Cross- share or transfer which members functional knowledge desire learning teamwork and and are face-to-face encouraged to interaction in the share, facilitate organization learning culture Cv 19 An organization which has rewards systems to reward its employees Cv20 An organization has incentive and motivation to drive learning KU Cv1.An LeadCE2 Kt1 Knowledge in Emp3 Pfu1 All organization Leaders highlight organizations is Know how business which has the the organizational freely available for to utilize functions are ability to learn and culture that members knowledge integrated translate that fosters knowledge Kt3 Organizations to solve Pfu2 A leaning into action sharing and use have advanced problems, benchmark Cv15 An technology to technology to generate of organization facilitate value obtain and new ideas performance which has creation distribute for indicators is continuous LeadCE3 knowledge processes, sought innovation Leaders design Kt4 Members products Pfu3 an organization’s share knowledge and Continuous policy, the through every services improvement strategy that team doing Emp5 in processes integrates vision, something that Have share and products value, purpose others in leadership or services LeadCE13 organization could behaviour Pfu4 Leaders make use of and Emp6 Rewards encourage the themselves using Have the system use of what others know ability to encourages

organizational Kt6 Members problem learning and knowledge in line desire to learn solve sharing with and share Emp9 Have Pfu5 competencies and knowledge and knowledge Alternatives goals engage in and to financial LeadCE14 improvement of understandin rewards Leaders facilitate product quality g of how motivate self-regulation of and speed, their jobs are members employees innovation and important Pfu6 The LeadCE15 customer and organization Leaders teach satisfaction contribute to is perceived and encourage Kt13 Knowledge organization as excellent members to learn is encoded, al goals in on-time and develop to recorded and Emp10 delivery and their full potential displayed for Demonstrat as having and encourage learning purposes e a superior them to generate Kt14 Knowledge commitmen quality their own is embedded in t to learn by Pfu7 The development documents, constantly organization plans organizational looking for has zero LeadCE17 routines, new ways reject Leaders help processes, of working product members to practices and and Pfu8 The integrate what norms building organization they have learnt Kt15 Knowledge learning has an and empower is stored in opportunitie increasing staff through explicit forms s rate of localized and such as work market share decentralized manuals, Pfu9 The decision making instruction sheets, organization in order to give data files, and has excellent them sense of computer financial responsibility for databases performance their actions Kt16 Individual LeadCE22 knowledge is Leaders facilitate recorded and adequate encoded in an resources and explicit form as a information part of an accessible organizational memory Kt18 Organization has a systematic method of storing and using knowledge

As indicated in Table 3.1, LOs develop different characteristics at different stages of their development. When fully developed, LOs display a number of characteristics which, for the purposes of this study, can be turned into a research instrument labelled “Inventory of LO Characteristics”.

Organizations displaying a high level of LO characteristics are able to generate and manage change effectively (Corley & Gioia, 2003; Edmondson, 2002; Scarborough & Swan, 2003). This suggests that organizations with certain LO characteristics should have high level of readiness-to-change. There are established research tools to measure readiness-to-change, by assessing external environment,

71 leadership, organizational culture, management practices, communication, skill and job matching, rewarding and recognition, and organizational structure (Maurer, 2001; Parker, 1997; Stewart, 1994; Trahant & Burke, 1996). This study integrates some of those tools and applies them to measure readiness-to-change in organizations.

This study is designed to assess whether organizations evolve onto LOs through different stages in a particular order and whether there is a co-relationship between LO characteristics and readiness-to- change. According to literature review, in the course of evolving into LOs, organizations seem to go through three development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization (Davenport & Volpel, 2001; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Fielden, 2001; Levine, 2001; Rowley, 1999; Wiig, 1997; Zack, 1999b). These three LO development stages may follow a sequential order (Child & Rodrigues, 2003). This view suggests that members in organizations need to first obtain and share knowledge through each other. Then, knowledge which is acquired and shared from the previous stages needs to be accumulated in the organizational memory for easy access by members, such that it can be used whenever necessary. Thus, an organization’s abilities to utilize knowledge depend on how well knowledge is acquired and shared in the prior stages. This study hypothesizes that for organizations evolving into LOs, they follow a sequential order of development stages, namely, knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization.

To summarize, this study focuses on two research questions: 1. Do organizations displaying high level of LO characteristics also have a high level of readiness- to-change? 2. Do the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition (KA), knowledge sharing (KS) and knowledge utilization (KU) follow a sequential order? The conceptual model guiding this study is shown in Figure 2.1.

3.3 Hypotheses to be Tested

Based on the review of literature, there seems to be a correlationship between organizational readiness-to-change and LO characteristics. The latter is made up of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading. The first research question for this study is: are LO characteristics correlated to the organizational-readiness-to-change? Additionally, to be change-ready, organization needs to acquire, share and utilize knowledge. The existing literature also suggests that LOs display

72 six categories of characteristics that enable members of the organization to acquire, share and utilize knowledge. Questions which have not frequently been raised, are: • Does an organization have to be able to acquire knowledge, before it can share and utilize knowledge? • Does an organization have a higher level of LO characteristics, if it can share and even utilize knowledge than when it can only acquire knowledge? • Does an organization have to go through all three stages of development to acquire the highest level of LOs characteristics? These questions in turn raise an important research question: Is the development of LO characteristics follow a staged, sequential process?

According to the above research questions, two main hypotheses are formulated and evaluated in this study:

Hypothesis I: if an organization has a high level of LO characteristics, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

From the existing literature, to develop into an LO, an organization requires six categories of characteristics, namely: cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading. To test the validity of this hypothesis, the following sub-hypotheses need to be assessed: H1-1: that, if an organization has a high level of “cultural values” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-2: that, if an organization has a high level of “leadership commitment and empowerment” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-3: that, if an organization has a high level of “communication” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-4: that, if an organization has a high level of “knowledge transfer” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-5: that, if an organization has a high level of “employee” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

73 H1-6: that, if an organization has a high level of “performance upgrading” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

Hypothesis II: If an organization has completed all three LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization it should have a higher level of readiness- to-change than if it has not.

This implies that organizations, which have not completed all three LO development stages, have a lower level of readiness-to-change. To test the validity of this hypothesis, the following sub- hypotheses are to be confirmed: H2-1: that the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change

H2-2: that the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change

H2-3: that the correlation between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change

3.4 Construct Measurement

A self-administered, delivered and collected questionnaire (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2000) is designed to test the hypotheses of this research (Appendix A). The questionnaire was developed following an extensive review of the literature in Chapter 2 to obtain responses from management and non-management employees and to find out the extent to which their employing organizations possess LO characteristics. The questionnaire survey has three sections. The first section collects the personal data of the respondents. The second section is labelled “the inventory of learning organization (LO) characteristics”, encompassing questions to assess the cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading appropriate for LOs. The last section is the measurement of organizational readiness-to-change.

A Multiple Rating List Scale is designed for this study. The scales are assigned as Strongly agree (7), Agree (6), Mildly agree (5), Indifferent (4), Mildly disagree (3), Disagree (2) and Strongly

74 disagree (1) in order to record attitudes, behaviour, and behaviour intention (Cooper and Schindler, 2001 p.235) under the headings of inventory of LO characteristics and readiness-to-change assessment.

Since the survey was conducted in Thailand, the researcher needed to translate the questionnaire into the Thai language and back translate the Thai instrument into English to reduce the risk of error and to ensure cultural adaptability and translation validity of the questionnaire. The researcher first asked a number of people to review their understanding of the document in terms of language translation (Please see list in Appendix F). Once this was done, the researcher asked another person who is bi-lingual (fluent in Thai and English) (details are in Appendix F) and had not seen the original English questionnaire to back-translate the Thai questionnaire into English and see how it might differ from the original (English) version. Then, the pretest or pilot study was conducted with the Thai questionnaire. The three reversions of questionnaire – the original English version before translation, the Thai version and the final English translation are given in Appendices A, B and C respectively.

A pilot test was conducted before the actual survey in early February 2003. The procedures were intended to review errors in the design and to refine the measuring instrument (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). The questionnaire, which consists of 129 questions, was sent out to forty participants in one the two companies that, the researcher was given permission to investigate. From this pilot test, feedback was received from twenty-six respondents.

The questions in the questionnaire are divided into three sections. Firstly, The demographic questions intended to review the respondents’ attributes. The second section is the inventory of LO characteristics, made up of questions drawn from the literature review in the Chapter 2. These questions are intended to appraise an organization’s LO characteristics at different LO development stages. They are summarized in Table 3.2. The last section consists of questions for measurement of organizational readiness-to-change. The questionnaire is attached in Appendix A.

75 Table 3.2 Summary of questions for assessing of LO characteristics at the development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization

Corresponding Questions No. on Knowledge Knowledge sharing Knowledge the LO Development Stages acquisition utilization LO characteristics Cultural values 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 2,8,9,12,14,15,16,17, 1,15 11,13,18,19,20 18,19,20 Leadership commitment 21,23,24,25,27,30,31, 21,22,24,26,27,28,29, 22,33,34,35,37, and empowerment 35,36,38,39,41 32,40 42 Communication 44, 49 43,44,45,46,47,48,49, ----- 50,51,52,53,54,55 Knowledge transfer ----- 57,59,60,61,62,63,64, 56,58,59,61,68,69, 65,66,67,72 70,71,73 Employee characteristic 74,75,80,81,83, 77,80 76,78,79,82,83 84,85,86,87,88 Performance upgrading ------89,90,91,92,93,94, 95,96,97

The survey was conducted during mid- February to mid- March 2003, after obtaining consent from two companies to participate in the research. The initial return rate from management personnel was unsatisfactory. A second questionnaire distribution was launched in the third week of March and completed questionnaire were collected at the beginning of April. The researcher eventually attained an acceptable overall return rate - 76.4% at Company A and 52.8% at Company B respectively (Baruch, 1999).

3.5 Research Design

This part of the Chapter covers the industry background, sampling plan and data collection, as well as data analysis to this research.

3.5.1 Industry background The telecommunication sector equates to some 3 % of Thai GDP (http://www.tradepartners.gov.uk/telecom/thailand/profile/overview.shtml/2002). The total revenue of telecom services in the country was US$ 3.92 billion in 2001. The numbers of mobile phone subscribers are 17.58 million at the end of December 2002 (http://www.dtac.co.th/thai/investor/ir/download/Annual%20Report/Annual02-full%20reportE.pdf; http://www.Finpro.fi/Dynagen-attachment/Att76050/56050.pdf). The mobile phone service providers in Thailand are organized under government concessionaires – the Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT) and the Communications Authority of Thailand (CAT).

76 The present concessionaires include Advance Info Service Plc., Total Access Communication Plc., Digital Phone Co. Ltd., Wireless Communication Service Co. Ltd., Taiwan Mobile Telecom Co. Ltd., and a company which is a joint venture between TOT, CAT and Radio Aviation of Thailand Co. Ltd. The market is a duopoly that owns about 90 % of mobile phone market at the end of December 2002 (http://www.dtac.co.th/thai/investor/ir/download/Annual%20Report/Annual02-full%20reportE.pdf; http://www.Finpro.fi/Dynagen-attachment/Att76050/56050.pdf). The first market leader gets hold of about 60% of market share, while the second, about 30%. The penetration rate of mobile phone users was 28% at the end of December 2002 compared to 13% at the end of year 2001 (http://www.dtac.co.th/thai/investor/ir/download/Annual%20Report/Annual02-full%20reportE.pdf; http://www.shincorps.com/eng/CS/enwirelessbusoperation.html).

The two market leaders in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand have been selected for this study and permission obtained to survey their employees. However, at the companies’ request, their names have been suppressed. The criteria for a company’s selection are based on its market share and position as a leader in the industry. Therefore, the first company – Company A - is the current market leader, while the second company – Company B is the second market leader. The total market share of Company A and B is about 90% which is reasonable to justify that they together represent the industry in Thailand.

3.5.2 Sampling plan and Data collection The population of each company is divided into two levels: management and non-management. Management composes of top management, middle management and first line supervisor. For the purposes of this study, management personnel means a person who needs to supervise people who are junior to his or her level of appointment in the organization. Non-management composes of employees who do not have responsibility of supervision. The reason for dividing population into two levels is to gain samples which are the representative of their population.

Quota sampling is selected as the non-probability sampling technique in this study, since it is a sample stratified by management levels in which the selection of cases within strata is entirely non- random (Saunders et al., 2000 cite Barnett, 1999). The researcher initially intends to apply non- proportion stratified random sampling in this study. Due to the limitation of the population’s list, it is adjusted to the quota sampling method. Then, the questionnaires are distributed to each department by the contact person in those companies. Details of distribution and response are provided in the next few paragraphs.

In the sample company with the largest market share – Company A - the total employee population is 3,634. The sample of 348 people is drawn from this total population and is considered representational according to accepted research methodology (Sekaran, 1992). Then, the judgmental selection from each of the management and non-management level was chosen. Next, the questionnaires are distributed through the joint efforts of the Assistant Vice President (Public Relations) and the Human Resource Manager to the following eight departments: • Wireless corporate finance • Marketing, information system support • Network operations • Advance contact center • Service operation • Regional operation • Public relations department The return rate was 65.8%; nevertheless, there was poor return from management personnel. Therefore, a second distribution via email was made to solicit more responses from the management personnel. The total return rate increased to 76.72% with a higher proportion in management increasing by 6.61%. The return rate for Company A is shown in Table 3.3 Table 3.3 The return rate at Company A Management First return Second return Total return levels Rate (%) rate (%) rate (%) Management 103 (29.59) 23 (6.61) 126 (36.20)

Non-management 126 (36.21) 15 (4.31) 141 (40.52)

Waste 5 (1.44) 2 (0.57) 7 (2.01)

Total 229 (65.80) 38 (10.92) 267 (76.72)

The company with the second largest market share is Company B. It employs around 2,600 people. The sample of 335 people is taken from the total employees as per accepted methodological practice (Sekaran, 1992, p. 253). Questionnaires were distributed via the company human resources management director to the follow ten departments: • Information System • Accounting, Product and services • Call centre • Customer Services • Engineering-1

78 • Engineering-2 • Human Resources • Marketing • Customer service group The return rate at Company B is 48.66%. However, like Company A, there was a low rate of return from management personnel; therefore, a second distribution was launched to obtain more returns from them. The overall return rate increased to 52.33% with a slightly higher proportion (4.19 %) increase from management levels. The return rate for Company B is shown in Table 3.4 Table 3.4 The questionnaire return rate at Company B Management First return Second return Total return levels rate (%) rate (%) rate (%) Management 66 (19.70) 14 (4.19) 80 (23.89)

Non-management 97 (28.95) 0 ( - ) 97 (28.95)

Waste 4 (1.20) 2 (0.59) 6 (1.79)

Total 163 (48.65) 14 (4.19) 177 (52.84)

The total return rate of this survey summarized in Table 3.5 Table 3.5 The total questionnaire return rate at Industry Aggregate Level in this Survey

Management levels Company A Company B Industry return rate (%) return rate (%) Aggregate Level Management 126 (36.20) 80 (23.89) 206(30.04)

Non-management 141 (40.52) 97 (28.95) 238(34.73)

Waste 7 (2.01) 6 (1.79) 13(0.95)

Total 267 (76.72) 177 (52.84) 444(64.77)

3.5.3 Data analysis Data is analysed by computer program SPSS version 11.0 for Windows. The first part of the questionnaire is general information, which will be analysed in terms of frequency. The second part involves independent variables. They are made up of questions that form the inventory of LO characteristics, comprising cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading. As each LO development stage has different as well as common characteristics, the individual questions are coded so that responses to them can be identified for examination on a stage-by-stage basis during

79 the data analysis. The last part concerns the dependent variable - organizational readiness-to- change.

Factor Analysis is applied in order to measure the latent variables (Kline 1997, cites Loehlin 1987) and to summarize the information contained in the original variable into a smaller set of new factor (Hair, Anderson et al. 1998) of LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading. The mean of the raw score of each variable under new factors is calculated and so is the total mean of new factors under each characteristic of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading (Table 3.6 step 2.7). The analysis of the mean scores is appraised according to the scale presented in paragraph 3.4, in that 4 is regarded as the mid point. Any value above 4 is considered ‘high’ and, below 4, ‘low’. According to the scale in paragraph 3.4, mean at 5 is assigned as ‘mildly agree’; mean at 6, ‘agree’ and, mean at 7, ‘strongly agree’. Any mean values above 4 are considered ‘high’. However, this thesis seeking for higher standard of scale for organization improvement; therefore, the analysis section 5.3.1.1 to 5.3.1.6 assess the aggregated mean over 5.25 as the desirable characteristics (strengths) and, below 5, as characteristics that ‘need to be considered’

In order to prove the validity of the two main hypotheses, it is necessary to assess LO characteristics at each of the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization. Correlation matrixes are therefore applied to verify the construct validity of the inventory of LO characteristics and LO development stages to find out whether the results, which are achieved from the measurement, confirms with the hypotheses (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran, 2001). Pearson’s Correlation is the tool used to check the relationship between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change as well as the relationship between the LO development stages - knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization – and the organizational readiness-to-change. The structure for analysis is shown in Table 3.6. The same steps will be followed through at company and industry aggregate (Company A + B) levels. Table 3.6 Structure of Data Analysis Step Objective Data analysis Tools and techniques 1. Identification of the questionnaire part I Responses to questions Descriptive statistics – - general information on both sample in part I questions no. 1- Frequency companies 5 2. 2.1 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions Data reductions cultural value due to assess the in part II questions no. by factor analysis level of LO characteristics of 1-20 (cultural values) (Principle axis factor) cultural values Then, check the

80 reliability of each factor 2.2 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions under each construct – leadership commitment and in part II questions no. cultural value, empowerment due to assess the 21-42 leadership commitment level of LO characteristics of (leadership commitment and empowerment, leadership commitment and and empowerment) communication, empowerment knowledge transfer, employee 2.3 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions characteristics and communication due to assess the in part II questions no. performance upgrading level of LO characteristics of 43-55 communication, - by reliability analysis communication (alpha)

2.4 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions knowledge transfer due to assess in part II questions no. the level of LO characteristics of 56-73 knowledge knowledge transfer transfer,

2.5 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions employee characteristics due to in part II questions no. assess the level of LO 74-88 employee characteristics of employee characteristics characteristics

2.6 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions performance upgrading due to in part II questions no. assess the level of LO 89-97 performance characteristics of performance upgrading upgrading

2.7 To calculate mean (raw data) from Data from variables Descriptive statistic - extracted variables of new factor under each factor mean and the total mean of each extracted 2.1-2.6 characteristic.

3. To reduce variables under the Responses to questions Data reductions organizational readiness-to-change due in part III – questions by factor analysis to assess the level of organizational no. Rc1-Rc31 (Principle axis factor) readiness-to-change Then, check the reliability in each factor by reliability analysis (alpha) 4. 4.1 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions Data reductions knowledge acquisition due to in Table 3.2 according by factor analysis assess the level of LO to LO development (Principle axis factor) development stage of knowledge stage of knowledge Then, check the acquisition acquisition reliability of each factor under each construct – 4.2 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing due to assess in Table 3.2 according sharing and utilization - the level of LO development stage to LO development by reliability analysis of knowledge sharing stage of knowledge (alpha) sharing

4.3 To reduce variables under the Responses to questions knowledge utilization due to assess in Table 3.2 according the level of LO development stage to LO development

81 knowledge utilization stage of knowledge utilization 5. 5.1To create mean of each construct The result of analysis in Summation of factors under the inventory of LO step 2 under the from factor score in characteristics due to assess the inventory of LO each construct of LO level of cultural values characteristics – cultural characteristics --cultural values, leadership values, leadership 5.2To create mean of each construct commitment and commitment and under the inventory of LO empowerment, empowerment, characteristics due to assess the communication, communication, level of leadership commitment and knowledge transfer, knowledge transfer, empowerment employee employee characteristics and characteristics and 5.3To create mean of each construct performance upgrading performance upgrading under the inventory of LO characteristics due to assess the level of communication

5.4To create mean of each construct under the inventory of LO characteristics due to assess the level of knowledge transfer

5.5To create mean of each construct under the inventory of LO characteristics due to assess the level of employee characteristics

5.6To create mean of each construct Summation of Factors under the inventory of LO from factor score in characteristics due to assess the each construct of LO level of performance upgrading development stages -- knowledge acquisition, 5.7To create mean of each construct The result of analysis in sharing and utilization under LO development stage due step 4 under LO to assess the level of knowledge development stages of acquisition knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization 5.8To create mean of each construct under LO development stage due to assess the level of knowledge sharing Summation of factors 5.9To create mean of each construct from factor score in under LO development stage due organizational to assess the level of knowledge readiness-to-change utilization

5.10To create mean of organizational The result of analysis in readiness-to-change construct due step 3 under the to assess the level of organizational organizational readiness-to-change readiness-to-change 6. 6.1To create correlation matrix due to Means values from step Correlation matrix assess the construct validity of the 5 (5.1 - 5.6) inventory of LO characteristics (6 x 6)

82 6.2To create correlation matrix due to Means values from step assess the construct validity of LO 5 (5.7 - 5.9) development stages (3 x3)

7. To assess whether the higher the level The result of analysis in Pearson’s correlation of LO characteristics, the higher the step 5 between LO levels of organizational readiness-to- characteristics –cultural change (H1). This is assessed by Mean value of cultural values, leadership value and commitment and 7.1 The organization with high level of organizational empowerment, cultural values readiness-to-change communication, knowledge transfer, Mean value of employee 7.2The organization with high level of leadership commitment characteristics and leadership commitment and and empowerment and performance upgrading empowerment organizational and organizational readiness-to-change readiness-to-change

7.3 The organization with high level of Mean value of communication communication and organizational readiness-to-change

7.4 The organization with high level of Mean value of knowledge transfer knowledge transfer and organizational readiness-to-change

7.5 The organization with high level of Mean value of employee characteristics employee characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change

7.6The organization with high level of Mean value of performance upgrading performance upgrading and organizational readiness-to-change 8. To check whether if an organization has The result of analysis in Pearson’s Correlation completed the full LO development step 4 and 5.3 then between LO stage, then it should have a level of compare: development stages - readiness-to-change higher than when - Mean value of knowledge utilization, it has not (H2). This is assessed knowledge utilization sharing and acquisition through and organizational and the organizational readiness-to-change readiness-to-change 8.1 The correlation between knowledge - Mean value of utilization and readiness-to-change knowledge sharing and is higher than the correlation organizational between knowledge acquisition readiness-to-change and readiness-to-change - Mean value of knowledge acquisition 8.2 The correlation between knowledge and organizational utilization and readiness-to-change readiness-to-change is higher than the relationship between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change

83 8.3 The correlation between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change is higher than the correlation between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change

9. To answer the research questions The result of analysis Summary 1. Do organizations displaying high from step 7 and 8 level of LO characteristics also have a high level of readiness-to- change? 2. Do the LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization follow a sequential order?

3.6 Conclusion

This chapter has described the conceptual framework of the study and the methodology for gathering information to answer the research questions.

The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire made up of 3 sections: demographic data, “Inventory of learning organization (LO) characteristics” and “organizational readiness-to-change”. The result of the pilot study supports the validity of the instrument. Examination of the variables reveals acceptable reliability for Cronbach’s alpha in the questionnaire. The descriptive statistics such as frequency and cross tabulation will be used to appraise general information of Company A and B. Factor analysis will be used for variables’ reduction and for assessing the construct validity. Correlation analysis will be used to manipulate correlation coefficients to help answer the research questions.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings of the survey as described in Chapter 3. There are eight sections. After the introduction, the second section is the descriptive analysis of the attributes of respondents. The third section presents the factor analysis of the inventory of LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading. The forth section deals with the descriptive analysis of LO characteristics. Then, the factor analysis of LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization is presented in section five. The factor analysis of organizational readiness-to-change is described in section six. Section seven deals with the correlation between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change. The final section presents the correlation between the LO development stages and organizational readiness-to- change. In presenting the results in each section, results at the mobile phone service industry aggregate level in Thailand will be presented first, followed by results relating to individual companies, culminating in a comparative analysis of the two participating companies

4.2 The Descriptive Analysis of Respondents’ Data

This section provides basic information on respondents’ attributes. It will be presented according to gender, age, level of education, number of year working in the company, and position.

4.2.1 Descriptive analysis of Gender, Age, Level of Education, Number of years working in the company, and position This section examines the descriptive analysis of gender, age, level of education, number of years working in the company and position of the respondents. The analysis of mobile phone service industry in Thailand is undertaken first, followed by that of the two participating companies.

4.2.1.1Analysis of mobile phone service industry in Thailand The descriptive analysis of gender, age, level of education, number of years working in the company and position of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand are shown in Table 4.1

Table 4.1 Descriptive data of gender, age, level of education, number of years working in the company and position of respondents at mobile phone service industry in Thailand

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Gender Male 190 42.8 42.8 Female 254 57.2 100.0 Total 444 100.0 Age 20.1- 25 years 47 10.6 10.6 25.1- 30 years 132 29.8 40.4 30.1- 35 years 149 33.6 74.0 35.1- 40 years 63 14.2 88.2 40.1- 45 years 35 7.9 96.1 45.1- 50 years 9 2.0 98.1 50.1- 55 years 6 1.4 99.5 55.1- 60 years 2 .5 100.0 Total 443 99.8 100.0 Missing value 1 .2 Total 444 100.0 Level of Education High school or Vocational 4 .9 .9 Associated degree 4 .9 1.8 Bachelor degree 291 65.5 67.3 Master degree or equivalent 144 32.4 99.8 Others 1 .2 100.0 Total 444 100.0 Number of years working in this company 0 – 3 years 162 36.5 36.5 3.1- 6 years 83 18.7 55.2 6.1- 9 years 115 25.9 81.1 9.1- 12 years 68 15.3 96.4 12.1-15 years 15 3.4 99.8 15.1-18 years - - - 18.1-21 years 1 .2 100.0 Total 444 100.0 Position Management 206 46.4 46.4 Non-management 238 53.6 100.0 Total 444 100.0

From Table 4.1, respondents who have participated in this study are made up of 42.8% male and 57.2% female. In regards to age, 63.4% of respondents are at the age of 25.1 – 35 years while 14.2%, 35.1 – 40 years. There are 10.6% of the respondents at the age of 20.1 – 25 year; 7.9%, 40.1 – 45 years. Less than 3.9% of respondents are at the age of over 50-years.

To further consider their education levels, 65.5% of respondents hold Bachelor degree, while 32.4% have obtained their master’s degree. Only 1.8% have their level of education below bachelor’s degree, and 0.2% of higher than masters’ degree.

Regarding to numbers of years respondents working at the company, 36.5% of the respondents have joined their current company for 0-3 years, while 25.9%, 6.1- 9 years. There are18.7% of respondents working at the company for 3.1 – 6 years and 15.3% join for 9.1 – 12 years. Only 3.6% of the respondents work for their company over 12 years.

It can be seen that 46.4% of the respondent hold management positions. Meanwhile, 53.6% are non- management level.

4.2.1.2 Analysis at Company A The descriptive analysis of respondents’ gender, age, level of education, number of years working in the company and position in Company A are shown in Table 4.2 Table 4.2 Descriptive data of gender, age, level of education, number of years working in the company and position of respondents at Company A

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Gender Male 120 44.9 44.9 Female 147 55.1 100.0 Total 267 100.0 Age 20.1- 25 years 29 10.9 10.9 25.1- 30 years 66 24.7 35.7 30.1- 35 years 84 31.5 67.3 35.1- 40 years 40 15.0 82.3 40.1- 45 years 32 12.0 94.4 45.1- 50 years 7 2.6 97.0 50.1- 55 years 6 2.2 99.2 55.1- 60 years 2 .7 100.0 Total 266 99.6 100.0 Missing value 1 .4 Total 267 100.0 Level of Education High school or Vocational 1 .4 .4 Associated degree 3 1.1 1.5 Bachelor degree 160 59.9 61.4 Master degree or equivalent 102 38.2 99.6 Others 1 .4 100.0 Total 267 100.0 Number of years working in this company 0 – 3 years 105 39.3 39.3

3.1- 6 years 43 16.1 55.4 6.1- 9 years 66 24.7 80.1 9.1- 12 years 41 15.4 95.5 12.1-15 years 11 4.1 99.6 15.1-18 years - - - 18.1-21 years 1 .4 100.0 Total 267 100.0 Position Management 126 47.2 47.2 Non-management 141 52.8 100.0 Total 267 100.0

From Table 4.2, respondents from Company A have comprised of 44.9% male and 55.1% female.

Regarding to their age, 56.2% of respondents are 25.1 – 35 years while 15% are between 35.1 and 40 years. There are 12% of the respondents at the age of 40.1 – 45 year; 10.9% are at the age of 20.1 – 25 years. Less than 5% of respondents are over 50 years.

In regard to level of education, 59.9% of respondents hold bachelor’s degree, and 38.2% hold master’s degree. Only 1.5% of the respondents have a level of education lower than a bachelor’s degree, and 0.4% have been educated above the master’s level.

The figure shows 39.3% of the respondents have worked in the company between 0 to 3 years, while 24.7% 6.1 to 9 years. Respondents of 16.1% have worked at the company for 3.1 – 6 years and 15.4% 9.1 – 12 years. Only 4.5% of respondents have worked in the company for over 12 years.

In regard to their position in the company, 47.2% of respondents occupy management positions. There are 52.8% at non-management level.

4.2.1.3 Analysis at Company B The descriptive analysis of respondents’ gender, age, level of education, their position and number of years working in the company are shown in Table 4.3 Table 4.3 Descriptive data of gender, age, level of education, number of year working in the company and position of respondents at Company B

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Gender Male 70 39.5 39.5 Female 107 60.5 100.0 Total 177 100.0 Age

20.1- 25 years 18 10.2 10.2 25.1- 30 years 66 37.3 47.5 30.1- 35 years 65 36.7 84.2 35.1- 40 years 23 13.0 97.2 40.1- 45 years 3 1.7 98.9 45.1- 50 years 2 1.1 100.0 50.1- 55 years - - - 55.1- 60 years - - - Total 177 100.0 Level of Education High school or Vocational 3 1.7 1.7 Associated degree 1 .6 2.3 Bachelor degree 131 74.0 76.3 Master degree or equivalent 42 23.7 100.0 Others - - - Total 177 100.0 Number of years working in this company 0 – 3 years 57 32.2 32.2 3.1- 6 years 40 22.6 54.8 6.1- 9 years 49 27.7 82.5 9.1- 12 years 27 15.3 97.7 12.1-15 years 4 2.3 100.0 15.1-18 years - - - 18.1-21 years - - - Total 177 100.0 Position Management 80 45.2 45.2 Non-management 97 54.8 100.0 Total 177 100.0

From Table 4.3, 39.5% staffs have participated in this survey are male while, 60.5%, females.

In regard to their age, 74.2% of respondents are at the age of 25.1 – 35 years; 13% are at the age of 35.1 – 40 years; 10.2% are at the age of 20.1 – 25 years. Less than 2.8% are at the age of 40.1 – 50 years.

When it comes to level of education, 74% of respondents hold bachelor’s degree, while 23.7% have achieved master’s degree. Only 2.3% of respondents have level of education lower than that of a bachelor’s degree.

Regarding respondents’ years of service, 32.2% of them have worked in the company 0 – 3 years. Respondent of 27.7% have joined the company for 6.1 – 9 years; 22.6%, 3.1- 6 years; 15.3%, 9.1- 12 years. Only 2.3% of the respondents have worked for the company for 12.1 – 15 years.

45.2% of respondents hold management position. There are 54.8% of them working in Company B at non-management level.

4.3 The Factor Analysis of the Inventory of LO Characteristics

Factor analysis is a statistical technique which can be applied to examine a broad range of data sets. Its main purpose is to reduce the numbers of variables as well as to identify the structure of relationship between those variables. Thus, it is a data reduction and structure detection method (Kim & Mueller, 1986). Kline (1997) advocates that it is a statistical technique to simplify the complexity of data. This study has applied factor analysis in achieve the same purposes.

This section aims to illustrate the integration of variables from questionnaire survey using the factor analysis. It shows a summarization of constructs under LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading. Then, reliability analysis is applied – the Cronbach alpha coefficient, which aims to estimate the degree to which a measurement is free of unstable error (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). This process is applied to test the correlation between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change, so that hypotheses H1-1 to H1-6 can be verified. Descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation are also presented to specify areas of strength and weakness of individual attributes at both industry aggregate and company levels.

The factor analysis of LO development stages of knowledge acquisition; knowledge sharing; and knowledge utilization will be illustrated in section 4.5. The construct of factor analysis under organizational readiness-to-change will be identified in section 4.6.

4.3.1 LO characteristics of cultural values From the reviewing of literature, cultural values is one of the LO characteristics. The analysis of cultural values of the mobile phone service industry in Thailand, and at Company A and B are shown respectively in this section.

4.3.1.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregated Level There are four factors extracted from the LO characteristic of cultural values from the factor analysis. It means the cultural values in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand is considered in regard to “accommodating learning culture” and “learning from sources”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.4 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values.

Table 4.4 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values

Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Accomodating learning culture Cultural value 6 .788 -.073 Cultural value 7 .726 .008 Cultural value 11 .490 .134 Cultural value 12 .589 .078 Cultural value 13 .637 -.014 Cultural value 14 .785 -.055 Cultural value 16 .625 -.035 Cultural value 17 .512 .112 Cultural value 18 .476 .082 Cultural value 20 .636 -.068 2.Learning from sources Cultural value 2 .073 .534 Cultural value 3 .056 .485 Cultural value 4 .067 .440 Cultural value 8 -.074 .544 Eigen values 5.266 1.278 Explained Variance (%) 33.43 4.158 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 33.43 37.60

From Table 4.4, 2 factors are extracted from factor analysis of cultural values of the industry. Factor 1 is labelled “accommodating learning culture” and is made up of ten questions. Six of the variables (Cv 6,7,13,14,16, and 20) are considered loading high; whereas, four, loading moderately high (Cv 11,12,17 and 18). The grand mean of this factor is 0.626 and standard deviation is 0.167. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 2 is labelled “learning from sources”, and is composed of four questions. All of them are considered loading moderately high - Cv 2,3,4, and 8. The grand mean of this factor is 0.501 and standard deviation is 0.056. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high. The total variance explained from these two factors of LO characteristic of cultural value is 37.6%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.5 Table 4.5 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for cultural values Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach Alpha correlation Coefficient 1.Accomodating learning Cv 6 .681 0.872 culture Cv 7 .667 Cv 11 .541 Cv 12 .591 Cv 13 .575 Cv 14 .700 Cv 16 .591 Cv 17 .535 Cv 18 .505 Cv 20 .552

2.Learning from sources .382 0.584 Cv 2 .386 Cv 3 .381 Cv 4 .341 Cv 8

From Table 4.5, item total to correlation of variables under each factor is shown in column 3 of the table. Cronbach Alpha coefficient of LO characteristic of cultural values under “accommodating learning culture”, and “learning from sources” are 0.872, and 0.584 respectively. The Cronbach alpha is good in factor 1, showing the reliability of the factor. Variables in factor 2 appear to have scored low in terms Cronbach Alpha coefficient. They are still acceptable given 3 out of 4 are higher than 0.35.

4.3.1.2 Analysis at Company A There are two factors extracted from the LO characteristics of cultural values from the factor analysis. This means the cultural values in Company A is considered in regard to “enhancing learning culture”, and “knowledge expansion through sources”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.6 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values. Table 4.6 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Enhanceing of learning culture Cultural value 6 .767 .007 Cultural value 7 .822 -.045 Cultural value 10 .438 .224 Cultural value 12 .636 .041 Cultural value 13 .696 -.093 Cultural value 20 .397 .199 2.Knowledge expansion through sources

Cultural value 1 -.051 .776 Cultural value 2 .024 .561 Cultural value 3 .210 .340 Cultural value 4 .042 .433 Cultural value 8 -.053 .530 Cultural value 18 .273 .334 Eigen values 3.916 0.713 Explained Variance (%) 32.63 5.941 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 32.63 38.57

From Table 4.6 there are two extracted factors. Factor 1 is “enhancing of learning culture”, which has high loading in four variables (Cv6, Cv7, Cv12, and Cv13). Variables factored between 0.3 - 0.6 are considered as loading moderately high (Cv10 and Cv20). The grand mean of this factor is 0.626 and standard deviation is 0.174. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high

Factor 2 is “knowledge expansion through sources”, which is high loading in one variable of Cv1 and those variables factored between 0.3 - 0.6 are considered for loading moderately high (Cv2, Cv3, Cv4, Cv8, and Cv 18). The grand mean of this factor is 0.496 and standard deviation is 0.166. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high. Total variance explained for the construct of cultural values is 38.57%. The item total to correlation of each variable as well as Cronbach Alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.7. Table 4.7 Item total correlation and Cronbach alpha for cultural values Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach Alpha correlation Coefficient 1.Enhancing learning Cv 6 .677 .817 culture Cv 7 .689 Cv 10 .527 Cv 12 .605 Cv 13 .550 Cv 20 .479

2.Knowledge expansion Cv 1 .539 .702 through sources Cv 2 .475 Cv 3 .410 Cv 4 .397 Cv 8 .398 Cv 18 .426

From Table 4.7, 2 factors are extracted from LO characteristic of cultural values at Company A. The item total to correlation is shown in column 3 of this table. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient of cultural values under “enhancement learning culture”, and “knowledge expansion through sources” are 0.817 and 0.702 respectively. All of the Cronbach alpha coefficients are higher than 0.7; therefore, they are acceptable in the factors extracted.

4.3.1.3 Analysis at Company B Three factors are extracted from LO characteristics of cultural values. Therefore, cultural values at Company B are considered as “supportive learning culture”, “training background”, and “learning by sharing”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.8 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values. Table 4.8 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for cultural values Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1.Supportive learning culture Cultural value 6 -.021 .116 .772 Cultural value 7 -.145 .224 .801 Cultural value 12 .189 .055 .468 Cultural value 14 .065 -.084 .673 Cultural value 16 .076 -.222 .679 Cultural value 17 -.063 .076 .664 Cultural value 18 .116 .019

Cultural value 20 .414 .237 -.110 2.Training background .491 Cultural value 1 .568 .264 Cultural value 10 -.073 .679 -.106 Cultural value 11 .132 .656 .029 2.Learning by sharing .171 Cultural value 2 .053 .493 Cultural value 8 .236 .063 .506 -.017 Eigen values 5.030 1.330 1.158 Explained Variance (%) 34.80 5.697 4.835 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 34.80 40.49 45.33

From Table 4.8, 3 factors are extracted. Factor 1 is labelled “supportive learning culture”, consisting of eight variables of which five are considered loading high (Cv 6, 7,14,16, and 17). Variables factored between 0.3 - 0.6 are considered loading moderately high (Cv 12,18, and 20). The grand mean of this factor is 0.620 and standard deviation is 0.144. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 2 is labelled “training background”, and is composed of three variables, loading high over 0.6 in Cv10 and Cv11 while moderately high in Cv1. The grand mean of this factor is 0.634 and standard deviation is 0.058. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 3 is labelled “learning by sharing”’. Two variables are presented in this factor. There are loading moderately high in both (Cv2 and Cv 8). The grand mean of this factor is 0.499 and standard deviation is 0.009. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high. The total variance explained for these 3 variables or LO characteristic of cultural values of Company B, is 45.33%. Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in the followed table. Table 4.9 Item total correlation and Cronbach alpha for cultural values Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1. Supportive learning Cv 6 .698 0.853 culture Cv 7 .680 Cv 12 .533 Cv 14 .659 Cv 16 .616 Cv 17 .578 Cv 18 .450 Cv 20 .559

2.Training background Cv 1 .463 0.719 Cv 10 .580 Cv 11 .608

3.Learning by sharing Cv 2 .325 0.489

Cv 8 .325

From Table 4.9, 3 factors are extracted; they are “supportive learning culture”, “training background”, and “learning by sharing”. The total item correlation under each factor is shown in column 3. The Cronbach alpha coefficients for “supportive learning culture”, “training background”, and “learning by sharing” are 0.853, 0.719 and 0.489 respectively. It is applied to estimate the degree to which a measurement is free of unstable error (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). Results show that it is reliable in factor 1 and 2; while only adequate in factor 3.

4.3.2. LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment From the review of literature, leadership commitment and empowerment is one of the LO characteristics in an LO. The analysis of leadership commitment and empowerment of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand at the industry aggregate and company levels is given in this section

4.3.2.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level Only one factor is extracted from LO characteristic of leadership commitment and empowerment. As a result, leadership commitment and empowerment in the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is assessed by this factor labelled the same as its construct – “leadership commitment and empowerment”. The factor analysis of this construct is shown in Table 4.10 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for leadership commitment and empowerment. Table 4.10 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for leadership commitment and empowerment

Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 1.Leadership commitment and empowerment Leadership commitment and empowerment 1 .846 Leadership commitment and empowerment 2 .768 Leadership commitment and empowerment 3 .743 Leadership commitment and empowerment 4 .733 Leadership commitment and empowerment 5 .828 Leadership commitment and empowerment 6 .722 Leadership commitment and empowerment 7 .858 Leadership commitment and empowerment 8 .825 Leadership commitment and empowerment 9 .780 Leadership commitment and empowerment 10 .830 Leadership commitment and empowerment 11 .807 Leadership commitment and empowerment 12 .706 Leadership commitment and empowerment 13 .813 Leadership commitment and empowerment 14 .719 Leadership commitment and empowerment 15 .831 Leadership commitment and empowerment 17 .831 Leadership commitment and empowerment 18 .819

Leadership commitment and empowerment 19 .839 Leadership commitment and empowerment 20 .800 Leadership commitment and empowerment 21 .585 Leadership commitment and empowerment 22 .802 Eigen values 13.39 Explained Variance (%) 62.01 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 62.01

From Table 4.10, only one factor is extracted from factor analysis of leadership commitment and empowerment. Labelled the same as its construct – “leadership commitment and empowerment”. The factor is composed of twenty-one questions. They are considered loading high in all variables (of LeadCE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,20 and 22) except one (LeadCE 21), which is considered loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.785 and standard deviation is 0.065. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high. Total variance explained from this factor under LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment is 62.01%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.11 Table 4.11 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for leadership commitment and empowerment Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No.) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1. Leadership LeadCE 1 (21) .832 0.971 commitment and LeadCE 2 (22) .758 empowerment LeadCE 3 (23) .733 LeadCE 4 (24) .724 LeadCE 5 (25) .814 LeadCE 6 (26) .711 LeadCE 7 (27) .844 LeadCE 8 (28) .811 LeadCE 9 (29) .766 LeadCE 10 (30) .817 LeadCE 11 (31) .793 LeadCE 12 (32) .694 LeadCE 13 (33) .802 LeadCE 14 (34) .708 LeadCE 15 (35) .820 LeadCE 17 (37) .819 LeadCE 18 (38) .808 LeadCE 19 (39) .828 LeadCE 20 (40) .788 LeadCE 21 (41) .577 LeadCE 22 (42) .790

From Table 4.11, Item total correlation of each variable is shown in column 3 and the Cronbach alpha coefficient for leadership commitment and empowerment is 0.971. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is highly reliable in this factor and there is not much chance for unstable errors.

4.3.2.2 Analysis at Company A There is only one factor extracted from the factor analysis of leadership commitment and empowerment. It is labelled “leaders’ role and empowerment”. The result of factor analysis is shown in Table 4.12 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for Leadership commitment and empowerment. Table 4.12 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for leadership commitment and empowerment

Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 1.Leaders’ role and empowerment Leadership commitment and empowerment 3 .690 Leadership commitment and empowerment 4 .657 Leadership commitment and empowerment 11 .761 Leadership commitment and empowerment 12 .657 Leadership commitment and empowerment 13 .821 Leadership commitment and empowerment 14 .694 Leadership commitment and empowerment 15 .818 Leadership commitment and empowerment 17 .841 Leadership commitment and empowerment 18 .818 Leadership commitment and empowerment 19 .860 Leadership commitment and empowerment 20 .809 Leadership commitment and empowerment 21 .678 Leadership commitment and empowerment 22 .790 Eigen values 7.992 Explained Variance (%) 58.42 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 58.42

From Table 4.12, there is only one factor extracted which is “leaders’ role and empowerment”. Created from thirteen questions of LeadCE 3,4,11,12,13,14,15,17, 18,19,20,21, and 22 which all have high loading over 0.6 and the grand mean of this factor is 0.761 and standard deviation is 0.079. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high. The total variance explained for the LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment is 58.2%. The item total to correlation are shown in Table 4.13 Table 4.13 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for leadership commitment and empowerment

Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No) correlation Alpha Coefficient Leaders’ role and LeadCE3 (23) .674 0.947 empowerment LeadCE4 (24) .645 LeadCE11 (31) .736 LeadCE12 (32) .634 LeadCE13 (33) .797 LeadCE14 (34) .673 LeadCE15 (35) .793 LeadCE17 (37) .814 LeadCE18 (38) .795 LeadCE19 (39) .833

LeadCE20 (40) .785 LeadCE21 (41) .659 LeadCE22 (42) .769

From Table 4.13, item total correlation of each variable is shown in column 3 and the Cronbach alpha coefficient for leadership commitment and empowerment is 0.947. From Cooper and Schindler (2001), the figure advises that the measurement is reliable and hence, free from unstable errors.

4.3.2.3 Analysis at Company B Only one factor is extracted under LO characteristic of leadership commitment and empowerment, i.e. “leaders’ commitment and empowerment”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.14 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for leadership commitment and empowerment. Table 4.14 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for leadership commitment and empowerment

Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 1.Leaders’ commitment and empowerment Leadership commitment and empowerment 1 (21) .833 Leadership commitment and empowerment 5 (25) .813 Leadership commitment and empowerment 6 (26) .753 Leadership commitment and empowerment 7 (27) .879 Leadership commitment and empowerment 8 (28) .830 Leadership commitment and empowerment 9 (29) .794 Leadership commitment and empowerment 10 (30) .892 Leadership commitment and empowerment 11 (31) .846 Leadership commitment and empowerment 12 (32) .749 Leadership commitment and empowerment 13 (33) .832 Leadership commitment and empowerment 17 (37) .878 Leadership commitment and empowerment 21 (41) .449 Leadership commitment and empowerment 22 (42) .815 Eigen values 8.735 Explained Variance (%) 64.72 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 64.72

From Table 4.14, one factor is extracted from LO characteristic of leadership commitment and empowerment. It is labelled “leaders’ commitment and empowerment”, and is composed of thirteen variables. Twelve of the thirteen variables are considered high loading over 0.6 (LeadCE 1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,16,17, and 22) while only one variable (LeadEC 21) is considered loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.797 and standard deviation is 0.110. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.The total variance explained for this factor is 64.72%. The total item to correlation is shown in Table 4.15 Table 4.15 Item total correlation and Cronbach alpha for leadership commitment and empowerment

Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No) correlation Alpha Coefficient Leaders’ commitment LeadCE 1 (21) .816 0.957 and empowerment LeadCE 5 (25) .791 LeadCE 6 (26) .736 LeadCE 7 (27) .860 LeadCE 8 (28) .811 LeadCE 9 (29) .774 LeadCE 10 (30) .870 LeadCE 11 (31) .829 LeadCE 12 (32) .729 LeadCE 13 (33) .815 LeadCE 17 (37) .858 LeadCE 21 (41) .440 LeadCE 22 (42) .801

From Table 4.15, one factor is extracted from LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment which is labelled “leadership and empowerment”. The total item correlation is shown in column 3 of this table while Cronbach alpha coefficient for this factor is 0.957. Therefore, it shows high reliable of this factor.

4.3.3 LO characteristics of communication From reviewing the literature, communication is one of the LO characteristics. The analysis of communication in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand as a whole is undertaken first, followed by that of the in two participating companies.

4.3.3.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level Two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of communication: “norm of sharing knowledge” and “freely to share ideas”. The factor analysis of this construct is shown in Table 4.16 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication. Table 4.16 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Norm of sharing knowledge Communication 4 .585 .163 Communication 5 .842 -.051 Communication 6 .801 -.009 Communication 7 .684 .019 2.Freely to share ideas Communication 2 .258 .328 Communication 10 -.047 .810 Communication 11 -.081 .767 Communication 12 .159 .604 Communication 13 .134 .588

Eigen values 4.147 0.541 Explained Variance (%) 46.07 6.012 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 46.07 52.08

From Table 4.16, two factors are extracted from factor analysis of communication of “norm of sharing knowledge” involves four questions. Three of them are considered loading high over 0.6 (Comm 5,6 and 7), and one (Comm 4), moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.728 and standard deviation is 0.116. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “freely to share ideas” and is made up of five variables; three of them are considered loading high (Comm 10,11 and 12). Two variables, (comm. 2 and 13), factored between 0.3- 0.6 are considered moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.619 and standard deviation is 0.190. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.Total variance explained from these two factors or LO characteristic of communication is 52.08%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.17 Table 4.17 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for communication Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No.) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Norm of sharing Comm 4 (46) .619 0.834 knowledge Comm 5 (47) .713 Comm 6 (48) .704 Comm 7 (49) .637

2. Freely to share idea Comm 2 (44) .464 0.816 Comm 10 (52) .674 Comm 11 (53) .623 Comm 12 (54) .635 Comm 13 (55) .632

From Table 4.17, two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of communication. The item total to correlation is revealed in column 3 of the table, Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 – “norm of sharing knowledge” is 0.834 and for factor 2- “freely to share ideas”, 0.816. Cronbach alpha coefficients all show over 0.7. Therefore, they are considered to be reliable for factors extracted from the factor analysis.

4.3.3.2 Analysis at Company A There are 2 factors extracted from LO characteristic of communication. Thus, the LO characteristic of communication is measured regarding to “supportive and freely to share ideas”, and “openness and

100 shared communication”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.18 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication. Table 4.18 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Supportive and freely to share ideas Communication 7 .564 .036 Communication 10 .621 .141 Communication 11 .482 .177 Communication 12 .900 -.131 Communication 13 .679 -.0009 2.Openness and shared communication Communication 1 -.030 .662 Communication 2 .003 .643 Communication 3 .156 .521 Eigen values 3.706 0.986 Explained Variance (%) 39.68 5.504 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 39.68 45.18

From Table 4.18, Factor 1 “supportive and freely to share idea” is consisted of five questions of which 3 variables are considered loading high over 0.6 (Comm 10,12, and 13) and moderately high loading in two variables (Comm 7 and 11). The grand mean of this factor is 0.811 and standard deviation is 0.240. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “openness and shared communication” and is formed by 3 variables, which is high loading in 2 variables (Comm 1 and 2) and moderately high in (Comm 3). The grand mean of this factor is 0.609 and standard deviation is 0.076. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.The total variance explained from these 2 factors underneath LO characteristic of communication is 45.18%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.19 Table 4.19 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for communication Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1. Supportive and freely Comm 7 (49) .519 0.811 to share ideas Comm 10 (52) .647 Comm 11 (53) .548 Comm 12 (54) .694 Comm 13 (55) .591

2. Openness to shared Comm 1 (43) .498 0.676 communication Comm 2 (44) .495 Comm 3 (45) .476

From Table 4.19, item total correlation is revealed in column 3 of the table, Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 – “supportive and freely to share idea” is 0.811; while factor 2- “openness to

101 shared communication” is 0.676. It can be considered highly reliable in factor1 and reasonable reliable in factor 2.

4.3.3.3 Analysis at Company B One factor is extracted from LO characteristic of communication and is labelled “open communication (culture)”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.20 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication. Table 4.20 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for communication Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 1.Open communication (culture) Communication 2 .639 Communication 3 .716 Communication 4 .745 Communication 6 .746 Communication 7 .626 Communication 8 .630 Communication 11 .672 Communication 12 .676 Communication 13 .687 Eigen values 4.202 Explained Variance (%) 46.69 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 46.69

From Table 4.20, only 1 factor is extracted under the LO characteristic of communication at Company B which is labelled “open communication (culture)” and is composed of nine questions of which all of them are considered high loading over 0.6 (Comm 2,3,4,6,7,8,11,12,13). The grand mean of this factor is 0.682 and standard deviation is 0.046. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high. The total variance explained for this factor or LO characteristic of communication is 46.69%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.21 Table 4.21 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for communication Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1. Open communication Comm 2 (44) .597 0.884 (culture) Comm 3 (45) .662 Comm 4 (46) .685 Comm 6 (48) .695 Comm 7 (49) .578 Comm 8 (50) .592 Comm 11 (53) .637 Comm 12 (54) .638 Comm 13 (55) .650

102

From Table 4.21, only 1 factor is extracted. The factor is labelled as “open communication (culture)” Total item correlation is shown in column 3 of the table while Chonbach alpha coefficient for these factors are 0.884. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7; thus it is considered reliable in respect of this factor.

4.3.4 LO characteristics of knowledge transfer From literature review, knowledge transfer is one of the characteristics in an LO. This section will deal with this LO characteristics at industry aggregate and company levels.

4.3.4.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level Three factors are extracted from LO characteristics of knowledge transfer, namely “accessible storage system”, “willingness to share knowledge” and “supportive data system”. The factor analysis of this construct is shown in Table 4.22 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer. Table 4.22 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor3 1.Accessible storage system Knowledge transfer 12 .592 .131 .019 Knowledge transfer 14 .661 .053 .157 Knowledge transfer 15 .874 -.144 .052 Knowledge transfer 16 .541 .115 .136 Knowledge transfer 18 .864 -.031 -.025 2. Willingness to share knowledge Knowledge transfer 5 .230 .305 .242 Knowledge transfer 6 -.166 .684 .122 Knowledge transfer 7 .292 .409 .015 Knowledge transfer 8 .032 .648 .130 Knowledge transfer 9 .004 .748 .033 Knowledge transfer 10 -.024 .795 -.105 Knowledge transfer 17 .193 .623 -.055 3.Supportive data system Knowledge transfer 1 .021 -.043 .833 Knowledge transfer 3 .145 .105 .509 Eigen values 5.980 1.973 0.855 Explained Variance (%) 39.47 11.11 3.142 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 39.47 50.58 53.72

From Table 4.22, three factors are extracted from factor analysis of knowledge transfer; Factor 1 is labelled “accessible storage system” and comprises five questions. Three of the five variables are considered loading high (Kt 14,15,and 18), and two, being factored under 0.6, moderately high (Kt 12 and 16). The grand mean of this factor is 0.706 and standard deviation is 0.154. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

103

Factor 2 is labelled “willingness to share knowledge” and is made up of seven variables, five of them are considered to be high loading (Kt 6,8,9,10, and 17) while the other two (Kt 5 and 7) are considered moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.602 and standard deviation is 0.179. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “supportive data system”, and consists of two variables. One of the variables is loading high (Kt 1) while another is loading moderately high (Kt 3). The grand mean of this factor is 0.671 and standard deviation is 0.229. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high. Total variance explained from these two factors or LO characteristics of knowledge transfer is 53.72%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.23 Table 4.23 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge transfer Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No.) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Accessible storage Kt12 (67) .616 0.873 system Kt14 (69) .731 Kt15 (70) .775 Kt16 (71) .637 Kt18 (73) .757

2. Willingness to share Kt 5 (60) .511 0.843 knowledge Kt 6 (61) .605 Kt 7 (62) .523 Kt 8 (63) .675 Kt 9 (64) .682 Kt10 (65) .619 Kt17 (72) .603

3.Supportive data system Kt 1 (56) .539 0.699 Kt 3 (58) .539

From Table 4.23, three factors are extracted: “accessible storage system”, “willingness to share knowledge”, and “supportive data system”. The item total to correlation of each factor is presented in column 3 of the table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for accessible storage system is 0.873; willingness to share knowledge is 0.843; and supportive data system is 0.699. Cronbach alpha coefficients shows about 0.7 and above, as a result the reliability of those factors is confirmed.

4.3.4.2 Analysis at Company A Three factors are extracted from LO characteristics of knowledge transfer. In regard to Company A, they are “accessible storage system”, “willingness to share knowledge”, and “supportive data

104 system”. The factor analysis is given in Table 4.24 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer Table 4.24 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1.Accesscible storage system Knowledge transfer 12 .660 .088 .029 Knowledge transfer 14 .654 .075 .204 Knowledge transfer 15 .834 -.197 .132 Knowledge transfer 16 .519 .232 .094 Knowledge transfer 18 .779 .011 -.041 2.Willingness to share knowledge Knowledge transfer 5 .271 .318 .211 Knowledge transfer 6 -.111 .610 .201 Knowledge transfer 8 .091 .565 .207 Knowledge transfer 9 -.098 .763 .093 Knowledge transfer 10 -.091 .793 -.030 Knowledge transfer 11 .262 .569 -.201 Knowledge transfer 17 .207 .652 -.032 3.Supportive data system Knowledge transfer 1 .183 .067 .633 Knowledge transfer 3 .121 .076 .506 Eigen values 5.828 1.928 1.007 Explained Variance (%) 38.29 10.74 3.474 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 38.29 49.03 52.50

From Table 4.24, three factors are extracted under LO characteristic of knowledge transfer. Factor 1 is “accessible storage system”, created from five questions (Kt 12,14,15,16,18). Four of them are considered to be high loading – over 0.6 (Kt 12, 14,15,18), while only one variable is moderately high loading (Kt 16). The grand mean of this factor is 0.689 and standard deviation is 0.122. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “willingness to share knowledge”, it is made up of seven questions, of which four are high loading (Kt 6,9,10,17) and moderately high loading (Kt 5,8 and 11). The grand mean of this factor is 0.610 and standard deviation is 0.157. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “supportive data system”, and is formed by two variables. One is considered loading high (Kt 1), while the other is considered moderately high (Kt 3). The grand mean of this factor is 0.569 and standard deviation is 0.008. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.The total variance explained under these three factors as to LO characteristics of knowledge transfer is 52.5%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.25 Table 4.25 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge transfer Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha

105

(Question No) Coefficient 1.Accesscible storage Kt 12 (67) .644 0.858 systems Kt 14 (69) .706 Kt 15 (70) .725 Kt 16 (71) .601 Kt 18 (73) .700

2.Willingness to share Kt 5 (60) .510 0.846 knowledge Kt 6 (61) .593 Kt 8 (63) .659 Kt 9 (64) .685 Kt 10 (65) .640 Kt 11 (66) .528 Kt 17 (72) .649

3.Supportive data Kt 1 (56) .473 0.642 system Kt 3 (58) .473

From Table 4.25, three factors are extracted: “accessible storage system”, “willingness to share knowledge”, and “supportive data system”. The item total to correlation of each factor is exposed in column 3 of the table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for ‘accessible storage systems’ is 0.858; for ‘willingness to share knowledge’ is 0.846; and for “supportive data system” is 0.642. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 in factor 1 and 2, while it is a little bit lower than 0.7 in factor 3. Nonetheless, it can still be claimed that there is high level of reliability in those three factors.

4.3.4.3 Analysis at Company B Two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of knowledge transfer: “knowledge distribution and memory systems” and “willingness to share knowledge”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.26 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer. Table 4.26 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge transfer Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Knowledge distribution & memory systems Knowledge transfer 1 .649 -.011 Knowledge transfer 3 .626 .150 Knowledge transfer 4 .754 .079 Knowledge transfer 5 .481 .234 Knowledge transfer 12 .578 .110 Knowledge transfer 14 .785 -.008 Knowledge transfer 15 .886 -.144 Knowledge transfer 16 .697 .008 Knowledge transfer 18 .927 -.123 2.Willingness to share knowledge Knowledge transfer 6 -.161 .753 Knowledge transfer 7 .287 .520 Knowledge transfer 8 .069 .706 Knowledge transfer 9 .131 .706 Knowledge transfer 10 -.049 .740

106

Knowledge transfer 17 .124 .591 Eigen values 6.194 1.771 Explained Variance (%) 41.29 11.81 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 41.29 53.10

From Table 4.26 two factors are extracted. Factor 1 is labelled “knowledge distribution and memory systems”, and is made up of nine questions. Seven of the nine variables are considered loading high, over 0.6 (Kt 1,3,4,14,15,16 and 18), while two variables are considered for loading moderately high (Kt 5 and 12). The grand mean of this factor is 0.709 and standard deviation is 0.144. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “willingness to share knowledge”, and is consisted of six questions of which four variables are considered high loading over 0.6 (Kt 6,8,9 and 10) whereas variables factored between 0.3 - 0.6 are considered for loading moderately high – Kt 7 and 17. The grand mean of this factor is 0.669 and standard deviation is 0.093. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high. The total variance explained for these two factors or LO characteristic of knowledge transfer is 53.1%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.27 Table 4.27 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge transfer Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1. Knowledge Kt 1 (56) .636 0.913 distribution and memory Kt 3 (58) .673 system Kt 4 (59) .767 Kt 5 (60) .571 Kt 12 (67) .621 Kt 14 (69) .749 Kt 15 (70) .769 Kt 16 (71) .672 Kt 18 (73) .823

2.Willingness to share Kt 6 (61) .599 0.848 knowledge Kt 7 (62) .584 Kt 8 (63) .684 Kt 9 (64) .693 Kt 10 (65) .642 Kt 17 (72) .601

From Table 4.27, two factors are extracted. They are “knowledge distribution and memory systems” and “willingness to share knowledge”. The total item to correlation is shown in column 3 of this table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for knowledge distribution and memory system and willingness to share knowledge are 0.913 and 0.848 respectively. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 therefore it can be declared to be reliable for both factor 1 and 2.

107

4.3.5 LO characteristics of employee characteristics From existing literature, there are certain employee characteristics that are unique in LOs. The analyses of employee characteristics of the mobile phone service industry in Thailand, and at Company A and B are shown respectively in this section.

4.3.5.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level Two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of employee characteristics. As a result, the LO characteristic of employee characteristics in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand is assessed by these two factors which are “employee proficiency” and “human resources emphasis”. The factor analysis of this construct is shown in Table 4.28 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics. Table 4.28 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Employee proficiency Employee characteristic 1 .662 -.013 Employee characteristic 3 .672 .005 Employee characteristic 4 .633 .065 Employee characteristic 5 .849 -.116 Employee characteristic 6 .706 -.008 Employee characteristic 7 .694 .060 Employee characteristic 8 .738 .011 Employee characteristic 9 .664 .044 Employee characteristic 10 .684 .022 2. Human resources emphasis Employee characteristic 11 .047 .716 Employee characteristic 12 -.118 .797 Employee characteristic 13 .218 .442 Employee characteristic 14 .001 .790 Employee characteristic 15 .059 .708 Eigen values 6.195 1.865 Explained Variance (%) 40.75 10.08 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 40.75 50.83

From Table 4.28, two factors are extracted from factor analysis of employee characteristics of the mobile phone service industry in Thailand. Factor 1 is labelled “employee proficiency” and involves nine questions. All variables are considered loading high under this factor (EmpC 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,and 10). The grand mean of this factor is 0.678 and standard deviation is 0.032. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “human resources emphasis” and involves five variables. Four of them are considered to be high loading (EmpC 11,12,14, and15) while the remaining one is moderately high loading (EmpC 13). The grand mean of this factor is 0.691 and standard deviation is 0.145.

108

Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.Total variance explained from these two factors is 50.83%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.29 Table 4.29 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for employee characteristics Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No.) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Employee proficiency EmpC 1 (74) .620 0.897 EmpC 3 (76) .642 EmpC 4 (77) .624 EmpC 5 (78) .741 EmpC 6 (79) .656 EmpC 7 (80) .683 EmpC 8 (81) .698 EmpC 9 (82) 646 EmpC 10 (83) .654

2. Human resources EmpC 11 (84) .659 0.832 emphasis EmpC 12 (85) .650 EmpC 13 (86) .497 EmpC 14 (87) .701 EmpC 15 (88) .677

From Table 4.29, two factors are extracted. It is labelled “employee proficiency” and “human resource emphasis”. Total item to correlation is shown in column 3 and the Cronbach alpha coefficient for “employee proficiency” is 0.897; whereas for “human resource emphasis” is 0.832. The Cronbach alpha coefficient show over 0.7, therefore it can be claimed to be reliable in these two factors.

4.3.5.2 Analysis at Company A Two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of employee characteristics: “employee proficiency” and “human resource emphasis”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.30 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics. Table 4.30 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Employee proficiency Employee characteristic 1 .727 -.067 Employee characteristic 3 .713 -.017 Employee characteristic 4 .498 .165 Employee characteristic 5 .842 -.097 Employee characteristic 6 .720 -.076 Employee characteristic 7 .668 .090 Employee characteristic 8 .690 .043 Employee characteristic 9 .515 .221 Employee characteristic 10 .621 .106 2.Human Resource emphasis .107 .669 Employee characteristic 11

109

Employee characteristic 12 -.129 .793 Employee characteristic 13 .061 .632 Employee characteristic 14 .019 .771 Employee characteristic 15 .141 .661 Eigen values 6.270 1.753 Explained Variance (%) 41.27 9.185 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 41.27 50.45

From Table 4.30, two factors are extracted under LO characteristics of employee characteristics. Factor 1 is labelled “employee proficiency” and consists of nine questions. Seven of the questions are considered high loading (EmpC 1,3,5,6,7,8,10), while two, moderately high (EmpC 4,9). The grand mean of this factor is 0.666 and standard deviation is 0.108. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “human resource emphasis” and is composed of five questions (EmpC11, 12,13,14,15), all of which are high loading over 0.6. The grand mean of this factor is 0.705 and standard deviation is 0.072. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high. The total variance explained by these two factors under LO characteristic of employee characteristics is 50.45%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.31 Table 4. 31 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for employee characteristics Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Employee proficiency EmpC 1 (74) .641 0.889 EmpC 3 (76) .661 EmpC 4 (77) .551 EmpC 5 (78) .731 EmpC 6 (79) .625 EmpC 7 (80) .685 EmpC 8 (81) .670 EmpC 9 (82) .607 EmpC 10 (83) .638

2.Human Resource EmpC 11 (84) .654 0.840 emphasis EmpC 12 (85) .646 EmpC 13 (86) .596 EmpC 14 (87) .700 EmpC 15 (88) .663

From Table 4.31, two factors are extracted. It is labelled “employee proficiency” and “human resource emphasis”. Total item to correlation is shown in column 3 and the Cronbach alpha coefficient for “employee proficiency” is 0.889; whereas for “human resource emphasis” is 0.840. Both of the figures show over 0.7. Thus, it is reasonable to proclaim that these two factors are reliable.

110

4.3.5.3 Analysis at Company B Two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of employee characteristics, namely “employee proficiency” and “human resource values”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.32 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics. Table 4.32 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for employee characteristics Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Employee proficiency Employee characteristic 1 .596 .087 Employee characteristic 3 .632 .016 Employee characteristic 4 .759 .027 Employee characteristic 5 .813 -.031 Employee characteristic 6 .691 .105 Employee characteristic 7 .685 .085 Employee characteristic 8 .790 -.043 Employee characteristic 9 .777 -.096 Employee characteristic 10 .748 -.067 2.Human Resource values Employee characteristic 11 .040 .765 Employee characteristic 12 -.056 .764 Employee characteristic 14 .058 .759 Eigen values 5.661 1.776 Explained Variance (%) 43.41 11.36 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 43.41 54.77

From Table 4.32, Factor 1 “employee proficiency” is composed of nine questions of which eight variables are considered loading high over 0.6 (EmpC 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10). Only one variable under this factor is considered loading moderately high (EmpC 1). The grand mean of this factor is 0.721 and standard deviation is 0.074. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “human resource values”, and comprises three questions. All of the three variables are considered loading high over 0.6 (EmpC11, 12, and 14). The grand mean of this factor is 0.763 and standard deviation is 0.003. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.The total variance explained for these two factors or LO characteristic of employee characteristics is 54.77%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.33 Table 4.33 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for employee characteristics Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Employee proficiency EmpC 1 (74) .603 0.907 EmpC 3 (76) .611 EmpC 4 (77) .728 EmpC 5 (78) .757 EmpC 6 (79) .693 EmpC 7 (80) .675 EmpC 8 (81) .731

111

EmpC 9 (82) .701 EmpC 10 (83) .677

2.Human Resource EmpC 11 (84) .670 0.809 values EmpC 12 (85) .647 EmpC 14 (87) .664

From Table 4.33, two factors are extracted. They are “employee proficiency” and “human resource values”. The total item correlation is shown in column 3 of the Table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “employee proficiency” is 0.907 whereas; factor 2 “human resource values”, 0.809. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 in both factors, and therefore, the figures show high level of reliability.

4.3.6 LO characteristics of performance upgrading From the existing literature, performance upgrading is one of the LO characteristics. The analysis will be conducted first at the industry and then firm levels.

4.3.6.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level Two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of performance upgrading and they are “improvement outcome” and “performance driving”. The factor analysis of this construct is shown in Table 4.34 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading. Table 4.34 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Improvement outcome Performance upgrading 6 .542 .246 Performance upgrading 7 .407 .236 Performance upgrading 8 .767 .037 Performance upgrading 9 .921 -.152 2.Performance driving Performance upgrading 2 -.014 .578 Performance upgrading 4 .017 .726 Performance upgrading 5 .034 .740 Eigen values 2.928 .683 Explained Variance (%) 41.83 9.762 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 41.83 51.59

From Table 4.34, Factor 1 “improvement outcome” is made up of four questions. Two for the variables (Pfu 8 and 9) are considered loading high; whereas, the other two (Pfu 6 and 7), moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.659 and standard deviation is 0.229. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

112

Factor 2 is labelled “performance driving” and is constructed by four variables. Two of the variables are considered to be loading high (Pfu 4 and 5). Only one is factored between 0.3 - 0.6 is considered moderately high (Pfu 6 and 7). The grand mean of this factor is 0.681 and standard deviation is 0.090. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high. Total variance explained from these two factors or LO characteristic of performance upgrading is 51.59%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.35 Table 4.35 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for performance upgrading Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No.) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Improvement outcome Pfu 6 (94) .620 0.798 Pfu 7 (95) .500 Pfu 8 (96) .682 Pfu 9 (97) .668

2.Performance driving Pfu 2 (90) .476 0.730 Pfu 4 (92) .597 Pfu 5 (93) .594

From Table 4.35, two factors are extracted “Improvement outcome” and “performance driving”. The total item correlation is illustrated in column 3 of this table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 of improvement outcome is 0.798 while for factor 2 of performance driving is 0.730. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 and therefore, these two factors are considered to be reliable.

4.3.6.2 Analysis at Company A Two factors are extracted under LO characteristic of performance upgrading: “improvement approach” and “performance outcome”. The factor analysis of performance upgrading is shown in Table 4.36 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading Table 4.36 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 1.Improvement approach Performance upgrading 1 .542 .041 Performance upgrading 2 .614 -.057 Performance upgrading 3 .591 .173 Performance upgrading 4 .804 -.129 Performance upgrading 5 .686 -.051 Performance upgrading 6 .486 .168 Performance upgrading 7 .362 .199 2.Performance outcome Performance upgrading 8 .123 .689 Performance upgrading 9 -.045 .823 Eigen values 3.747 1.188 Explained Variance (%) 35.50 8.340 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 35.50 43.84

113

From Table 4.36, two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of performance upgrading. Factor 1 is labelled “improvement approach” and is composed of seven variables of which three are high loading over 0.6 – Pfu 2,4,5. The other four are factored under 0.6 and are considered moderately high loading (Pfu 1,3,6,7). The grand mean of this factor is 0.583 and standard deviation is 0.142. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 2 is labelled “performance outcome” and is made up of two variables, both of which are high loading over 0.6 (Pfu 8,9). The grand mean of this factor is 0.756 and standard deviation is 0.095. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.The total variance explained by these two factors as to LO characteristic of performance upgrading is 43.84%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.37 Table 4.37 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for performance upgrading Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach (Question No) correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Improvement Pfu 1 (89) .508 0.796 approach Pfu 2 (90) .507 Pfu 3 (91) .604 Pfu 4 (92) .630 Pfu 5 (93) .568 Pfu 6 (94) .517 Pfu 7 (95) .413

2.Performance outcome Pfu 8 (96) .604 0.752 Pfu 9 (97) .604

From Table 4.37, two factors are extracted “Improvement approach” and “performance outcome”. The total item correlation is illustrated in column 3 of this table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 of “improvement approach” is 0.796 and, for factor 2 of “performance outcome”, 0.752. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 therefore, it can be declared that those two factors are reliable in this study.

4.3.6.3 Analysis at Company B Two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of performance upgrading in Company B. They are “improvement outcome” and “performance driving”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.38 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading. Table 4.38 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for performance upgrading Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2

114

1.Improvement outcome Performance upgrading 6 .709 .090 Performance upgrading 7 .837 -.097 Performance upgrading 8 .598 .146 Performance upgrading 9 .812 .035 2.Performance driving Performance upgrading 2 -.007 .703 Performance upgrading 3 .197 .542 Performance upgrading 4 -.072 .772 Performance upgrading 5 .099 .646 Eigen values 4.399 0.913 Explained Variance (%) 49.51 5.835 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 49.51 55.34

From Table 4.38, two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of performance upgrading. Factor 1 is labelled “improvement outcome” and is made up of four questions of which three variables are considered high loading (Pfu 6,7 and 9), and one, moderately high (Pfu 8). The grand mean of this factor is 0.739 and standard deviation is 0.109. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “performance driving” and consists of four questions. Three of the variables are loading high (Pfu 2,4,and 5); and the remaining one, moderately high (Pfu 3). The grand mean of this factor is 0.666 and standard deviation is 0.097. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high. The total variance explained for these factors or LO characteristic of performance upgrading is 55.34%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.39 Table 4.39 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for performance upgrading Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha (Question No) Coefficient 1.Improvement Pfu 6 (94) .694 0.853 outcome Pfu 7 (95) .682 Pfu 8 (96) .656 Pfu 9 (97) .654

2.Performance driving Pfu 2 (90) .603 0.798 Pfu 3 (91) .597 Pfu 4 (92) .620 Pfu 5 (93) .631

From Table 4.39, two factors are extracted from LO characteristic of performance upgrading. The total item to correlation is shown in column 3. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “improvement outcome” is 0.853 and, for factor 2 “performance driving”, 0.798. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 therefore, it can be claimed that these two factors are reliable.

115

4.4 The Descriptive Analysis of LO Characteristics

The descriptive analysis in this section aims to show mean and standard deviation of each question under LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading. From that point of view, the strength and weakness of becoming an LO will be analysed further at both industry and company levels. The descriptive analysis will be presented at industry aggregate level first followed by company level.

4.4.1 Cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading This section shows mean and standard deviation of LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading of the mobile service industry in Thailand followed by Company A and B respectively.

4.4.1.1 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at the industry aggregate level The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics of the mobile phone service industry in Thailand is shown in Table 4.40 Table 4.40 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at the industry aggregate level Constructs/ Factors Questions Reliability Mean SD. Dimensions Cultural Accommodating 6,7,11,12,13,14,16,17,18, .872 5.00 1.139 values learning culture 20 Learning from sources 2,3,4,8 .584 5.34 1.042 Total mean 5.17 1.090 Leadership Leadership 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, .971 5.12 1.304 commitment commitment & 13,14,15,17,18,19,20,21, and empowerment 22 empowerment Total mean 5.12 1.304 Communica- Norm of sharing 4,5,6,7 .837 4.83 1.136 tion knowledge Freely to share ideas 2,10,11,12,13 .816 4.67 1.393 Total mean 4.75 1.264 Knowledge Accessible storage 12,14,15,16,18 .873 4.91 1.197 transfer systems Willingness to share 5,6,7,8,9,10, 17 .843 5.47 0.998 knowledge Supportive data 1,3 .699 5.38 1.091 system Total mean 5.25 1.095 Employee Employee proficiency 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 .897 5.60 0.934

116

characteristics Human resource 11,12,13,14,15 .823 5.41 1.086 emphasis Total mean 5.50 1.010 Performance Improvement outcome 6,7,8,9 .798 4.98 1.376 upgrading Performance driving 2,4,5 .730 4.79 1.340 Total mean 4.88 1.358

The descriptive analysis of mean of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand from Table 4.40 will be applied for further discussion in the chapter 5 in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the industry.

4.4.1.2 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company A The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company A is shown in Table 4.41 Table 4.41 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company A Constructs/ Factors Questions Reliability Mean SD. Dimensions Cultural Enhancing 6,7,10,12,13,20 .817 5.07 1.179 values learning culture Knowledge 1,2,3,4,8,18 .702 5.38 1.009 expand through sources Total mean 5.22 1.094 Leadership Leaders' role and 3,4,11,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,2 .947 5.23 1.201 commitment empowerment 0,21,22 and Total mean 5.23 1.201 empowerment Communica- Supportive and 7,10,11,12,13 .811 4.70 1.306 tion freely to share ideas Openness and 1,2,3 .676 5.30 1.105 shared communication Total mean 5.00 1.205 Knowledge Accessible 12,14,15,16,18 .858 4.95 1.079 transfer storage systems Willingness to 5,6,8,9,10,11,17 .846 5.55 0.934 share knowledge Supportive data 1,3 .642 5.53 0.981 system Total mean 5.34 0.998 Employee Employee 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 .889 5.65 0.919 characteristics proficiency Human resource 11,12,13,14,15 .840 5.56 0.974 emphasis Total mean 5.60 .946 Performance Improvement 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 .796 5.00 1.165 upgrading approach Performance 8,9 .752 5.87 0.980 outcome Total mean 5.43 1.072

117

The descriptive analysis of mean of Company A from Table 4.41 will be applied for further discussion in the next Chapter in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the company.

4.4.3 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company B The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company B is shown in Table 4.42 Table 4.42 The descriptive analysis of LO characteristics at Company B Constructs/ Factors Questions Reliability Mean SD. Dimensions Cultural values Supportive 6,7,12,14,17,18,20 .853 4.76 1.394 learning culture Training 1,10,11 .719 5.11 1.258 background Learning by 2,8 .489 5.78 0.928 sharing Total mean 5.22 1.193 Leadership Leaders’ 1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,17, .957 4.91 1.385 commitment and commitment & 21,22 empowerment empowerment Total mean 4.91 1.385 Communication Open 2,3,4,6,7,8,11,12,13 .884 4.68 1.359 communication (Culture) Total mean 4.68 1.359 Knowledge Knowledge 1,3,4,5,12,14,15,16,18 .913 4.92 1.290 transfer distribution and memory system Wiliness to share 6,7,8,9,10,17 .848 5.42 1.072 knowledge Total mean 5.17 1.181 Employee Employee 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 .907 5.51 0.950 characteristics proficiency Human resource 11,12,14 .809 5.08 1.317 value Total mean 5.29 1.133 Performance Improvement 6,7,8,9 .853 4.33 1.405 upgrading outcome Performance 2,3,4,5 .798 4.86 1.331 driving Total mean 4.59 1.368

The descriptive analysis of mean at Company B from Table 4.42 will be applied for further discussion in the Chapter 5 in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the company.

118

4.5 The Factor Analysis of LO Development Stages

Factor analysis is a statistical technique, which can be applied to examine a broad range of data sets. Its main purpose is to reduce the numbers of variables as well as to identify the structure of relationship between those variables; thus, it is a data reduction and structure detection method (Kim & Mueller, 1986). Kline (1997) advocates that it is a statistic technique to simplify the complexity of data. Therefore, this study applied factor analysis for these purposes.

This section aims to illustrate the integration of variables from the questionnaire survey using factor analysis. It shows a summarization of constructs under LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization. This section summarizes variables that help answer the second research question: whether an LO is developed through a sequential order of LO development stages - knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization. The findings help identify the correlation between the LO development stages and the organizational readiness-to-change, as suggested in section. 4.6, thereby confirming hypotheses H2-1 to H2-3.

4.5.1 LO development stage of knowledge acquisition (KA) From the review of the literature, knowledge acquisition seems to take place when an organization starts to develop into an LO. The analysis of knowledge acquisition of the mobile phone service in Thailand will be conducted first at the industry aggregate level, then, the company level.

4.5.1.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level At the industry aggregate level, four factors are extracted from LO development stage of knowledge acquisition: “leaders’ responsibility in KA”, “employees’ expertise”, “means to obtain knowledge”, and “training and learning implementation”. The factor analysis of this construct is shown in Table 4.43 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition. Table 4.43 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1.Leaders’ responsibility in knowledge acquisition Cultural values 6 .643 -.010 .191 .071 Cultural values 20 .462 -.027 .168 .059 Leadership com & emp 1 .902 -.019 -.040 -.018 Leadership com & emp 3 .704 .036 .026 .084 Leadership com & emp 4 .758 .079 -.093 .060 Leadership com & emp 5 .880 .016 -.137 .102 Leadership com & emp 7 .869 .048 .001 -.052 Leadership com & emp 10 .885 .035 -.050 -.056 Leadership com & emp 11 .753 -.008 -.008 .044

119

Leadership com & emp 15 .713 .065 .193 -.078 Leadership com & emp 18 .742 .040 0.67 .014 Leadership com & emp 19 .726 -.021 .192 -.039 2.Employees’ expertise Employee characteristics 1 -.0007 .563 .091 .020 Employee characteristics 7 .034 .581 .082 .089 Employee characteristics 8 .041 .834 -.021 .030 Employee characteristics 10 .076 .693 -.028 .020 3.Means to obtain knowledge Cultural values 10 -.007 -.110 .691 .159 Cultural values 11 .058 .062 .523 .176 Communciation 7 .132 -.032 .411 .077 Employee characteristics 12 .053 .071 .652 -.066 Employee characteristics 14 .149 .183 .623 -.061 Employee characteristics 15 .022 .218 .554 .039 4.Training and learning implementation Cultural values 1 .018 -.030 .238 .497 Cultural values 2 .052 .059 -.025 .553 Cultural values 3 -.026 .081 .064 .439 Cultural values 4 .107 -.032 -.036 .440 Cultural values 8 -.080 .223 -.025 .441 Cultural values 9 .138 -.033 .152 .375 Eigen values 11.17 2.448 1.571 1.263 Explained Variance (%) 38.44 7.059 3.933 2.284 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 38.44 45.50 49.43 51.72

From Table 4.43, four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of knowledge acquisition. Factor 1 is labelled “leaders’ responsibility in KA”, and is composed of twelve questions. All of the variables except one (Cv 20) are considered loading high (Cv6, LeadCE 1,3,4,5,7,10,15,18, and 19). The grand mean of this factor is 0.753 and standard deviation is 0.193. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “employees’ expertise”, and involves four questions, of which two are considered loading high (Emp 9 and 10); while the other two, moderately high (Emp 1 and 7). The grand mean of this factor is 0.668 and standard deviation is 0.125. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “means to obtain knowledge”, and has six questions. Three of variables are considered for loading high (Cv 10, Emp 12 and 14). The other three are considered loading moderately high (Cv 11, Comm 7 and Emp 15). The grand mean of this factor is 0.576 and standard deviation is 0.114. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 4 is labelled “training and learning implementation” and consists of six questions. All of the variables are considered for loading moderately high (Cv 1,2,3,4,8, and 9). The grand mean of this

120 factor is 0.457 and standard deviation is 0.069. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high.Total variance explained by these four factors as to assess the LO development of knowledge acquisition at the industry aggregate level is 51.72%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.44 Table 4.44 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge acquisition Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha

Coefficient 1.Leaders’ responsibility in Cv 6 .741 0.952 knowledge acquisition Cv 20 .580 LeadCE 1 .835 LeadCE 3 .756 LeadCE 4 .739 LeadCE 5 .823 LeadCE 7 .839 LeadCE 10 812 LeadCE 11 .751 LeadCE 15 .797 LeadCE 18 .788 LeadCE 19 .807

2.Employees’ expertise Emp 1 .537 0.806 Emp 7 .599 Emp 8 .721 Emp 10 .633

3.Means to obtain knowledge Cv 10 .627 0.824 Cv 11 .604 Comm 7 .468 Emp 12 .602 Emp 14 .665 Emp 15 .614

4.Training and learning Cv 1 .459 0.694 implementation Cv 2 .470 Cv 3 .433 Cv 4 .402 Cv 8 .395 Cv 9 .424

From Table 4.44, four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition. The total item to correlation is shown in column 3 of the table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leaders’ undertaking in KA” is 0.952; factor 2 “employees’ expertise” is 0.806; factor 3 “means to obtain knowledge” is 0.824; and factor 4 “training and learning implementation” is 0.694. The Cronbach alpha coefficients all show over 0.7 except factor 4 which is nearly 0.7. However, it still can be claimed that those factors are all reliable under these figures.

121

4.5.1.2 Analysis at Company A Four factors are extracted under LO development stage of knowledge acquisition, namely “supportive environment for KA”, “employees’ expertise”, “human resource quality”, and “training and learning implementation”. The factor analysis of knowledge acquisition is shown in Table 4.45 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition. Table 4.45 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1.Supportive environment for KA Cultural values 6 .617 -.127 .182 .146 Cultural values 13 .394 .019 -.042 .168 Cultural values 20 .515 .097 .066 -.025 Leadership com & emp 1 .841 -.055 -.015 .084 Leadership com & emp 3 .712 .041 .107 -.088 Leadership com & emp 5 .866 .043 .007 -.034 Leadership com & emp 7 .845 -.052 .104 -.014 Leadership com & emp 10 .886 .054 -.068 -.162 Leadership com & emp 15 .758 .082 -.028 .042 Leadership com & emp 18 .706 .061 .023 .101 Leadership com & emp 19 .778 .005 .009 .094 2.Employees’ expertise Employee characteristics 1 .092 .620 -.068 .050 Employee characteristics 7 -.061 .604 .140 .062 Employee characteristics 8 -.066 .866 .043 -.054 Employee characteristics 10 .112 .634 -.006 .012 3.Human resource quality Employee characteristics 12 .065 -.049 .735 -.090 Employee characteristics 13 -.080 .067 .637 .144 Employee characteristics 14 .186 .076 .591 -.010 Employee characteristics 15 .009 .150 .645 .062 4.Training and learning implementation Cultural values 1 .151 .056 .140 .488 Cultural values 2 -.042 .078 -.017 .696 Cultural values 9 .205 .021 .063 .316 Cultural values 11 .129 .063 .267 .329 Eigen values 9.659 2.088 1.353 1.177 Explained Variance (%) 40.21 7.254 3.832 2.799 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 40.21 47.46 51.30 54.09

From Table 4.45, four factors are extracted form the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition at Company A. Factor 1 is labelled “supportive environment for KA”, and has eleven questions. Nine of which are considered loading high (Cv 6, LeadCE 1,3,5,7,10,15,18, and 19). The other two variables factored between 03 - 0.6 and are considered to be loading moderately high (Cv 13 and 20). The grand mean of this factor is 0.720 and standard deviation is 0.156. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

122

Factor 2 is labelled “employees’ expertise”, and involves four questions. All of the variables under this factor are considered to be loading moderately high (Emp 1,7,8, and 10). The grand mean of this factor is 0.681 and standard deviation is 0.124. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 3 is labelled “human resource quality”, and has four questions. Three of them are considered to be loading high (Emp 12,13, and 15), and the other, moderately high (Emp 14). The grand mean of this factor is 0.652 and standard deviation is 0.060. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 4 is labelled “training and learning implementation” and is made up of four questions. Only one variable is considered to be loading high (Cv2), while the other three factor between 0.3 - 0.6 and are considered to be loading moderately high (Cv 1,9, and 11). The grand mean of this factor is 0.457 and standard deviation is 0.177. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate. Total variance explained by these four factors under the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition at Company A is 54.09%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient is shown in Table 4.46 Table 4.46 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge acquisition Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Supportive environment for Cv 6 .707 0.936 KA Cv13 .446 Cv 20 .569 LeadCE 1 .817 LeadCE 3 .727 LeadCE 5 .840 LeadCE 7 .837 LeadCE 10 .760 LeadCE 15 .763 LeadCE 18 .770 LeadCE 19 .800

2.Employees’ expertise Emp 1 .553 0.795 Emp 7 .586 Emp 8 .694 Emp 10 .600

3.Human resource quality Emp 12 .586 0.798 Emp 13 .606 Emp 14 636 Emp 15 .660

Cv 1 .546 0.689 4.Training and learning Cv 2 .492 implementation Cv 9 .379 Cv 11 .494

123

From Table 4.46, four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition. The item total to correlation is shown in column 3 of this table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “supportive environment for KA” is 0.936, factor 2 “employees’ expertise”, 0.795, factor 3 “human resource quality”, 0.798; and factor 4 “training and learning implementation”, 0.689. The Cronbach alpha coefficients all show over 0.7 except factor 4, which is slightly lower than 0.7. However, it is still reasonable to claim that those factors are reliable.

4.5.1.3 Analysis at Company B Four factors are extracted from factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition at Company B. They are: “leaders’ responsibility in KA”, “employee expertise”, “means of KA prominence”, and “learning from sources”. The factor analysis of knowledge acquisition is shown in Table 4.47 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition. Table 4.47 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge acquisition Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1.Leaders’ responsibility in KA Cultural values 6 .706 -.060 .164 .019 Cultural values 20 .436 -.110 .282 .055 Leadership com & emp 1 .920 -.013 -.035 -.076 Leadership com & emp 3 .710 .090 .048 .075 Leadership com & emp 4 .838 .090 -.102 .076 Leadership com & emp 5 .821 .038 -.092 .119 Leadership com & emp 7 .868 .096 .021 -.108 Leadership com & emp 10 .806 .022 .066 .031 Leadership com & emp 11 .767 -.014 .098 .011 Leadership com & emp 18 .756 .032 .082 -.030 Leadership com & emp 19 .645 -.067 .281 -.016 2.Employee expertise Employee characteristics 1 -.087 .509 .189 .027 Employee characteristics 7 .124 .679 .046 -.043 Employee characteristics 8 .111 .835 -.025 .026 Employee characteristics 10 .057 .773 -.040 -.048 3.Means of KA prominence Cultural values 1 -.063 .058 .445 .234 Cultural values 10 -.024 -.088 .771 -.017 Cultural values 11 .090 .158 .652 -.133 Cultural values 13 .169 -.106 .477 .130 Communication 7 .109 .043 .548 -.082 Employee characteristics 12 .062 .005 .639 .017 Employee characteristics 14 .123 .121 .627 .044 Employee characteristics 15 .040 .134 .529 .063 4.Learning from sources Cultural values 2 .218 .253 -.042 .364 Cultural values 3 -.021 .001 .104 .634 Cultural values 4 .118 -.122 -.028 .593 Cultural values 8 -.130 .275 .054 .349 Eigen values 10.25 2.679 1.882 1.526

124

Explained Variance (%) 36.52 8.228 5.256 3.459 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 36.52 44.75 50.00 53.46

From Table 4.47, four factors are extracted from the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition at Company B. Factor 1 is labelled “leaders’ responsibility in KA”, and has eleven questions. Ten of the variables are considered to be loading high (Cv 6, LeadCE 1,3,4,5,7,10,11,18, and 19) except one (Cv 20), which is considered to be loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.752 and standard deviation is 0.131. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “employee expertise”, and involves four questions. Three of them are considered to be loading high “Emp 7,8 and 10”. Only one variable is considered loading moderately high (Emp 1). The grand mean of this factor is 0.699 and standard deviation is 0.135. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “means of KA prominence”, and is reflected in eight questions. Four of the variables are considered loading high (Cv 10, 11, Emp 12 and 14). The other four variables are considered to be loading moderately high (Cv 1,13 Comm 7 and Emp 15). The grand mean of this factor is 0.586 and standard deviation is 0.106. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 4 is labelled “learning from sources”, and is formed by four questions. Only one variable is considered to be loading high (Cv 3) while the other three are factored between 0.3 - 0.6 and are considered loading moderately high “Cv 2,4, and 8”. The grand mean of this factor is 0.485 and standard deviation is 0.149. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to moderately high. Total variance explained by these for variables under the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition is 53.46%. The total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge acquisition is shown in Table 4.48 Table 4.48 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge acquisition Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leaders’ responsibility in KA Cv 6 .764 0.950 Cv 20 .580 LeadCE 1 .842 LeadCE 3 .756 LeadCE 4 .790 LeadCE 5 .784 LeadCE 7 .843 LeadCE 10 .832 LeadCE 11 .806

125

LeadCE 18 .793 LeadCE 19 .786

2.Employee expertise Emp 1 .525 0.820 Emp 7 .614 Emp 8 .757 Emp 10 .680

3.Means of KA prominence Cv 1 .438 0.848 Cv 10 .644 Cv 11 .647 Cv 11 .523 Comm 7 .560 Emp 12 .634 Emp 14 .670 Emp 15 .578

4.Learning from sources Cv 2 .365 0.603 Cv 3 .490 Cv 4 .387 Cv 8 .318

From Table 4.48, four factors are extracted from LO development stage of knowledge acquisition. The item total to correlation is shown in column 3. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leaders’ responsibility in KA”; factor 2 “employee expertise”; factor 3 “means of KA prominence”; and factor 4 “learning from sources” are 0.950, 0.820, 0.848, 0.603 respectively. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 in 3 factors while another factor is lower than 0.7; however it is still acceptable. Therefore, these factors are considered reliable.

4.5.2 LO development stage of knowledge sharing (KS) From review of the literature, after knowledge has been acquired at the stage of knowledge acquisition, it needs to be shared in order to develop into an LO. Knowledge sharing is the sum of LO characteristics at both knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing stages. As a result, LOs progressing to knowledge sharing stage would have gone through the knowledge acquisition stage. This section integrates knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing prepared for correlation analysis in section 4.7. The analysis will be undertaken at both industry aggregate and firm levels.

4.5.2.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level Three factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stages of knowledge sharing. They are: “leaders’ task in KA and KS”; “efficiency in learning and sharing (in team)”; and “employee and communication issue facilitated KA and KS”. The factor analysis of LO development stages of

126 knowledge sharing of the industry is shown in Table 4.49 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing. Table 4.49 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1.Leaders’ task in KA and KS Cultural values 20 .470 -.020 .229 Leadership com & emp 1 .905 -.039 -.042 Leadership com & emp 2 .715 .042 .053 Leadership com & emp 3 .687 .111 .011 Leadership com & emp 4 .717 .143 -.073 Leadership com & emp 5 .901 .009 -.112 Leadership com & emp 7 .912 -.023 -.062 Leadership com & emp 8 .815 .015 .009 Leadership com & emp 9 .787 .072 -.060 Leadership com & emp 10 .863 -.060 -.005 Leadership com & emp 11 .778 -.071 .072 Leadership com & emp 12 .472 .180 .176 Leadership com & emp 15 .780 -.017 .067 Leadership com & emp 18 .750 -.001 .086 Leadership com & emp 19 .805 -.066 .078 Leadership com & emp 20 .766 -.006 .050 2.Efficiency in learning and sharing (in team) Communication .166 .364 .220 Knowledge transfer 6 -.018 .625 .0008 Knowledge transfer 7 .020 .386 .288 Knowledge transfer 8 -.013 .624 .182 Knowledge transfer 9 .090 .618 .028 Knowledge transfer 10 .050 .559 .026 Knowledge transfer 17 -.033 .695 .087 Employee characteristics 1 -.037 .621 -.002 Employee characteristics 4 -.012 .655 .044 Employee characteristics 7 .046 .698 -.039 Employee characteristics 8 .002 .785 -.100 Employee characteristics 10 .064 .675 -.129 3.Employee and communication issue facilitated KA and KS Cultural value 16 .176 -.032 .522 Cultural value 17 .167 .139 .382 Communication 2 .016 .213 .470 Communication 5 -.025 .095 .696 Communication 6 -.047 .098 .717 Communication 7 -.023 .023 .697 Communication 8 -.037 -.092 .799 Communication 9 .028 -.113 .794 Communication 10 .159 -.014 .577 Communication 12 .062 -.081 .668 Communication 13 -.010 -.004 .647 Knowledge transfer 12 .081 .151 .451 Employee characteristics 12 .113 .142 .387 Employee characteristics 15 .101 .283 .307 Eigen values 46.50 3.554 2.794 Explained Varience (%) 38.21 7.298 5.515 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 38.21 45.51 51.02

127

From Table 4.49, three factors are extracted. Factor 1 is labelled “leaders’ task in KA and KS”, and comprises sixteen questions, of which fourteen variables are considered to be loading high (LeadCE 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,15,18,19, and 20). The remaining two variables of Cv 20 and LeadCE 12 are considered to be loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.758 and standard deviation is 0.131. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “efficiency in learning and sharing (in team)”, and has twelve questions. Nine of the variables are considered to be high loading (Kt 6,8,9,17, Emp 1,4,7,8, and 10). The three variables of Comm1, Kt 7 and 10 are considered for loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.609 and standard deviation is 0.123. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “employee and communication issue facilitated KA and KS”, and has fourteen factors. Half of the variables are considered to be loading high (Comm 5,6,7,8,9,12 and 13) while the second half, (Cv 16,17, Comm 2, Kt 12, Emp 12 and 15) are considered loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.579 and standard deviation is 0.160. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to moderately high. Total variance explained by these three variables is 51.02%. The item total to correlation and the Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.50 Table 4.50 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge sharing Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leaders’ task in KA and KS Cv 20 .586 0.962 LeadCE 1 .839 LeadCE 2 .770 LeadCE 3 .736 LeadCE 4 .722 LeadCE 5 .820 LeadCE 7 .838 LeadCE 8 .817 LeadCE 9 .771 LeadCE 10 .813 LeadCE 11 .786 LeadCE 12 .669 LeadCE 15 .797 LeadCE 18 .795 LeadCE 19 .811 LeadCE 20 .781

2.Efficiency in learning and Comm 1 .510 0.891 sharing (in team) Kt 6 .581 Kt 7 .510 Kt 8 .683

128

Kt 9 .658 Kt10 .567 Kt 17 .669 Emp 1 .550 Emp 4 .601 Emp 7 .642 Emp 8 .667 Emp 10 .605

3. Employee and Cv 16 .597 0.906 communication issue Cv 17 .539 facilitated KA and KS. Comm 2 .545 Comm 5 .675 Comm 6 .697 Comm 7 .645 Comm 8 .685 Comm 9 .707 Comm 10 .643 Comm 12 .644 Comm 13 .618 Kt 12 .535 Emp 12 .498 Emp 15 .512

From Table 4.50, three factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge sharing of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand at the industry aggregate level. The item total to correlation is shown in column 3 of the table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leaders’ task in KA and KS” is 0.962; factor 2 “efficiency in learning and sharing (in team)”, 0.891; and factor 3 “employee and communication issue facilitated KA and KS”, 0.906. All of the Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 therefore, it can be declared that these factors are reliable.

4.5.2.2 Analysis at Company A Five factors are extracted from LO development stage of knowledge sharing. Therefore, the LO development stage of knowledge sharing at Company A is considered in terms of “leaders’ role due to develop into an LO”, “honesty and willingness to share knowledge”, “openness and free communication”, “supportive factors for an LO development”, and “employee competencies at work”. The factor analysis of knowledge sharing is shown in Table 4.51 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing. Table 4.51 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 1.Leaders’ role due to develop into an LO Cultural values 20 .434 .172 .218 -.040 -.010 Leadership com & emp 1 .817 .013 -.011 .017 -.006

129

Leadership com & emp 3 .665 .102 .012 .068 .034 Leadership com & emp 4 .628 .158 -.048 -.022 .095 Leadership com & emp 5 .863 .106 -.045 .015 -.042 Leadership com & emp 7 .850 -.018 -.041 .151 -.081 Leadership com & emp 8 .765 .075 .014 .034 .032 Leadership com & emp 9 .806 .173 -.051 -.052 -.071 Leadership com & emp 10 .832 -.008 .048 -.129 -.019 Leadership com & emp 12 .444 .091 .139 .032 .060 Leadership com & emp 15 .786 -.169 .009 .010 .179 Leadership com & emp 18 .705 -.120 .110 .097 .066 Leadership com & emp 19 .816 -.182 .017 .112 .066 Leadership com & emp 20 .745 .009 .077 .045 -.092 2.Honesty and willingness to share knowledge Knowledge transfer 6 .020 .497 -.071 .199 .175 Knowledge transfer 9 .061 .664 .109 -.051 .086 Knowledge transfer 10 .107 .705 -.006 .088 -.075 Knowledge transfer 11 .165 .449 .151 -.023 .055 Knowledge transfer 17 .032 .552 .041 .191 .145 Employee characteristics 4 -.050 .383 .068 .139 .259 3.Openness and free communication Communication 2 -.031 -.067 .369 .237 .257 Communication 9 .087 .058 .663 -.010 -.093 Communication 10 .135 .113 .602 -.128 .043 Communication 12 .069 -.041 .725 .051 -.044 Communication 13 -.014 -.016 .693 .041 -.059 Knowledge transfer 4 -.015 .012 .536 .140 .083 Knowledge transfer 5 -.005 .169 .475 .031 .238 Knowledge transfer 12 .029 .003 .471 .206 .144 4.Supportive factors for an LO development Cultural values 11 .196 .002 -.011 .433 .125 Cultural values 15 .141 -.056 -.018 .466 .026 Knowledge transfer 3 -.020 -.0004 .101 .511 .132 Employee characteristics 12 .057 .113 .162 .599 -.220 Employee characteristics 13 .004 .152 .019 .618 -.035 Employee characteristics 15 .017 .140 .162 .526 .069 5.Employee competencies at work Cultural values 8 .094 .074 -.173 .256 .342 Communication 11 .155 -.085 .236 .048 .479 Employee characteristics 1 .014 .168 .156 -.083 .575 Employee characteristics 8 .018 .239 -.085 .067 .612 Employee characteristics 10 .164 .136 .038 .021 .502 Eigen values 13.86 3.220 2.313 1.671 1.336 Explained Variance (%) 34.40 7.129 4.615 2.852 2.125 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 34.40 41.52 46.14 45.99 51.12

From Table 4.51, five factors are extracted from the factor analysis of knowledge sharing at Company A. Factor 1 is labelled “leaders’ role due to develop into an LO”, and has fourteen questions. Twelve of the fourteen variables are considered loading high (LeadCE 1,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,15,18,19 and 20). The other two are considered loading moderately high (Cv 20 and LeadCE 12). The grand mean of this factor is 0.725 and standard deviation is 0.139. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

130

Factor 2 is labelled “honesty and willingness to share knowledge”, and is assembled from six questions. Two variables of Kt 9 and 10 are considered for loading high whereas 4 variables are factored between 0.3 - 0.6 and are considered loading moderately high (Kt 6,11,17 and Emp 4). The grand mean of this factor is 0.542 and standard deviation is 0.125. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to moderately high.

Factor 3 is “openness and free communication” and involves eight questions. Four of them are considered loading high (Comm 9,10,12, and 13). The other four variables is considered loading moderately high (Comm2, Kt 4,5, and 12). The grand mean of this factor is 0.567 and standard deviation is 0.125. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to moderately high.

Factor 4 is labelled “supportive factors for an LO development” and is comprised of six questions. Only one variable is considered loading high (Emp 13). The rest are considered loading moderately high (Cv 11, 15, Kt 3, Emp 12 and 15). The grand mean of this factor is 0.525 and standard deviation is 0.074. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to moderately high.

Factor 5 is labelled “employee competencies at work” and has five questions. All of them are considered loading moderately high (Cv 8, Comm1, Emp1, and 10) except one (Emp 8) which is considered to be loading high under this factor. The grand mean of this factor is 0.502 and standard deviation is 0.104. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to moderately high. Total variance explained by these five factors under LO development stage of knowledge sharing is 51.12%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.52. Table 4.52 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge sharing Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leaders’ role due to develop Cv 20 .565 0.912 into an LO LeadCE 1 .805 LeadCE 3 .730 LeadCE 4 .667 LeadCE 5 .853 LeadCE 7 .836 LeadCE 8 .813 LeadCE 9 .778 LeadCE 10 .766 LeadCE 12 .583 LeadCE 15 .755 LeadCE 18 .760 LeadCE 19 .801 LeadCE 20 .748

131

2.Honesty and willingness to Kt 6 .584 0.823 share knowledge Kt 9 .653 Kt 10 .653 Kt 11 .520 Kt 17 .668 Emp 4 .502

3.Openness and free Kt 4 .464 0.848 communication Kt 5 .627 Kt 12 .627 Comm 2 .679 Comm 9 .616 Comm10 .566 Comm12 .575 Comm13 .563

4.Supportive factors for an LO Cv 11 .521 0.789 development Cv 15 .492 Kt 3 .513 Emp 12 .560 Emp 13 .566 Emp 15 .656

5.Employee competencies at Cv 8 .390 0.758 work Comm 1 .464 .565 Emp 1 .636 Emp 8 .601 Emp 10

From Table 4.52, five factors are extracted from the factor analysis. They are “leaders’ role due to develop into an LO”, “honesty and willingness to share knowledge”, “openness and free communication”, “supportive factors for an LO development”, and “employee competencies at work”. Item total to correlation is shown in column 3 of this table. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leaders’ role due to develop into an LO” is 0.952; factor 2 “honesty and willingness to share knowledge”, 0.823; factor 3 “openness and free communication”, 0.848; factor 4 “supportive factors for an LO development”, 0.789; and factor 5 “employee competencies at work”, 0.785 respectively. All of the Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 therefore, it can be claimed to be reliable under these factors.

4.5.2.3 Analysis at Company B Four factor are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge sharing at Company B. As a result, LO development stage of knowledge sharing at the company is measured regarding to the four factors of “leaders’ role in KA and KS”, “employees’ role in KA and KS”, “learning and sharing culture sustained LOs development”, and “learning from sources”. The factor

132 analysis of LO development stage of knowledge sharing is shown in Table 4.53 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing. Table 4.53 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge sharing Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1.Leaders’ role in KA and KS Cultural values 6 .778 -.073 .020 .081 Leadership com & emp 1 .935 -.027 -.046 -.057 Leadership com & emp 2 .731 .015 .078 -.028 Leadership com & emp 4 .747 .073 -.048 .129 Leadership com & emp 5 .821 -.021 -.129 .190 Leadership com & emp 7 .901 .050 -.021 -.076 Leadership com & emp 8 .748 .016 .102 -.029 Leadership com & emp 9 .706 .116 .029 -.036 Leadership com & emp 10 .785 -.025 .078 .074 Leadership com & emp 11 .803 -.012 .066 -.004 Leadership com & emp 12 .493 .175 .202 .238 Leadership com & emp 15 .701 .047 .234 -.139 Leadership com & emp 18 .762 .038 .111 -.065 Leadership com & emp 19 .717 -.020 .200 -.056 Leadership com & emp 20 .770 .101 .055 -.045 2.Employees’ role in KA and KS Knowledge transfer 10 .070 .381 .017 .258 Knowledge transfer 17 .013 .688 .145 .049 Employee characteristics 1 -.095 .560 .163 .062 Employee characteristics 4 .190 .669 -.035 .065 Employee characteristics 7 .165 .688 -.016 -.042 Employee characteristics 8 .082 .787 -.009 .038 Employee characteristics 10 .085 .783 -.147 -.030 Employee characteristics 13 -.127 .518 .223 -.031 3.Learning and sharing culture sustained LOs development Cultural values 11 .191 .160 .440 -.092 Cultural values 12 .042 -.081 .556 .174 Cultural values 16 .289 -.150 .457 .066 Communication 4 .025 .121 .707 -.030 Communication 6 -.051 .023 .787 .060 Communication 7 -.017 .130 .720 -.112 Communication 9 .169 -.098 .602 .029 Communication 10 .209 -.069 .560 .100 Communication 12 .143 -.206 .499 .277 Knowledge transfer 4 .130 .115 .587 -.099 Knowledge transfer 12 .078 .009 .514 .082 Employee characteristics 12 .006 .114 .580 .021 Employee characteristics 14 .186 .206 .418 .061 4.Learning from sources Cultural values 2 .155 .214 .028 .433 Cultural values 3 -.107 .032 .161 .562 Cultural values 4 .093 -.085 .040 .497 Cultural values 8 -.038 .297 -.093 .422 Eigen values 15.59 3.787 2.378 1.694 Explained Variance (%) 37.96 8.291 4.815 2.700 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 37.96 46.25 51.07 53.77

133

From Table 4.53, four factors are extracted from factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge sharing at Company B. Factor 1 labelled “leaders’ role in KA and KS” and has fifteen questions. All of them are considered to be loading high (Cv 6, LeadCE 1,2,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,15,18,19, and 20) except one, LeadCE 12, is considered for loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.760 and standard deviation is 0.099. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “employees’ role in KA and KS” and is made up of eight questions. Five of the variables are considered loading high (Kt 17, Emp 4,7,8, and 10) while three, are factored between 0.3 - 0.6 and are considered for loading moderately high (Kt 10, LeadCE 1, and 13). The grand mean of this factor is 0.634 and standard deviation is 0.139. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “learning and sharing culture sustained LOs development” and has thirteen questions. Four of the variables under this factor are considered loading high (Comm 4,6,7, and 9). Nine of the variables factored between 0.3 - 0.6 are considered loading moderately high (Cv 11,12,16, Comm 10,12, Kt 4,12, Emp 12 and 14). The grand mean of this factor is 0.571 and standard deviation is 0.112. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 4 is labelled “learning from sources” and involves four questions. All of them are considered loading moderately high (Cv 2,3,4, and 8). The grand mean of this factor is 0.478 and standard deviation is 0.065. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate. Total variance explained from these four factors under the construct of LO development stages of knowledge acquisition plus knowledge sharing is 53.77%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha correlation is shown in Table 4.54. Table 4.54 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge sharing Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leaders’ role in KA and KS Cv 6 .778 0.967 LeadCE 1 .853 LeadCE 2 .776

LeadCE 4 .762

LeadCE 5 .774

LeadCE 7 .855

LeadCE 8 .805

LeadCE 9 .759

LeadCE 10 .833

LeadCE 11 .833

LeadCE 12 .724

LeadCE 15 .817

LeadCE 18 .814

134

LeadCE 19 .813 LeadCE 20 .814

2.Employees’ role in KA and Kt10 .446 0.864 KS Kt17 .725 Emp 1 .584 Emp 4 .660 Emp 7 .619 Emp 8 .754 Emp 10 .675 Emp 13 .505

3.Learning and sharing culture Cv 11 .552 0.905 sustained LOs development Cv 12 .570 Cv 16 .602 Comm 4 .697 Comm 6 .726 Comm 7 .639 Comm 9 .649 Comm 10 .669 Comm12 .585 Kt 4 .640 Kt 12 .558 Emp 12 .572 Emp 14 .584

4.Learning from sources Cv 2 .365 0.603 Cv 3 .490 Cv 4 .387 Cv 8 .318

From Table 4.54, four factors are extracted. They are: “leaders’ role in KA and KS”, “employees’ role in KA and KS”, “learning and sharing culture sustained LOs development”, and “learning from resources”. The total item to correlation is shown in column 3 of this table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leaders’ role in KA and KS” is 0.967, factor 2 “employees’ role in KA and KS”, 0.864; factor3 “learning and sharing culture sustained LOs development”, 0.905; and factor 4 “learning from sources”, 0.603. The Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7 in three factors while factor 4 shows over 0.6. However, it is acceptable to conclude that they are reliable.

4.5.3 LO development stage of knowledge utilization (KU) From the existing literature, after knowledge has been acquired and shared in the stage of knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing, it needs to be exploited either through application in new situations or decision making in order to develop into an LO. LOs progressing to knowledge utilization stage would have gone through the knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing stages. As a result, knowledge utilization is the sum of LO characteristics at all of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization stages. This section integrates knowledge acquisition,

135 knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization prepared for correlation analysis in section 4.8. The analysis will be undertaken at both industry aggregate and firm levels.

4.5.3.1 Analysis at the Industry Aggregate Level Four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization. They are: “leadership commitment, empowerment and encouragement in LO development stages”; “skilful employee facilitated LO development stage”; “recruitment/training, organizational memory and improvement approach facilitated LO development stages”; and “openness and honesty communication supported KA, KS, and KU”. The factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization is shown in Table 4.55 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization. Table 4.55 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1.Leadership commitment, empowerment and encouragement in LO development stages Cultural values 6 .742 -.084 .126 .023 Cultural values 7 .653 -.055 .057 .074 Cultural values 20 .413 .008 .120 .201 Communication 11 .881 -.040 -.185 -.017 Leadership com & emp 1 .661 .087 .017 .112 Leadership com & emp 2 .682 .069 .013 -.027 Leadership com & emp 3 .715 .139 .095 -.069 Leadership com & emp 4 .918 .036 .007 -.094 Leadership com & emp 5 .866 -.023 -.039 -.036 Leadership com & emp 7 .781 .044 .039 .021 Leadership com & emp 8 .807 .117 .022 .001 Leadership com & emp 9 .842 -.030 -.131 .007 Leadership com & emp 10 .759 -.013 .003 .093 Leadership com & emp 11 .510 .180 .00002 .125 Leadership com & emp 12 .670 .105 .078 .031 Leadership com & emp 13 .740 -.049 .139 .036 Leadership com & emp 15 .843 -.015 .149 -.005 Leadership com & emp 17 .702 -.002 .004 .073 Leadership com & emp 18 .744 -.086 .110 .032 Leadership com & emp 19 .789 -.008 .189 .055 Leadership com & emp 20 .729 .039 -.008 .028 Leadership com & emp 22 .658 .103 .079 .284 2.Skillful employee facilitated LO development processes Cultural values 8 .024 .414 .161 -.169 Communication 1 .131 .333 .191 .120 Knowledge transfer 6 .067 .585 -.053 .025 Knowledge transfer 7 .079 .361 .054 .246 Knowledge transfer 8 .051 .620 -.069 .220 Knowledge transfer 9 .155 .609 -.093 .089 Knowledge transfer 10 .134 .548 -.098 .062 Knowledge transfer 11 .172 .369 .016 .146

136

Knowledge transfer 17 .014 .626 .076 .053 Employee characteristics 1 -.106 .623 .124 -.003 Employee characteristics 3 .026 .606 -.006 .100 Employee characteristics 4 .026 .681 -.025 .006 Employee characteristics 5 -.041 .740 -.006 -.029 Employee characteristics 6 -.165 .657 .107 .102 Employee characteristics 7 .052 .686 .058 -.085 Employee characteristics 8 .022 .763 .028 -.112 Employee characteristics 9 .030 .714 -.036 -.001 Employee characteristics 10 .061 .704 -.051 -.087 Employee characteristics 13 -.078 .365 .260 .039 3.Recruitment/training, organizational memory and improvement approach facilitated LO development stages Cultural values 1 .138 .196 .334 .016 Cultural values 10 .074 -.094 .588 .211 Cultural values 11 .189 .081 .472 .038 Cultural values 15 .075 .080 .438 .022 Knowledge transfer 1 .048 .105 .351 .274 Knowledge transfer 3 -.043 .244 .413 .145 Knowledge transfer 14 .022 .129 .467 .208 Knowledge transfer 15 -.069 -.012 .591 .247 Employee characteristics 12 .083 .042 .502 .130 Employee characteristics 14 .211 .079 .559 -.006 Employee characteristics 15 .041 .215 .435 .131 Performance upgrading 3 .092 .227 .518 .006 Performance upgrading 4 .175 .004 .425 .142 Performance upgrading 5 .147 .088 .416 .078 Performance upgrading 6 .027 .015 .636 .021 Performance upgrading 7 -.029 -.098 .527 .118 Performance upgrading 8 .132 .056 .620 -.181 Performance upgrading 9 .156 -.026 .582 -.109 4.Openness and honesty communication supported KA, KS, and KU Cultural values 12 .164 -.065 .132 .439 Cultural values 13 .212 -.033 .034 .435 Cultural values 16 .179 .010 .097 .471 Cultural values 17 .212 .150 .027 .362 Knowledge transfer 5 .005 .243 .111 .385 Communication 2 -.034 .074 .274 .508 Communication 5 -.005 .021 .160 .586 Communication 7 .005 -.027 .020 .755 Communication 8 .084 -.0008 -.052 .755 Communication 9 .155 .113 -.063 .614 Communication 10 .059 -.021 .109 .582 Communication 12 .025 .040 .067 .572 Communication 13 .198 .222 .031 .392 Eigen values 26.15 5.132 3.522 2.465 Explained Variance (%) 35.70 6.443 4.209 2.679 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 35.70 42.11 46.32 49.00

From Table 4.55, four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stages of knowledge utilization in the mobile phone service providers in Thailand. Factor 1 is labelled “leadership commitment, empowerment and encouragement in LO development stages”. This factor

137 comprise of twenty-two questions, of which twenty are considered loading high (Cv 6,7, Comm 1, LeadCE 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,13,15,17,18,19,20, and 22). Only two variables (Cv 20 and LeadCE 12) are considered loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.732 and standard deviation is 0.117. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “skillful employee facilitated LO development stages” and involves nineteen questions. Twelve variables are considered for loading high (Kt 8,9,17, Emp 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10). The other seven variables have factored between 0.3-0.6 and are considered loading moderately high (Cv 8, Comm 1, Kt 6,7,10,11, Emp 13). The grand mean of this factor is 0.579 and standard deviation is 0.140. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “recruitment/training; organizational memory and improvement approach facilitated LO development stages”, and has eighteen questions. Two of the variables are considered for loading high (Pfu 6 and 8). The remaining sixteen variables are factored between 0.3-0.6 and are considered loading moderately high (Cv 1,110,11,15, Kt 1,3,14,15, Emp 12,14,15, Pfu 3,4,5,7, and 9). The grand mean of this factor is 0.493 and standard deviation is 0.090. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate.

Factor 4 is labelled “openness and honesty communication supported KA, KS, and KU” and is made up of thirteen questions. Three of the variables are considered loading high (Comm 8,9 and 10), whereas ten of them are considered for loading moderately high (Cv 12,13,16,17, Kt5, Comm 2,5,7,12,13). The grand mean of this factor is 0.527 and standard deviation is 0.131. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.The total variance explained by these four factors under the construct of LO development stage of knowledge utilization is 49%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient is shown in Table 4.56 Table 4.56 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge utilization Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leadership commitment, Cv 6 .765 0.972 empowerment and Cv 7 .678

encouragement in LO Cv 20 .579

development stages Comm 11 .752

LeadCE 1 .841

LeadCE 2 .769

LeadCE 3 .725

LeadCE 4 .721

LeadCE 5 .824

LeadCE 7 .835

LeadCE 8 .815

LeadCE 9 .770

138

LeadCE 10 .811 LeadCE 11 .798 LeadCE 12 .696 LeadCE 13 .793 LeadCE 15 .798 LeadCE 17 .820 LeadCE 18 .794 LeadCE 19 .816 LeadCE 20 .792 LeadCE 22 .791

2.Skillful employee facilitated Cv 8 .364 LO development stages Comm1 .510 0.919 Kt 6 .571 Kt 7 .511 Kt 8 .661 Kt 9 .645 Kt 10 .556 Kt 11 .521 Kt 17 .661 Emp 1 .588 Emp 3 .627 Emp 4 .626 Emp 5 .658 Emp 6 .602 Emp 7 .672 Emp 8 .689 Emp 9 .682 Emp 10 .641 Emp 13 .447

3.Recruitment/training, Cv 1 .487 organizational memory and Cv 10 .636 0.917 improvement approach Cv 11 .611 facilitated LO development Cv 15 .498 stages Kt 1 .569 Kt 3 .589 Kt 14 .643 Kt 15 .633 Emp 12 .615 Emp 14 .671 Emp 15 .628 Pfu 3 .677 Pfu 4 .603 Pfu 5 .585 Pfu 6 .642 Pfu 7 .501 Pfu 8 .589 Pfu 9 .573

4.Openness and honesty Cv 12 .553 communication supported KA, Cv 13 .536 0.904 KS, and KU Cv 16 .630 Cv 17 .557 Kt 5 .522 Comm 2 .612 Comm 5 .640

139

Comm 7 .706 Comm 8 .731 Comm 9 .674 Comm 10 .626 Comm 12 .609 Comm 13 .596

From Table 4.56, four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization at the mobile service industry in Thailand. The item total to correlation is shown in column 3 of the table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leadership commitment, empowerment and encouragement in LO development stages” is 0.972; factor 2 “skillful employee facilitated LO development stages”, 0.919; factor 3 “recruitment/training, organizational memory and improvement approach facilitated LO development stages”, 0.917; and for factor 4 “openness and honesty communication supported KA, KS, and KU”, 0.904. All of the Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7, therefore it is claimed to be reliable in those factors.

4.5.3.2 Analysis at Company A Four factor are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization at Company A: “leaders’ role and encouragement in LO development”; “learning, willingness to share and application of knowledge”; “openness and supportive communication culture”; and “enhancement supportive factors”. The factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization is shown in Table 4.57 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization. Table 4.57 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1.Leaders’ role and encouragement in LO development Cultural values 20 .452 .125 .142 .005 Leadership com & emp 1 .838 -.0005 -.018 -.005 Leadership com & emp 3 .662 .047 -.065 .114 Leadership com & emp 4 .588 .189 -.099 .036 Leadership com & emp 5 .873 .023 -.070 .028 Leadership com & emp 7 .844 -.083 -.067 .152 Leadership com & emp 8 .803 .117 -.002 -.039 Leadership com & emp 9 .830 .075 -.043 -.096 Leadership com & emp 10 .862 .020 .023 -.162 Leadership com & emp 11 .728 .025 .149 -.096 Leadership com & emp 12 .497 .116 .161 .022 Leadership com & emp 13 .660 .029 .047 .151 Leadership com & emp 15 .779 -.007 -.028 .049 Leadership com & emp 17 .792 -.080 .045 .057 Leadership com & emp 18 .708 -.006 .100 .076 Leadership com & emp 19 .797 -.075 .012 .123

140

Leadership com & emp 20 .830 -.136 .057 .014 Leadership com & emp 22 .725 -.064 .093 .098 2.Learning, willingness to share and application of knowledge Cultural values 8 .136 .371 -.204 .139 Communication 1 .141 .383 .062 .118 Knowledge transfer 7 -.025 .450 .173 .053 Knowledge transfer 8 .075 .557 .143 .074 Knowledge transfer 10 .166 .357 .013 .148 Knowledge transfer 11 .208 .364 .113 .028 Knowledge transfer 17 .063 .467 -.010 .240 Employee characteristics 1 .021 .702 .076 -.057 Employee characteristics 3 .060 .676 .178 -.111 Employee characteristics 4 -.018 .529 .002 .181 Employee characteristics 5 -.050 .827 .008 -.073 Employee characteristics 6 -.116 .702 .075 .023 Employee characteristics 7 .006 .659 -.043 .132 Employee characteristics 8 -.016 .735 -.191 .097 Employee characteristics 10 .142 .627 -.052 -.013 3.Openness and supportive communication culture Communication 8 -.055 -.010 .716 .155 Communication 9 .121 .042 .718 -.007 Communication 10 .176 .226 .560 -.103 Communication 12 .072 .026 .636 .150 Communication 13 .062 -.002 .572 .113 4.Enhancement supportive factors Cultural values 11 .174 .086 -.041 .442 Knowledge transfer 3 -.040 .098 .087 .509 Knowledge transfer 4 .069 .224 .148 .363 Employee characteristics 12 .050 -.110 .102 .651 Employee characteristics 13 -.002 .080 -.002 .605 Employee characteristics 14 .157 -.0002 -.014 .661 Employee characteristics 15 .018 .113 .074 .640 Performance upgrading 6 .049 .109 .069 .381 Eigen values 17.26 4.013 2.312 1.831 Explained Variance (%) 36.54 7.734 4.003 2.830 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 36.54 44.27 48.28 51.11

From Table 4.57, four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization. Factor 1 is labelled “leaders’ role and encouragement in LO development” and data is collected from eighteen questions. Most of the variables are considered to be loading high (LeadCE 1,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,12, 13,15,17,18,19,20, and 22); except three of them (Cv 20, LeadCE 4 and 12) are considered to be loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.737 and standard deviation is 0.123. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “learning, willingness to share and application of knowledge”. There are fifteen questions under this factor. Seven of the variables are considered loading high (Emp 1,3,5,7,8, and 10). The other eight variables factored between 0.3 - 0.6 and are considered loading moderately high

141

(Cv 8, Comm 1, Kt 7,8,10,11,7 and Emp 4). The grand mean of this factor is 0.560 and standard deviation is 0.155. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “openness and supportive communication culture” and has, five questions. Three of the variables under this factor are considered to be loading high (Comm 8,9, and 12). Those two variables factored between 0.3 - 0.6 are considered for loading moderately high (Comm 10 and 13). The grand mean of this factor is 0.640 and standard deviation is 0.076. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderately high to high.

Factor 4 is labelled “enhancement supportive factors”, and has eight questions. Four of them are considered loading high (Emp 11,12,14, and 15), and the other four moderately high (Cv 11, Kt 3,14 and Pfu 6). The grand mean of this factor is 0.531 and standard deviation is 0.124. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high. Total variance explained by these four factors under the construct of LO development stage of knowledge utilization at Company A is 51.11%. The total item to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient is shown in Table 4.58. Table 4.58 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge utilization Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leaders’ role and Cv20 .557 0.962 encouragement in LO LeadCE 1 .804 development LeadCE 3 .706 LeadCE 4 .649 LeadCE 5 .847 LeadCE 7 .836 LeadCE 8 .818 LeadCE 9 .772 LeadCE 10 .774 LeadCE 11 .731 LeadCE 12 .620 LeadCE 13 .759 LeadCE 15 .772 LeadCE 17 .785 LeadCE 18 .776 LeadCE 19 .816 LeadCE 20 .771 LeadCE 22 .767

2.Learning, willingness to Cv 8 .412 0.902 share and application of Comm 1 .514 knowledge Kt 7 .507 Kt 8 .651 Kt 10 .503 Kt 11 .532 Kt 17 .603 Emp 1 .635 Emp 3 .656

142

Emp 4 .587 Emp 5 .685 Emp 6 .598 Emp 7 .694 Emp 8 .651 Emp 10 .637

3.Openness and supportive Comm 8 .619 0.844 communication culture Comm 9 .689 Comm 10 .616 Comm 12 .680 Comm 13 .605

4.Enhancement supportive Cv 11 .521 0.820 factors Kt 3 .521 Kt4 .400 Emp 12 .564 Emp 13 .580 Emp 14 .668 Emp 15 .684 Pfu 6 .454

From Table 4.58, four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization at Company A. The item total to correlation is shown in column 3 of the table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “Leaders’ role and encouragement in LO development” is 0.962, factor 2 “learning, willingness to share and application of knowledge”, 0.902, factor 3 “openness and supportive communication culture”, 0.844, and for factor 4 “enhancement supportive factors”, 0.820. All of the Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7. It can therefore be declared that all of these factors are reliable.

4.5.3.3 Analysis at Company B Four factor are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization at Company B. They are: “leaders’ role in KA, KS and KU”; “employee devotedness and competencies at work”; “required factors for obtained, shared, and make use of knowledge”; and “free and honest sharing of ideas”. The factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization is shown in Table 4.59 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization. Table 4.59 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for knowledge utilization Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1.Leaders’ role in KA, KS and KU Cultural values 6 .822 -.096 .138 -.112 Cultural values 7 .739 -.076 .076 -.113 Cultural values 14 .502 -.048 .116 .265 Cultural values 20 .408 -.079 .249 .201 Leadership com & emp 1 .894 -.011 -.093 .062

143

Leadership com & emp 2 .684 .066 -.006 .168 Leadership com & emp 3 .701 .025 .164 -.066 Leadership com & emp 4 .812 .071 .015 -.096 Leadership com & emp 5 .905 -.001 -.052 -.073 Leadership com & emp 6 .536 .006 .245 .182 Leadership com & emp 7 .838 .010 -.021 .082 Leadership com & emp 8 .685 .028 .033 .202 Leadership com & emp 9 .749 .117 -.107 .086 Leadership com & emp 10 .815 -.005 .036 .067 Leadership com & emp 11 .781 .033 -.042 .173 Leadership com & emp 12 .554 .266 .172 .049 Leadership com & emp 13 .690 .134 .184 -.018 Leadership com & emp 15 .724 -.039 .161 .086 Leadership com & emp 17 .888 .034 -.056 .004 Leadership com & emp 18 .719 .019 .018 .205 Leadership com & emp 19 .745 -.043 .128 .063 Leadership com & emp 20 .780 .093 -.017 .037 Leadership com & emp 22 .773 .129 .069 -.062 2.Employee devotedness and competencies at work Cultural values 8 -.025 .399 .104 -.176 Knowledge transfer 8 .109 .577 -.028 .177 Knowledge transfer 9 .192 .591 -.009 .041 Knowledge transfer 10 .099 .558 -.075 .079 Knowledge transfer 11 .210 .367 .052 .163 Knowledge transfer 17 .017 .644 .077 .082 Employee characteristics 1 -.140 .605 .201 -.060 Employee characteristics 3 .046 .619 -.002 .058 Employee characteristics 4 .086 .719 -.028 -.020 Employee characteristics 5 .030 .726 .0006 -.102 Employee characteristics 6 -.136 .683 .122 .114 Employee characteristics 7 .114 .634 .041 -.132 Employee characteristics 8 .052 .771 -.032 .009 Employee characteristics 9 .044 .799 -.124 -.079 Employee characteristics 10 .017 .786 -.176 .013 Employee characteristics 13 -.205 .461 .188 .152 3.Required factors for obtained, shared, and make use of knowledge Cultural values 1 .028 .127 .480 -.086 Cultural values 11 .271 .115 .366 .037 Cultural values 15 .065 .100 .384 .042 Communication 1 .244 .268 .372 -.080 Knowledge transfer 14 .123 .061 .545 .041 Knowledge transfer 18 .070 .028 .631 .147 Employee characteristics 12 .106 .046 .605 .036 Employee characteristics 14 .264 .130 .485 -.081 Employee characteristics 15 .033 .199 .406 .213 Performance upgrading 1 .015 .084 .545 .271 Performance upgrading 2 .185 .102 .441 -.015 Performance upgrading 3 .025 .212 .553 .083 Performance upgrading 6 -.035 -.051 .739 .064 Performance upgrading 7 -.014 -.156 .706 .117 Performance upgrading 8 .096 -.022 .730 -.217 Performance upgrading 9 .002 -.176 .763 .139 4.Free and honest sharing of ideas Cultural values 16 .233 -.051 .141 .572 Communication 8 .264 -.0004 .130 .523

144

Communication 9 .175 .025 .119 .637 Communication 10 .183 .099 .054 .681 Communication 13 .091 .070 .244 .419 Eigen values 23.32 5.724 3.511 1.914 Explained Variance (%) 38.20 8.738 5.105 2.446 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 38.20 46.93 52.04 54.49

From Table 4.59, four factors are extracted from the factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization at Company B. Factor 1 is labelled “leaders’ role in KA, KS and KU”, and comprises twenty-three questions. Nineteen of the variables under this factor are considered to be loading high (Cv 6,7, LeadCE 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,13,15,17,18,19,20, and 22). The remaining four variables are factored between 0.3 - 0.6, and are considered to be loading moderately high (Cv 14,20, LeadCE 6, and 12). The grand mean of this factor is 0.728 and standard deviation is 0.130. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “employee devotedness and competencies at work” and involves sixteen questions. Ten of the variables are considered to be loading high (Kt 17, Emp 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10). The remaining six variables factored between 0.3 - 0.6 are considered loading moderately high (Cv 8, Kt 8,9,10,11, and Emp 13). The grand mean of this factor is 0.621 and standard deviation is 0.130. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “required factors for obtained, shared, and make use of knowledge”, and have sixteen questions. Six of the variables are considered loading high (Kt 18, Emp 12, Pfu 6,7,8, and 9). The other ten variables (Cv 1,11,15, Comm 1,10, Kt 14, Emp 14, Pfu 1,2, and 3) are considered loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.577 and standard deviation is 0.141. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 4 is labelled ‘free and honest sharing of ideas’ and has five questions. Two of the variables (Comm 9 and 10) are considered loading high. The other three variables of Cv 16, Comm 8, and 13- are considered loading moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.566 and standard deviation is 0.102. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high. The total variance explained by these four factors under the construct of LO development stage of knowledge utilization at Company B is 54.49%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient of these factors are shown in Table 4.60. Table 4.60 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for knowledge utilization Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leaders’ role in KA, KS and Cv 6 .785 0.974

145

KU Cv 7 .655 Cv14 .673 Cv 20 .594 LeadCE 1 .843 LeadCE 2 .776 LeadCE 3 .749 LeadCE 4 .782 LeadCE 5 .791 LeadCE 6 .749 LeadCE 7 .850 LeadCE 8 .801 LeadCE 9 .755 LeadCE 10 .844 LeadCE 11 .840 LeadCE 12 .748 LeadCE 13 .817 LeadCE 15 .818 LeadCE 17 .853 LeadCE 18 .819 LeadCE 19 .811 LeadCE 20 .801 LeadCE 22 .801

2.Employee devotedness and Cv8 .312 0.913 competencies at work Kt 8 .602 Kt 9 .646 Kt 10 .544 Kt 11 .488 Kt 17 .685 Emp 1 .602 Emp 3 .617 Emp 4 .684 Emp 5 .677 Emp 6 .655 Emp 7 .635 Emp 8 .727 Emp 9 .722 Emp 10 .670 Emp 13 .459

3.Required factors for obtained, Cv 1 .483 0.918 shared, and make use of Cv 11 .584 knowledge Cv 15 .453 Comm 1 .572 Kt 14 .630 Kt 18 .704 Emp 12 .679 Emp 14 .622 Emp 15 .587 Pfu 1 .643 Pfu 2 .574 Pfu 3 .683 Pfu 6 .682 Pfu 7 .622 Pfu 8 .647 Pfu 9 .668

146

4.Freely and honesty to share Cv 16 .708 0.864 ideas Comm 8 .661 Comm 9 .742 Comm 10 .746 Comm 13 .576

From Table 4.60, four factors are extracted from factor analysis of LO development stage of knowledge utilization at Company B. the item total to correlation is shown in column 3 of the table. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leaders’ role in KA, KS and KU” is 0.974, factor 2 “employee devotedness and competencies at work”, 0.913, factor 3 “required factors for obtained, shared, and make use of knowledge”, 0.918, and factor 4 “freely and honesty to share ideas”, 0.864. All of the Cronbach alpha coefficients show over 0.7, therefore it can be claimed that all of these factors are reliable.

4.6 The Factor Analysis of the Organization Readiness-to-Change

Factor analysis is a statistical technique, which can be applied to examine a broad range of data sets. Its main purpose is to reduce the numbers of variables as well as to identify the structure of relationship between those variables. It is a data reduction and structure detection method (Kim & Mueller, 1986). Kline (1997) advocates that it is a statistical technique to simplify the complexity of data. This study applies factor analysis for the same purposes.

This section aims to illustrate the integration of variables from questionnaire survey by this statistic technique – the factor analysis. It shows a summarization of constructs under organizational readiness-to-change. It will be employed as independent variables of this study.

4.6.1 Organizational readiness-to-change Organizational readiness-to-change is applied as one independent variables in this study, since an LO is presumed to be readiness-to-change. This study proposes to confirm whether an organization with LO characteristics also has a high degree of readiness-to-change.

This section presents the factor analysis of the organizational readiness-to-change in the mobile phone service providers at the industry aggregate and company levels.

147

4.6.1.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at the industry aggregate level Four factors are extracted from organizational readiness-to-change at the industry aggregate level. They are: “leaders’ role in change”, “change acquaintance”, “company position”, and “supportive workplace”. The factor analysis of organizational readiness-to-change is shown in Table 4.61. Table 4.61 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for organizational readiness-to- change

Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1. Leaders’ role in change Readiness-to-change 4 .679 -.101 .198 -.095 Readiness-to-change 5 .822 -.074 .089 -.062 Readiness-to-change 6 .763 .160 .051 .082 Readiness-to-change 7 .864 .079 .080 .105 Readiness-to-change 8 .902 -.018 .022 .032 Readiness-to-change 20 .708 .043 -.082 -.163 Readiness-to-change 21 .841 -.045 -.087 -.139 Readiness-to-change 22 .864 .068 -.049 .026 Readiness-to-change 26 .629 .266 -.089 -.022 2.Change acquaintance Readiness-to-change 10 .130 .407 .121 -.123 Readiness-to-change 14 .222 .457 .136 -.021 Readiness-to-change 24 .046 .564 -.002 -.036 Readiness-to-change 25 .116 .508 .118 .009 Readiness-to-change 27 .168 .468 .086 -.208 Readiness-to-change 28 .005 .870 -.037 .050 Readiness-to-change 29 .011 .618 .003 -.126 Readiness-to-change 30 -.099 .857 -.003 -.028 3. Company position Readiness-to-change 1 .081 .046 .641 -.024 Readiness-to-change 2 -.056 .039 .827 -.057 4. Supportive workplace Readiness-to-change 11 .028 -.037 .119 -.483 Readiness-to-change 13 .038 .111 .146 -.521 Readiness-to-change 17 -.044 .054 -.053 -.793 Readiness-to-change 18 .115 .082 -.042 -.574 Eigen values 11.10 1.671 1.488 1.041 Explained Variance (%) 46.67 5.674 4.658 2.592 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 46.67 52.34 57.00 59.59

As presented in Table 4.61, Factor 1 is labelled “leaders’ role in change” and is made up of nine variables, all of which are considered to be loading high (Rc 4,5,6,7,8,20,21,22 and 26). The grand mean of this factor is 0.786 and standard deviation is 0.095. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 2 is labelled “change acquaintance” and has eight questions. Three of the variables considered loading high (Rc 28,29 and 30) and five, moderately high (Rc 10,14,24,25 and 27). The grand mean of this factor is 0.594 and standard deviation is 0.179. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

148

Factor 3 is labelled “company position” and comprises two questions. All two are considered to be loading high (Rc1 and 2). The grand mean of this factor is 0.734 and standard deviation is 0.131. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

Factor 4 is “supportive workplace” and involves four questions. One of the variables (Rc 17) is considered loading negatively high. The other three are considered negatively loading moderately high (Rc 11,13, and 18). The grand mean of this factor is -0.593 and standard deviation is 0.085. Therefore, this factor is considered negatively loading moderately high to high.Total variance explained from these two factors under organizational readiness-to-change is 59.59%. The item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Table 4.62 Table 4.62 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for organizational readiness-to- change

Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leaders’ role in change Rc 4 .730 0.953 Rc 5 .825 Rc 6 .824 Rc 7 .834 Rc 8 .849 Rc 20 .773 Rc 21 .831 Rc 22 .852 Rc 26 .758

2.Change acquaintance Rc 10 .594 0.886 Rc 14 .643 Rc 24 .588 Rc 25 .588 Rc 27 .709 Rc 28 .746 Rc 29 .653 Rc 30 .730

3.Company position Rc 1 .606 0.746 Rc 2 .606

4. Supportive workplace Rc 11 .444 0.751 Rc 13 .584 Rc 17 .651 Rc 18 .562

From Table 4.62, four factors are extracted from organizational readiness-to-change: “leaders’ role in change”, “change acquaintance”, “company position”, and “supportive workplace”. Total item to correlation is shown in column 3. Cronbach alpha coefficient is exemplified in column 4. The

149

Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leaders’ role in change”, factor 2 “change acquaintance”, factor 3 “company position”, and factor 4 “supportive workplace” are 0.953, 0.886, 0.746, and 0.751 respectively. All of the Cronbach alpha coefficients are over 0.7; therefore, they are considered to be reliable.

4.6.1.2 Analysis at Company A Three factors are extracted from the factor analysis of organizational readiness-to-change, namely, “leader’s role in change”, “change understanding”, and “company position”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.63 Table 4.63 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for organizational readiness-to- change

Factor constructs and variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1.Leaader’s role in change Readiness-to-change 4 .759 -.104 .114 Readiness-to-change 5 .872 -.098 .064 Readiness-to-change 6 .811 .064 .010 Readiness-to-change 7 .863 -.002 .004 Readiness-to-change 8 .904 -.067 -.008 Readiness-to-change 12 .514 .187 .011 Readiness-to-change 19 .687 .242 -.072 Readiness-to-change 20 .714 .119 .036 Readiness-to-change 21 .883 -.050 .026 Readiness-to-change 22 .859 -.001 -.019 Readiness-to-change 23 .705 .187 -.068 Readiness-to-change 26 .629 .226 -.096 2.Change understanding Readiness-to-change 10 .050 .552 .179 Readiness-to-change 14 .212 .537 .037 Readiness-to-change 15 .141 .508 .008 Readiness-to-change 18 .233 .344 .099 Readiness-to-change 24 .110 .563 .003 Readiness-to-change 25 .073 .533 .073 Readiness-to-change 28 -.053 .882 -.086 Readiness-to-change 29 .005 .712 .073 Readiness-to-change 30 -.113 .921 -.012 3.Company position Readiness-to-change 1 .094 -.015 .602 Readiness-to-change 2 -.101 .108 .898 Eigen values 11.48 1.841 1.403 Explained Variance (%) 48.28 6.235 4.524 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 48.28 54.61 59.13

As indicated, Factor 1 “leader’s role in change” consists of twelve variables. Eleven of them are loading high at over 0.6 (Rc 4,5,6,7,8,19,20,21,22,23,26). The remaining one (Rc 12), considered for moderately high. The grand mean of this factor is 0.767 and standard deviation is 0.120. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

150

Factor 2 is labelled “change understanding” and has nine variables. Three of them are high loading over 0.6 (Rc 28,29,30) while the remaining six are considered loading moderately high (Rc 10,14,15,18,24,25). The grand mean of this factor is 0.617 and standard deviation is 0.187. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “company position”. Two of the variables are loading at over 0.6 (Rc1 and Rc 2). The grand mean of this factor is 0.750 and standard deviation is 0.209. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.The total variance explained for these three factors or organizational readiness-to-change is 59.13%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.64 Table 4.64 Item total to correlation and Cronbach alpha for organizational readiness-to- change

Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach correlation Alpha Coefficient 1.Leaader’s role in Rc 4 .702 0.956 change Rc 5 .800 Rc 6 .841 Rc 7 .843 Rc 8 .834 Rc 12 .604 Rc 19 .816 Rc 20 .803 Rc 21 .836 Rc 22 .829 Rc 23 .795 Rc 26 .737

2.Change Rc 10 .603 0.884 understanding Rc 14 .665 Rc 15 .564 Rc 18 .509 Rc 24 .595 Rc 25 .578 Rc 28 .736 Rc 29 .706 Rc 30 .764

3.Company position Rc 1 .577 0.732 Rc 2 .577

From Table 4.64, three factors are extracted, namely “leader’s role in change”, “change understanding”, and “company position”. Total item to correlation is shown in column 3. Cronbach alpha coefficient is exemplified and provided in column 4. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for factor 1 “leader’s role in change”, factor 2 “change understanding”, and for factor 3 “company position” are

151

0.956, 0.884, and 0.732 respectively. All of the Chonbach alpha coefficients are over 0.7, and they are therefore considered to be reliable.

4.6.1.3 Analysis at Company B Four factors are extracted from organizational readiness-to-change in Company B. They are: “leaders’ roles in change”, “employee awareness”, “change communication”, and “company position”. The factor analysis is shown in Table 4.65. Table 4.65 Principal axis factoring, direct Oblimin rotated for organization readiness-to- change

Factor constructs and variables Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 1.Leaders’ roles in change Readiness-to-change 4 .683 .079 .014 -.259 Readiness-to-change 5 .926 .051 -.143 -.147 Readiness-to-change 7 .760 -.106 .256 -.061 Readiness-to-change 8 .797 -.112 .181 -.065 Readiness-to-change 12 .483 .277 .024 -.099 Readiness-to-change 19 .717 .222 .072 .297 Readiness-to-change 20 .811 .145 .040 .155 Readiness-to-change 21 .830 -.033 .049 .054 Readiness-to-change 22 .821 -.113 .163 .025 2.Employee awareness Readiness-to-change 11 -.044 .648 -.033 -.123 Readiness-to-change 13 .008 .687 .072 -.109 Readiness-to-change 16 .043 .462 .237 -.053 Readiness-to-change 17 -.026 .786 .068 .098 Readiness-to-change 18 .247 .535 -.024 .102 3.Change communication Readiness-to-change 3 -.047 .125 .560 -.190 Readiness-to-change 14 .134 .117 .614 -.017 Readiness-to-change 15 .050 .009 .758 -.004 Readiness-to-change 24 -.018 .061 .660 .306 Readiness-to-change 25 .116 -.085 .638 -.184 Readiness-to-change 27 .283 .147 .514 -.00001 Readiness-to-change 29 .173 .033 .443 -.073 4.Company position Readiness-to-change 1 .077 .252 .272 -.333 Readiness-to-change 2 .080 .238 .116 -.547 Eigen values 10.50 2.093 1.525 1.151 Explained Variance (%) 44.07 7.358 4.700 3.073 Cumulative Exp. Variance (%) 44.07 51.43 56.13 59.20

As indicated, Factor 1 is labelled “leaders’ roles in change”, and comprises of nine questions. Eight of them are considered high loading (Rc 4,5,7,8,20,19,21,22). Only one is measured as moderately high (Rc12). The grand mean of this factor is 0.759 and standard deviation is 0.123. Therefore, this factor is considered loading high.

152

Factor 2 is labelled “employee awareness”, and is made up of five questions. Three of the variables are considered as high loading (Rc 11,13,17), whereas the remaining two are considered as moderately high loading (Rc 16,18). The grand mean of this factor is 0.624 and standard deviation is 0.126. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 3 is labelled “change communication”, and comprises seven questions. Four of them are considered as high loading (Rc 14,15,24,25). The other three are considered moderately high (Rc 3,27,29). The grand mean of this factor is 0.598 and standard deviation is 0.103. Therefore, this factor is considered loading moderate to high.

Factor 4 is labelled “company position”, and has two variables. All two are considered negatively loading moderately high (Rc 1,2). The grand mean of this factor is -0.440 and standard deviation is 0.151. Therefore, this factor is considered negative loading moderate. The total variance explained for these four factors or organizational readiness-to-change in Company B is 59.2%. The item total to correlation is shown in Table 4.66 Table 4.66 Item total correlation and Cronbach alpha for cultural values Factor constructs Variables Item total to Cronbach Alpha correlation Coefficient 1.Leaders’ roles in change Rc 4 .736 0.948 Rc 5 .842

Rc 7 .866

Rc 8 .851

Rc 12 .639

Rc 19 .777

Rc 20 .801

Rc 21 .811

Rc 22 .843

2.Employee awareness Rc 11 .536 0.780 Rc 13 .566

Rc 16 .532

Rc 17 .702

Rc 18 .545

3.Change communication Rc 3 .581 0.865 Rc 14 .693

Rc 15 .718

Rc 24 .524

Rc 25 .653

Rc 27 .733

Rc 29 .564

4.Company position Rc 1 .483 0.649 Rc 2 .483

153

From Table 4.66, four factors are extracted from organizational readiness-to-change in Company B. The total item to correlation for each factor is shown in column 3 of this table. The Cronbach alpha coefficients for “leaders’ roles in change”, “employee awareness”, “change communication”, and “company position” are 0.948, 0.780, 0.865 and 0.649 respectively. The Cronbach alpha coefficients of factors 1,2, and 3 are over 0.7 whereas factor 4 is nearly 0.7. All of them can therefore be regarded as reliable.

4.7 The Correlation between LO Characteristics and the Organizational Readiness-to- Change

This section analyses correlation coefficiency between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change. The objective is to verify sub-hypotheses H1-1 to H1-6 in Chapter 3: an organization with a high level of LO characteristics should also have a high level of organizational readiness-to-change.

4.7.1 The correlation between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change The correlation between LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading and organizational readiness-to-change of the mobile phone service providers will be presented at both industry aggregate and company levels.

4.7.1.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at the Industry Aggregate level The analysis of correlation coefficients of LO characteristics and its organizational readiness-to- change at mobile phone service provider in Thailand are displayed in Table 4.67 Table 4.67 Correlation matrix of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change

Leaders Knowl Emplo Perform Organiz hip edge yee ance ational Cultural commitm Comm values unicati trans charac upgrad readine ent ss-to- &empow fer teristic ing on change erment s Pearson 1 754** .698** 691** .654** .593** .623** Cultural values Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 429 408 421 418 418 424 403 Pearson .754** 1 .665** .643** .597** .585** .728** Leadership Correlation commitment Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 &empowerment N 408 420 415 412 411 415 396 Pearson .698** .665** 1 .726** .588** .582** .647**

154

Communication Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 421 415 436 426 426 431 411 Pearson .691** .643** .726** 1 .764** .620** .604** Knowledge Correlation transfer Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 418 412 426 433 422 428 407 Pearson .654** .597** .588** .764** 1 .623** .574** Employee Correlation characteristic Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 . .003 .000 N 418 411 426 422 433 430 408 Pearson .593** .585** .582** .620** .623** 1 .690** Performance Correlation upgrading Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .002 .000 .002 . .267 N 424 415 431 428 430 439 414 Organizational Pearson .623** .728** .647** .604** .574** .690** 1 readiness-to- Correlation change Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .267 . N 403 396 411 407 408 414 417 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

From Table 4.67, the output of correlation coefficient confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-A1), in that “cultural values” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.623 and with a sample size of 403. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows at level of moderate correlation (.40 to .70). Therefore, it can be submitted that there is a substantial relationship between “cultural values” and “organizational readiness-to-change” in the mobile phone service providers in Thailand.

As regards the relationship between “leadership commitment and empowerment” and “organizational readiness-to-change”, the output of correlation coefficient confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-A2), in that “leadership commitment and empowerment” is positively related to organizational readiness-to-change with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.728 with a sample size of 396. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows at a level of high correlation (.70 to 0.90). Therefore, it can be accepted that there is a marked relationship between “leadership commitment and empowerment” and “organizational readiness-to-change” in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand.

On the relationship of “communication” and “readiness-to-change”, the output of correlation coefficient confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-A3), in that “communication” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.647 and with a sample size of 411. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. At the same time, Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of moderate correlation

155

(.40 to .70). Therefore, it can be theorize that there is a substantial relationship between “communication” and “organizational readiness-to-change” in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand.

With reference to the correlation between “knowledge transfer” and “readiness-to-change”, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-A4), in that “knowledge transfer” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.604 and with a sample size of 407. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a moderate level of correlation (.40 to .70). Hence, it can be submitted that there is a substantial relationship between “knowledge transfer” and “organizational readiness-to-change” in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand.

Regarding the correlation between “employee characteristics” and “readiness-to-change”, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-A5). “Employee characteristics” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.574 and with a sample size of 408. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01.Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows at moderate level of correlation (.40 to .70). It can therefore be affirmed that there is a substantial relationship between “employee characteristics” and “organizational readiness-to-change” in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand.

Form Table 4.67, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-A6), in that “performance upgrading” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = .690, and with a sample size of 414. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a moderate level of correlation (.40 to.70), and with a sample size of 414. The significant for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Therefore, it can be agreed that there is substantial relationship between “performance upgrading” and “organizational readiness-to-change” in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand.

It is important to note from Table 4.67 that the correlation between each construct of “cultural values”, “leadership commitment and empowerment”, “communication”, “knowledge transfer”, “employee characteristics”, and “performance upgrading” are correlated with each other either at moderate or high levels. This demonstrates the construct validity of the tools.

156

4.7.1.2 Analysis at Company A The analysis of correlation coefficients of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change at Company A is summarized in Table 4.68. Table 4.68 Correlation matrix of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change

Cultural Leaders Comm Knowled Emplo Perform Organiz values hip unicati ge yee ance ational commitm on transfer charac upgrad readine ent ss- to- &empow teristic ing change erment s Pearson 1 .750** .647** .697** .664** .508** .661** Cultural values Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 259 252 258 254 253 257 247 Pearson .750** 1 .628** .583** .618** .523** .721** Leadership Correlation commitment Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 &empowerment N 252 259 258 254 254 257 246 Pearson .647** .628** 1 .694** .635** .549** .647** Communication Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 258 258 266 261 260 264 253 Pearson .697** .583** .694** 1 .798** .646** .695** Knowledge Correlation transfer Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 254 254 261 262 256 260 249 Pearson .664** .618** .635** .798** 1 .680** .750** Employee Correlation characteristics Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 . .003 .000 N 253 254 260 256 261 260 248 Pearson .508** .523** .549** .646** .680** 1 .683** Performance Correlation upgrading Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 . .000 N 257 257 264 260 260 265 252 Organizational Pearson .661** .721** .647** .695** .750** .683** 1 readiness-to- Correlation change Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . N 247 246 253 249 248 252 254 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

From Table 4.68, the output of correlation coefficient between “cultural values” and “readiness-to- change” confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-B1), in that “cultural values” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company A with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.661 and with a sample size of 247. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a moderate level of correlation (.40 to .70) Therefore, it can be asserted that there is a substantial relationship between “cultural values” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

157

The correlation coefficient between “leadership commitment and empowerment” and “readiness-to- change” confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-B2), in that “leadership commitment and empowerment” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.721 and with a sample size of 246. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a marked relationship between “leadership commitment and empowerment” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

Regarding the output of correlation coefficient between “communication” and “readiness-to-change”, it confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-B3), in that “communication” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.647 and with a sample size of 253. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of moderate correlation (.40 to .70). Therefore, It can be submitted that there is a substantial relationship between “communication” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

On the subject of the correlation coefficient of “knowledge transfer” and “readiness-to-change, it confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-B4), in that “knowledge transfer” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change”’ with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.695 and with a sample size of 249. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01,whereas Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of moderate correlation (.40 to .70). Therefore, it can be accepted that there is a substantial relationship between “knowledge transfer” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

With reference to the correlation coefficient between “employee characteristics” and “readiness-to- change”, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-B5), in that “employee characteristics” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.750 and with a sample size of 248. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a high level of correlation (.70 to .90). It can be concluded that there is a marked relationship between “employee characteristics” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

From Table 4.68, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-B6), in that “performance upgrading” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.683 and with a sample size of 252. The significance value for this

158 correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a moderate level of correlation (.40 to .70). It can be justified that there is a substantial relationship between “performance upgrading” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

From this table, it is important to note that the correlation coefficient between “cultural values”, “leadership commitment and empowerment”, “communication”, “knowledge transfer”, “employee characteristics” and “performance upgrading” are correlated at the levels of moderate to high to each other. It can be concluded that these constructs have validity.

4.7.1.3 Analysis of Company B The analysis of correlation coefficients of “LO characteristics” and “organizational readiness-to- change” at Company B are demonstrated in Table 4.69. Table 4.69 Correlation matrix of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change

Cultural Leaders Knowl Emplo Perform Organiz hip edge yee ance ational values commit Commu nication transfe charac upgrad readine ment ss-to- &empo r teristic ing change werment s Pearson 1 .720** .710** .700** .632** .652** .640** Cultural values Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 173 163 167 168 169 170 160 Pearson .720** 1 .726** .646** .556** .575* .735** Leadership Correlation commitment Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . .058 .000 .000 .000 .000 &empowerment N 163 165 161 163 162 162 153 Pearson 710** .726** 1 .751** .579** .677** .723** Communication Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 N 167 161 171 167 167 168 159 Pearson .700** .646** .751** 1 .704** .585** .674** Knowledge Correlation transfer Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 N 168 163 167 172 168 169 160 Pearson .632** .556** .579** .645** 1 .588** .608** Employee Correlation characteristics Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 N 169 162 167 168 173 171 161 Pearson .652** .575** .677** .585** .588** 1 .642** Performance Correlation upgrading Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 N 170 162 168 169 171 174 163 Pearson .640** .735** .723** .674** .608** .642** 1 Organizational Correlation readiness-to- Sig. (1- .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . change tailed) N 160 153 159 160 161 163 164 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

159

From Table 4.69, the output of correlation coefficient confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-C1), in that “cultural values” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company B with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.640 and with a sample size of 160. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a moderate level of correlation (.40 to .70). Therefore, it can be accepted that there is a substantial relationship between “cultural values” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

Regarding the relationship between “leadership commitment and empowerment” and “organizational readiness-to-change”, the output of correlation coefficient confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-C2), in that “leadership commitment and empowerment” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.735 and with a sample size of 153. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a high level of correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be submitted that there is a marked relationship between “leadership commitment and empowerment” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

The correlation of “communication” and “readiness-to-change” at Company B, is confirmed by the statistical output based on results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-C3), in that “communication” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.723 and with a sample size of 159. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be claimed that there is a marked relationship between “communication” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

As regards correlation coefficient between “knowledge transfer” and “readiness-to-change”, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-C4), in that “knowledge transfer” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.674 and with a sample size of 160. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of moderate correlation (.40 to .70). Therefore, it can be identified that there is a substantial relationship between “knowledge transfer” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

On the relationship between “employee characteristics” and “readiness-to-change”, the output of correlation coefficient confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-C5), in that the former is positively related to the latter with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.608 and with a sample

160 size of 161. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of moderate correlation (.40 to .70). Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a substantial relationship between “employee characteristics” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

Form Table 4.69, the correlation coefficients of “performance upgrading” and “readiness-to-change” confirm the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-C6), in that “performance upgrading” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.642 and with a sample size of 163. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of moderate correlation (.40 to .70). Therefore, it can be deduced that there is a substantial relationship between “performance upgrading” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

From Table 4.69, it is important to note that the correlation coefficients between “cultural values”, “leadership commitment and empowerment”, “communication”, “knowledge transfer”, “employee characteristics” and “performance upgrading” are correlated to each other ranging from moderate to high levels. It can be concluded that these constructs have validity.

4.8 The Correlation between the LO Development Stages and the Organizational Readiness-to-Change

This section analyses the correlation coefficient of LO development stages of “knowledge acquisition”, “knowledge sharing”, and “knowledge utilization”, with organizational readiness-to- change. It aims to verify sub-hypotheses H2-1 to H2-3 to answer the research question whether an organization has to develop itself into an LO through a sequential order of stages. The anaysis of correlation of each LO development stage is provided below.

4.8.1 The correlation between LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change The correlation between LO development stage of “knowledge acquisition” and “organizational readiness-to-change” in the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is considered at both industry aggregate and firm levels.

161

4.8.1.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at the industry aggregate level The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is summarized in Table 4.70 Table 4.70 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational acquisition Readiness to Change Knowledge acquisition Pearson 1 .711** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 417 388 Organizational Pearson .711** 1 Readiness to Correlation Change Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 388 417 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). From Table 4.70, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Ai), in that ‘knowledge acquisition’ in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand is positively related to ‘organizational readiness-to-change’ with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.711 and with a sample size of 388. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of moderate correlation (.40 to .70). Therefore, it can be submitted that there is a substantial relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge acquisition” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

4.8.1.2 Analysis at Company A The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of “knowledge acquisition” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company A is shown in Table 4.71 Table 4.71 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational acquisition Readiness-to- Change Knowledge acquisition Pearson 1 .796** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 254 240 Organizational Pearson .796** 1 Readiness-to-Change Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 240 253 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

162

From Table 4.71, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Aii), in that “knowledge acquisition” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.796 and with a sample size of 240. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows at level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be accepted that there is a marked relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge acquisition”: and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company A.

4.8.1.3 Analysis at Company B The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of “knowledge acquisition” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company B is shown in the Table 4.72 Table 4.72 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational acquisition Readiness-to- Change Knowledge acquisition Pearson 1 .723** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 164 151 Organizational Pearson .723** 1 Readiness-to-Change Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 151 163 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). From Table 4.72, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Aiii), in that “knowledge acquisition” at Company B is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.723 and with a sample size of 151. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a marked relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge acquisition” and “organizational readiness-to- change”.

4.8.2 The correlation between the LO development stage of knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to-change The correlation between LO development stage of “knowledge sharing” and “organizational readiness-to-change” in the mobile phone service providers in Thailand will be presented at both industry and company levels.

163

4.8.2.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at industry aggregate level The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of “knowledge sharing” and “organizational readiness-to-change” of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is shown in the Table 4.73 Table 4.73 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational sharing Readiness-to- Change Knowledge sharing Pearson 1 .723** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 417 377 Organizational Pearson .723** 1 Readiness-to-Change Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 377 401 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). From Table 4.73, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Bi), in that “knowledge sharing” at the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.723 and with a sample size of 377. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows at level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be asserted that there is a marked relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge sharing” and “organizational readiness-to-change”.

4.8.2.2 Analysis at Company A The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of “knowledge sharing” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company A is shown in the Table 4.74 Table 4.74 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational sharing Readiness-to- Change Knowledge sharing Pearson 1 .811** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 254 233 Organizational Pearson .811** 1 Readiness-to-Change Correlation

164

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 233 246 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). From Table 4.74, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Bii), in that “knowledge sharing” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.811 and with a sample size of 233. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a marked relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge sharing” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company A.

4.8.2.3 Analysis at Company B The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of “knowledge sharing” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company B is provided in the Table 4.75 Table 4.75 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational sharing Readiness-to- Change Knowledge sharing Pearson 1 .787** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 164 146 Organizational Pearson .787** 1 Readiness-to-Change Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 146 158 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). From Table 4.75, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Biii), in that LO development stage of “knowledge sharing” at Company B is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.787 and with a sample size of 146. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be deduced that there is a marked relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge sharing” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company B.

165

4.8.3 The correlation between the LO development stage knowledge utilization and organizational readiness-to-change The correlation between LO development stage of “knowledge utilization” and “organizational readiness-to-change” of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand will be presented at both industry aggregate and company levels.

4.8.3.1 Analysis of mobile phone service providers in Thailand at industry aggregate level The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of “knowledge utilization” and “organizational readiness-to-change” of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is shown in the Table 4.76 Table 4.76 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge utilization and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational utilization Readiness-to- Change Knowledge utilization Pearson 1 .743** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 417 373 Organizational Pearson .743** 1 Readiness-to-Change Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 373 394 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). From Table 4.76, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Ci), in that “knowledge utilization” at the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.743 and with a sample size of 373. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be identified that there is a marked relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge utilization” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at the industry aggregate level.

4.8.3.2 Analysis of Company A The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of “knowledge utilization” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company A is shown in the Table 4.77

166

Table 4.77 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge utilization and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational utilization Readiness-to- Change Knowledge utilization Pearson 1 .811** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 254 233 Organizational Pearson .811** 1 Readiness-to-Change Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 233 246 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). From Table 4.77, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Cii), in that “knowledge utilization” is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.811 and with a sample size of 233. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient correlation shows a level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be submitted that there is a marked relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge utilization” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company A.

4.8.3.3 Analysis at Company B The analysis of correlation coefficient between LO development stage of “knowledge utilization” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company B is given in the Table 4.78 Table 4.78 Correlation matrix of LO development stage of knowledge utilization and organizational readiness-to-change

Knowledge Organizational utilization Readiness-to- Change Knowledge utilization Pearson 1 .787** Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) . .000 N 164 148 Organizational Pearson .787** 1 Readiness-to-Change Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) .000 . N 148 158 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). From Table 4.78, the output confirms the results of the scatterplot (Appendix D-Ciii), in that LO development stage of “knowledge utilization” at Company B is positively related to “organizational readiness-to-change” with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of r = 0.787 and with a sample size of 148. The significance value for this correlation coefficient is less than 0.01. Pearson’s coefficient

167 correlation shows a level of high correlation (.70 to .90). Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a marked relationship between LO development stage of “knowledge utilization” and “organizational readiness-to-change” at Company B.

In Table 4.79, the correlation coefficients between LO development stage of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization and organization readiness-to-change are summarized from Table 4.70 to Table 4.78. It shows the correlation coefficient at both industry aggregate and company levels Table 4.79 Correlation coefficient of LO development stages and organizational readiness-to-change

Correlation coefficient of LO Industry Company A Company B development stage and ORC aggregate

Knowledge acquisition and ORC .711 .796 .723

Knowledge sharing and ORC .723 .811 .787

Knowledge utilization and ORC .743 .811 .787

From Table 4.79, Person’s correlation coefficients show high correlation at both industry aggregate and company levels with the significant values less than 0.01. It can be noticed that at industry aggregate level knowledge utilization has the highest correlation coefficient of all the LO development stages; whereas, knowledge sharing is higher than knowledge acquisition. At company level, correlation coefficients of knowledge utilization and knowledge sharing at Company A show the same figure and they are higher than knowledge acquisition. This pattern is repeated at Company B.

4.9 Conclusion

This Chapter presents the result of study, using the factor analysis as a statistic tool to integrate variables from the questionnaire designed by the researcher. The correlation between dependent variables of LO characteristics - of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading - and the independent variable of organizational readiness-to-change are examined to test the first hypothesis whether the organization with a high level of LO characteristics will embrace a high level of organizational readiness-to-change.

To provide evidence to prove the validity of the second hypothesis, the correlation between the following dependent variables and organizational readiness-to-change have been demonstrated:

168

a) Knowledge acquisition b) Knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisition c) Knowledge utilization and knowledge sharing and knowledge acquistion

Discussion on the results of this study will be undertaken in Chapter 5.

169

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction

This Chapter presents the discussions of results and the conclusion of the study. Firstly, the respondents’ data is discussed. Attempts will be made to verify the first hypothesis, that an organization with a high level of LO characteristics also possesses a high level of organizational readiness-to-change. Discussions will be presented in terms of the industry aggregate and company levels respectively. The second hypothesis is then tested in the light of the survey results. Implications of the study for theory and practices are then highlighted. Finally, the conclusion is drawn, covering also limitations and contributions of the research, as well as opportunities for further research.

5.2 The Discussion of Respondents’ Data

Discussions in this Chapter focus on respondents’ gender, age, level of education, years of service in the company, and position held to highlight employee characteristics in the information communication industry in a developing economy.

5.2.1 Gender From interviews with its Assistant Vice President (Public Relation) 1 , there are more female employees than male employees in Company A (females = 1,945; males = 1,689). Company B doesn’t keep record of employee gender data. Based on the survey data presented in Table 4.1 to 4.3, there are more female employees than male employees in both Companies, i.e. there are more females responding to the survey than males. While this may be a special feature in the employment market of the industry in the more developed economies, it doesn’t seem to deviate from the national profile in Thailand. Male population at working age (15-65 years) is lower than female population at the same working age. (Http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/th/popula.html)

1 Interview conducted on: 15January 2003

170

5.2.2 Age Based on population chart registered by age in Thailand, the largest population group is at the age of 30-34, both male and female. The second largest population group for male are those at the age of 25-29, and for female 35-39. The third largest population group for male are those at the age of 35- 39, while as for female, 25-29 (Department of Local Administration (2002)). (http://nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Demographics-of-Thailand). This pattern seems to be reflected in the age profile of employees of the two companies under study.

At Company A, 71.2% of employees are at the age of 25-40, at Company B, there are 87% of employee at the same age. At the industry aggregate level it shows 77.6% of employees at the age of 25-40. In the more advanced economies, employees in the information communication industry tend to be younger, but this observation does not seem to find similarity in a developing country such as Thailand.

5.2.3 Education In Thailand the percentage of educational attainment by age group in 1998 is as follows: • Bachelor’s degree Age group 20-24 52.3 % 25-29 27.7 % 30-34 9.5 % 35+ 9.7 % • Master’s degree Age group 20-24 1.6 % 25-29 31.4 % 30-34 23.0 % 35+ 43.5 % (National Statistical Office of Thailand - http://www.nso.go.th/eng/stat/hiqman/hiqtab1.htm) The national statistic is significantly lower than what has been obtained from the two companies. More than 97% of respondents in both companies hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. A possible explanation is that the industry operates in a rapidly changing and competitive environment and thus might require people with a higher educational background. Employees who work in this industry (both companies) are of the same age group of population who attained their bachelor and master’s degrees. Their education attainment levels are also congruent with gender in that there are more females than males with a bachelor’s degree at both the company and industry aggregate levels.

171

However, at master’s level, ratio of gender seems to be similar between males and females at both company and industry aggregate levels. From Appendix E, gender and level of education cross tabulation shows the following: • At industry aggregate level, 40.1% of females hold a bachelor’s degree and this percentage is 14.7% higher than that of males at the bachelor’s level (25.4 %). Meanwhile at master’s degree level, both genders comprise nearly the same percentage level (females 15.9%, males 16.4%). • At Company A, the percentage of females (36.3%) is 12.7% higher than that of males (23.6%). However, the percentage of males (19.8%) with master’s degree is only 1.5% higher than females (18.3%) • At Company B, the proportion of females (45.7%) holding a bachelor’s degree is 17.4% higher than males (28.3%). In terms of master’s degree, the gender percentages are nearly the same (females 12.4%, males 11.3%).

The findings of descriptive analysis by cross tabulation between age and level of education (Appendix E) show: i) At industry aggregate level • 268 (60.5 %) of employees at the age between 20-40 have completed their bachelor’s degree • 129 (29.12 %) of employees at the age between 25-45 have completed their master’s degree • The ratio of employees who hold master’s degree: bachelor’s degree = 1:2.09 ii) At Company A, • 141 (53.01 %) of employees at the age between 20-40 have completed their bachelor’s degree • 90 (33.83 %) of employees at the age between 25-45 have completed their master’s degree • The ratio of employees who hold master’s degree: bachelor’s degree = 1:1.57 iii) At Company B • 127 (71.75 %) of employees at the age between 20-40 have completed their bachelor’s degree

172

• 39 (22.03 %) of employees at the age between 25-40 have completed their master’s degree (none at the age between 35-40 hold master degree at this company) • The ratio of employees who hold master’s degree: bachelor’s degree = 1:3.26

The findings from cross-tabulation between age and level of education attainment at both company and industry aggregate levels show: a) The educational level of employees is higher than the national average. Only 20.9 % of the students at the university age (from 17 to 18 years old up) carry on their studies in universities in Thailand. In addition, they also earn their bachelor’s degree at young age, which is consistent with the country data that show 80.0 % earn their bachelor’s degree at younger than 30 years of age. b) The ratio of employees who hold master’s and bachelor’s degree is high. The ratio of employees who hold both master’s degree to bachelor’s degree at Company A is 1: 1.57. At Company B, this ratio is 1: 3.26 which is slightly higher than the industry average of 1: 2.06. It can be seen that employees in this industry have a higher level of educational attainment, reflecting a better possible ability to learn and cope with their work in a changing environment.

5.2.4 Years of service at the company level From Table 4.2-4.3, 39.3% and 32.2% of respondents have been working 0 – 3 years at Company A and B respectively. The percentage of respondents who have been with the companies between 3 to 6 years is decreased to 16.1% and 22.6% respectively. The percentage of employees working at the company for 6 to 9 years slightly increases to 24.7% for Company A and 27.7% for Company B. For those with services between 9 to 12 years, the percentage slightly decreases to 15.4% at Company A and to 15.3% at Company B. Only 4.1% of respondents’ at Company A and 2.3% at Company B have worked for these companies for 12 to 15 years. Statistic shows that the majority of employees have a relatively short tenure with their companies, reflecting the “job-hopping” culture of employees in the new economy (Gross, 2001).

5.2.3 Positions in organization From Company A ’s interview-data, there 15.8% of organizational members are in management positions whereas, the remaining 84.2% are non-management personnel. This appears to contradict Thai culture that values higher positions and title (Prado, 2003). However, it emerges at Company A

173 that its structure is characterized by flat organization with few management levels. On the other hand, the response rate from the management level is 47.2% of all the respondents at Company A, suggesting that management personnel may have inclination to develop the organization into an LO.

Based on Company B’s interview-data2, the organizational structure seems to be more complicated in terms of management levels. The company’s data shows 30.1% of employees are management personnel. It appears to be in congruence with the national cultural preference of higher position and title. At Company B, the management personnel’s response rate is 45.2%, again suggesting management staff at the Company may be aware of the LO development.

At the industry aggregate level, the data shows 20.9% of members are management personnel based on the researcher’s interview with the Human Resource Manager 3 and Assistant Vice President (Public Relation)4. Meanwhile, the survey shows 46.4% of respondents are management personnel. This may imply that management people in the mobile phone service industry are more interested in the development of their organizations into an LO, hence completing the questionnaire.

Additionally, findings from the survey and the cross-tabulation between gender and position (Appendix E) at both company and industry aggregate levels show that male employees dominate management positions. At the non-management level, the number of female employees is almost twice as much as the number of males. At Company B, male and female employees in management positions are at nearly the same level. The finding shows that even if “women in Thailand now have equal opportunities to men in the workplace” and gender discrimination no longer exists in professional careers (Koerojna, 1996), there still seems to be a glass ceiling.

Briefly, this section discusses the respondents’ data with regard to gender, age, education, years of service at the company, and position from the survey. The data from the survey seems to be congruent with the country’s data in terms of gender, age, education as well as matching the country’s culture in terms of years of service at the company level and positions in organization. The next section will consider results in the LO characteristics and readiness-to-change.

2 Interview conducted on: 28 January 2003 3 Interview conducted on: 28 January 2003 4 Interview conducted on: 15 January 2003

174

5.3 Verification and Discussion of H1 (H1-1 to H1-6): LO Characteristics and Organizational Readiness-to-Change

This section verifies and discusses the first hypothesis (H1) of the research that if an organization has a high level of LO characteristics, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change. To develop into an LO, an organization requires six types of characteristics: cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading to attain a high level of organizational readiness-to-change. To verify the validity of H1, it is necessary to prove that each of the six characteristics is correlated to the level of readiness-to- change, hence, the six sub-hypotheses: H1-1: that, if an organization has a high level of “cultural values” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-2: that, if an organization has a high level of “leadership commitment and empowerment” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-3: that, if an organization has a high level of “communication” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-4: that, if an organization has a high level of “knowledge transfer” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-5: that, if an organization has a high level of “employee” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

H1-6: that, if an organization has a high level of “performance upgrading” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change

Discussions of results at the industry aggregate level will be discussed first, followed by the company level.

5.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Verifying the validity of H1-1 to H1-6 This part discusses the finding of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change. It will deal with findings at the industry aggregate as well as company levels.

175

5.3.1.1 Hypothesis1: H1-1 Hypothesis H1-1 speculates that if an organization has a high level of “cultural values” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

5.3.1.1.1 Findings: H1-1 at the industry aggregate level LO characteristics of cultural values are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .623, p< 0.001. Thus, there is moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Cultural values of the mobile phone services providers in Thailand are assessed through two factors which are (1) “accommodating learning culture” (mean = 5.00, SD. = 1.139); and (2) “learning from sources” (mean = 5.34, SD.=1.042) (from Table 4.40). Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient is shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 respectively.

All the mean values of variables under the factors of “accommodating learning culture” and “learning from sources” are between 4.43 and 5.97, which imply that most employees in this industry “mildly agree” to “agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the cultural values that affect LOs. However, if the industry would like to move forwards becoming an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Employees share their insights with colleagues ii) Employees are able to improve themselves from reflecting on successes and failures of their work experience iii) Leaders encourage and facilitate employees to experiment new ideas iv) Leaders encourage and facilitate employees to spend time reviewing their work experience v) Training and learning is part of our working life in the company vi) Employees support and trust their colleagues On the other hand, the industry should address the following undesirable cultural values (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) Employees do not spend much time in analysing competitors’ successes and failures ii) Employees do not often review ideas put forward by their suppliers iii) Employees are shy of accepting failures at work and do not try to learn from them iv) Employees are not free to try out new ideas if the chance of succeeding is not high v) Employees are not feel free to speak their mind openly and honesty on important issue in the company

176 vi) Employees are not always encouraged to find out from other departments’ colleagues for doing better job vii) Employees do not have the chance to get promoted even if they have improved knowledge and skill at work

5.3.1.1.2 Findings: H1-1 at Company A LO characteristics of cultural values are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .661, p< 0.001 thus, reflecting a moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Cultural values at Company A are assessed through: (1) “enhancement learning culture” (mean = 5.07, SD = 1.179); and (2) “knowledge expansion through sources” (mean = 5.38, SD = 1.009) (from Table 4.41). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient is shown in Tables 4.6 and 4.7 respectively.

All the mean values of variables under the factors of “enhancement learning culture” and “knowledge expansion through sources” are between 4.70 and 6.02, which imply that most employees at Company A “mildly agree” to “agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the cultural values that affect the LO. However, if the company would like to become an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Employees can apply what they have learned from formal and informal training to their work ii) Employees share their insights with colleagues iii) Leaders encourage and facilitate employees to experiment new ideas iv) Leaders encourage and facilitate employees to spend time reviewing their work experience v) Employees are able to improve themselves from reflecting on successes and failures of their work experience On the other hand, the Company A should address the following undesirable culture values (aggregated mean<5.00): i) Employees do not spend much time in analysing the competitors’ successes and failures ii) Employees do not have many opportunities to try out new ideas if the chance of succeeding is not high iii) Employees are shy of accepting failures at work and do not try to learn from them iv) Employees do not have the chance to get promoted even if they have improved knowledge and skill at work

177

5.3.1.1.3 Findings H1-1 at Company B LO characteristics of cultural values at Company B are positively related to organizational readiness- to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .640, p< 0.001, reflecting moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Cultural values at Company B are assessed through: (1) “supportive learning culture” (mean = 4.76, SD. = 1.394); (2) “training background” (mean = 5.11, SD. = 1.258); and (3) “learning by sharing” (mean = 5.78, SD. = 0.928) (from Table 4.42). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.8 and 4.9 respectively.

All the mean values of variables under the factors of “supportive learning culture”, “training background” and “learning by sharing” are between 4.15 and 5.89, which imply that employees at Company B “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the cultural values that affect the LO. However, if the company would like to develop itself into an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Employees can apply what they have learned from formal and informal training to their work ii) Employees share their insights with colleagues iii) Employees are able to improve themselves from reflecting on successes and failures of their work experience iv) Training and learning is part of our working life in the company On the other hand, Company B should address the following undesirable cultural values (aggregated means < 5.00): i) The company does not spend a lot of money on staff training and measures training results very vigorously ii) Employees are shy of accepting failures at work and do not try to learn from them iii) Employees are not free to try new ideas if the chance of succeeding is not high iv) Employees do not feel free to speak their mind openly and honesty on important issues in the company v) Employees are not always encouraged to find out the way to improve their job from other departments vi) Employees do not have the chance to get promoted if they have improved knowledge and skill at work

178

5.3.1.2 Hypothesis1: H1-2 Hypothesis H1-2 assumes that if an organization has a high level of “leadership commitment and empowerment” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to- change.

5.3.1.2.1 Findings H1-2 at the industry aggregate level LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .728, p< 0.001, demonstrating the high correlation and marked relationship between these two variables.

Leadership commitment and empowerment at the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is assessed through only a factor labelled the same as the construct of “leadership commitment and empowerment” (mean = 5.12, SD. = 1.304) (from Table 4.40). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.10 and 4.11 respectively.

All the mean values of variables under the factor of “leadership commitment and empowerment” are between 4.38 and 5.46, which imply that employees in this industry “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the leadership commitment and empowerment that affect the development of LO. However, if the industry would like to move towards an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Leaders appear to prefer to stay with the company for a lengthy period of time ii) Employees in the company trust their leaders iii) Leaders have instilled a clear, shared sense of trust, cooperate and confidence in the team’s capacity to achieve positive results iv) Leaders encourage employees to use their knowledge and skills in line with their competencies and departmental goals v) Leaders usually let employees decide what they need to do in their job On the other hand, the industry should address the following undesirable leadership commitment and empowerment (aggregated mean < 5.00) characteristics: i) Leaders are not given training to help employees learn ii) Leaders do not reward employees for involving in training and development activities

179

5.3.1.2.2 Findings: H1-2 at Company A LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .721, p< 0.001, mirroring the high correlation and marked relationship between these two variables.

Leadership commitment and empowerment at Company A is assessed through only the factor of “leaders’ role and empowerment” (mean = 5.23, SD = 1.201) (from Table 4.41). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.12 and 4.13 respectively.

All the mean values of variables under the factor of “leaders’ role and empowerment” are all over 5.00 except one question (LeadCE 21) with mean value showing at 4.41. The mean values imply that majority of employees at Company A “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is still acceptable in terms of the leadership commitment and empowerment that affect the development of an LO. However, if the company would like to become an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Leaders encourage employees to make decision for what they want to learn ii) Leaders have instilled a clear, shared sense of trust, cooperate and confidence in the team’s capacity to achieve positive results iii) Leaders encourage employees to use their knowledge and skills in line with their competencies and departmental goals iv) Leaders usually let employees decide what they need to do in their job v) Leaders allow employees to have their personal training and development plan to maximize their full potential On the other hand, Company A should address the following undesirable leadership commitment and empowerment (aggregated mean < 5.00) characteristics: i) Leaders do not reward employees for involving in training and development activities

5.3.1.2.3 Findings: H1-2 at Company B LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .735, p< 0.001, reflecting the high correlation and marked relationship between these two variables.

Leadership commitment and empowerment at Company B is assessed only through the factor of “leaders’ commitment and empowerment”, with mean = 4.91 and SD. = 1.385 (from Table 4.42).

180

Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.14 and 4.15 respectively.

All the mean values of variables under the factors of “leaders’ commitment and empowerment” are between 4.33 and 5.25, which imply that employees at Company B “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the leadership commitment and empowerment that affect the development into an LO. However, if the company would like to move forward to become an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Leaders have instilled a clear, shared sense of trust, cooperation and confidence in team’s capacity to achieve positive results On the other hand, Company B should address the following undesirable leadership commitment and empowerment (aggregated mean < 5.00) characteristics: i) Leaders are not always enthusiastic about learning new knowledge and skills and not sharing them with employees ii) Leaders are not role models of learning and continuous improvement iii) The company does not select leaders who enjoy teaching others and envisioning others iv) Leaders are not always involved in initiatives related to learning v) Leaders do not develop shared vision and delegate authority to subordinates vi) Employees feel leaders do not encourage them to decide what they want to learn (which will be good for the company) vii) Leaders do not help employees to apply what they have learned to their works viii) Leaders do not reward employees for involving in training and development activities ix) Leaders do not provide employees with adequate resources and information not do their work

5.3.1.3 Hypothesis1: H1-3 Hypothesis H1-3 infers that if an organization has a high level of “communication” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

5.3.1.3.1 Findings: H1-3 at the industry aggregate level LO characteristics of communication are positively related to its organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .647, p< 0.001, displaying moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

181

Communication at the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is assessed through the factors of (1) “norm of sharing knowledge” with mean = 4.83, and SD. = 1.136; and (2) “freely to share ideas” with mean = 4.67, SD. = 1.393 (from Table 4.40). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.16 and 4.17 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “norm of sharing knowledge” and “freely to share ideas” are between 4.28 and 5.10, which imply that employees in this industry “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the communication that affect the development into an LO. However, if the industry would like to move forward to become an LO, the industry should consider the following undesirable communication practices (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) Knowledge in the company is not communicated quickly, clearly and focused ii) Employees in the company do not listen to each other iii) Conflict during communication is not expected and accepted in the company iv) There is no discussion of mistakes and they are not viewed them as an opportunity to learn v) Employees have little opportunity to take part in discussion of and share key concerns vi) Leaders do not communicate freely with their employees vii) The company hasn’t got flat structure for effective communication viii) There is no free face-to-face interaction with members in other functions

5.3.1.3.2 Findings: H1-3 at Company A LO characteristics of communication are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .647, p< 0.001, reflecting moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Communication at Company A is assessed through the factors of (1) “supportive and freely to share ideas”, with mean = 4.70, SD. = 1.306; and (2) “openness and shared communication”, with mean = 5.30, SD. = 1.105 (from Table 4.41). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.18 and 4.19 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “supportive and freely to share ideas” and “openness and shared communication” are between 4.29 and 5.58, which imply that employees at Company A almost “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the communication that affect the development into an LO. However, if the company would like to evolve into an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25):

182 i) Employees know the company’s vision and purpose

Company A should also address the following undesirable communication practices (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) The company hasn’t got flat structure for effective communication ii) Employees have little opportunity to take part in and share key concern iii) There is no free face-to-face interaction with members in other functions iv) There is no discussion of mistakes and they are not viewed as an opportunity to learn

5.3.1.3.3 Findings: H1-3 at Company B LO characteristics of communication are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .723, p< 0.001, showing high correlation and marked relationship between these two variables.

Communication at Company B is assessed through a factor of “open communication (culture)” with mean = 4.68, SD. = 1.359 (from Table 4.42). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.20 and 4.21 respectively.

All mean values under the factors of “open communication (culture)” are between 4.26 and 5.05, which imply that employees at Company B “mildly agree” or are “indifferent” with the questions asked. This may need serious consideration since communication is one of the vital dimensions that affect the development of LOs. If the company would like to move towards to an LO, it should address the following undesirable communication practices (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) Employees are unable to share knowledge and break-through thinking throughout the company ii) Knowledge in the company is not communicated quickly, clearly and focused iii) Conflict in communication is not expected and accepted in the company iv) Employees do not share mistakes and do not view them as opportunities for learning v) Employees do not feel free and are afraid of sharing ideas and speaking their mind vi) Leaders do not freely communicated with employees vii) The company has not got a flat structure for effective communication viii) Lack of free face-to-face interaction with members in other functions

183

5.3.1.4 Hypothesis1: H1-4 Hypothesis H1-4 assumes that if an organization has a high level of “knowledge transfer” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

5.3.1.4.1 Findings: H1-4 at the industry aggregate level LO characteristics of knowledge transfer are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .604, p< 0.001, demonstrating moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Knowledge transfer at the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is assessed through: (1) “accessible storage system”, with mean = 4.91, SD. = 1.197; (2) “willingness to share knowledge”, with mean = 5.47, SD. = 0.998; and (3) “supportive data system”, with mean = 5.38, SD.=1.091 (from Table 4.40). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.22 and 4.23 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “accessible storage system”, “willingness to share knowledge” and “supportive data system” are between 4.76 and 5.77, which imply that employees in this industry “mildly agree” to “agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the knowledge transfer that affect the development of LO characteristics. However, if the industry would like to move forward as an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Employees can freely access information in the company ii) The company has advanced technology to obtain and distribute work-related information iii) Employees desire to learn and are willing to share knowledge due to improved product quality and speed, innovation, and customer satisfaction iv) Employees are confident to share work-related information with their colleagues v) Employees contribute their own experience, beliefs, thoughts and feelings to their work team vi) Employees share their mindset, vision and values with their colleagues vii) Employees are enthusiastic about sharing work-related information with their colleagues On the other hand, the industry should address the following undesirable knowledge transfer practices (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) Work-related information is not distributed quickly and effectively across the organization ii) Employees cannot access work-related documents, organizational routines, processes, practices and norms in the company

184 iii) Work-related information, e.g. work manual, instruction sheets and data file, are not available in explicit form in some areas iv) Some departments may lack method of storing work-related information for members’ use.

5.3.1.4.2 Findings: H1-4 at Company A LO characteristics of knowledge transfer are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .695, p< 0.001, reflecting moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Knowledge transfer at Company A is assessed through: (1) “accessible storage system”, with mean = 4.95, SD. = 1.079; (2) “willingness to share knowledge”, with mean 5.55, SD.= 0.934; and (3) “supportive data system”, with mean = 5.53, SD. = 0.981 (from Table 4.41). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.24 and 4.25 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “accessible storage systems”, “willingness to share knowledge” and “supportive data system” are between 4.84 and 5.70, which imply that employees at Company A “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the knowledge transfer activities that affect the development of LO characteristics. For the company to move forward to become an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Employees can freely access information in the company ii) Employees discuss their thoughts about work within and without their team iii) Employees desire to learn and are willing to share knowledge due to improved product quality and speed, innovation, and customer satisfaction iv) Employees are confident to share work-related information with their colleagues v) Employees contribute their own experience, beliefs, thoughts and feelings to their work team vi) Employees share their mindset, vision and values with their colleagues vii) Employees are enthusiastic about sharing work-related information with their colleagues On the other hand, Company A should address the following undesirable knowledge transfer practices (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) Work-related information, e.g. work manual, instruction sheets and data file, are not available in explicit form in some departments ii) Work-related information is not distributed quickly and effectively across the organization iii) Some departments may lack method of storing work-related information for members’ use

185

5.3.1.4.3 Findings: H1-4 at Company B LO characteristics of knowledge transfer are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .674, p< 0.001, showing moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Knowledge transfer at Company B is assessed through: (1) “knowledge distribution and memory systems”, with mean = 4.92, SD. = 1.290; and (2) “willingness to share knowledge” with mean = 5.42, SD. = 1.072 (from Table 4.42). Factor loading and their reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.26 and 4.27 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “knowledge distribution and memory systems” and “willingness to share knowledge” between 4.65 and 5.65, which imply that employees at Company B “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the knowledge transfer that affect the LO. However, if the company would like to move forward to become an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Employees desire to learn and are willing to share knowledge due to improved product quality and speed, innovation, and customer satisfaction ii) Employees are confident to share work-related information with their colleagues iii) Employees contribute their own experience, beliefs, thoughts and feelings to their work team iv) Employees share their mindset, vision and values with their colleagues v) Employees are enthusiastic about sharing work-related information with their colleagues

On the other hand, the company should address the following undesirable knowledge transfer practices (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) Lack of access on work-related information that may be of use to others in the company among employees ii) Work-related information is not distributed quickly and effectively across the organization iii) Employees cannot access work-related documents, organizational routines, processes, practices and norms in the company iv) Work-related information in the company is not available in explicit forms such as work manuals instruction sheets, data files and computer databases v) Some departments may lack methods of storing work-related information for members’ use

186

5.3.1.5 Hypothesis1: H1-5 Hypothesis of H1-5 infers that if an organization has a high level of employee characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

5.3.1.5.1 Findings: H1-5 at the industry aggregate level LO of employee characteristics are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .574, p< 0.001, mirroring moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Employee characteristics at the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is assessed through the factors of (1) “employee proficiency”, with mean = 5.60, SD. = 0.934; and (2) “human resource emphasis”, with mean = 5.41, SD.= 1.086 (from Table 4.40) . Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.28 and 4.29 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “employee proficiency” and “human resource emphasis” are between 5.20 and 5.82, which imply that employees in this industry strongly “agree” with the questions asked. The attitude towards the questions asked in considering the employee characteristics of an LO is acceptable. However, if the industry would like to become an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25) i) Employees consider themselves fast learners of work-related skills and information ii) Employees prefer to work in teams iii) Employees are able to take on leadership roles in their work when necessary iv) Employees are able to solve problems in their work by themselves in most cases v) Employees feel responsible for seeking and sharing new work-related information in their work vi) Employees are responsible for updating their knowledge and skills at all time vii) Employees know that their jobs are important and contribute to achievement of organizational goal viii) Employees are always looking for new ways of doing their job more effectively ix) The company places strong emphasis on training and developing employees x) Employees are keen to seek self-development opportunities xi) The company has in-house training and development activities that employees can participate in to improve their future work xii) Employees in the company have appropriate education, experience and intellect

187

5.3.1.5.2 Findings: H1-5 at Company A

LO of employee characteristics are positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .750, p< 0.001, showing high correlation and marked relationship between these two variables.

Employee characteristics at Company A is assessed through the factors of (1) “employee proficiency”, with mean = 5.65, SD. = 0.919; and (2) “human resource emphasis”, with mean = 5.56, SD. = 0.974 (from Table 4.41). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.30 and 4.31 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “employee proficiency” and “human resource emphasis” are between 5.31 and 5.88, which imply that employees at Company A all “mildly agree” to nearly “agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the employee characteristics that affect the LO. However, if the company would like to evolve into an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Employees consider themselves fast learners of work-related skills and information ii) Employees consider themselves sufficiently equipped to solve problems, create new ideas for processes, products and services on their job iii) Employees prefer to work in teams iv) Employees are able to take on leadership roles in their work when necessary v) Employees are able to solve problems in their work by themselves in most cases vi) Employees are responsible for updating their knowledge and skills at all time vii) Employees know that their jobs are important and contribute to achievement of organizational goal viii) Employees are always looking for new ways of doing their job more effectively ix) The company places strong emphasis on training and developing employees x) The company carefully recruits new employees who can fit well with existing employees xi) Employees are keen to seek self-development opportunities xii) The company has in-house training and development activities that employees can participate in to improve their future work xiii) Employees in the company have appropriate education, experience and intellect There is no obvious area for improvement when it comes to employee characteristics at Company A. The findings indicated that Company A possesses employee characteristics that are appropriate for LOs. It could therefore devote resources to strengthening other LO characteristics.

188

5.3.1.5.3 Finding: H1-5 at Company B LO of employee characteristics are positively related to its organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r= .608, p< 0.001, showing moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Employee characteristics at Company B is assessed through the factors of (1) “employee proficiency”, with mean = 5.51, SD. = 0.950; and (2) “human resource values”, with mean = 5.08, and SD. = 1.317 (from Table 4.42). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.32 and 4.33 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “employee proficiency” and “human resource values” are between 4.99 and 5.72, which imply that employees at Company B “mildly agree” and practically “agree” with the questions asked. This is beneficial to the company in terms of the employee characteristics that affect the LO. For the company to move forward to become an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) Employees consider themselves fast learners of work-related skills and information ii) Employees prefer to work in teams iii) Employees are able to take on leadership roles in their work when necessary iv) Employees are able to solve problems in their work by themselves in most cases v) Employees feel responsible for seeking and sharing new work-related information in their work vi) Employees consider themselves responsible for updating their knowledge and skills at all time vii) Employees know that their jobs are important and contribute to achievement of organizational goal viii) Employees are always looking for new ways of doing their job more effectively On the other hand, Company B should address the following undesirable employee characteristics (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) The company doesn’t have in-house training and development activities that employees can participate in to improve their immediate and future work environment

5.3.1.6 Hypothesis1: H1-6 Hypothesis H1-6 assumes that if an organization has a high level of “performance upgrading” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

189

5.3.1.6.1 Findings: H1-6 at the industry aggregate level LO characteristics of performance upgrading are positively related to organizational readiness-to- change, with a correlation coefficient of r= .690, p< 0.001, showing moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Performance upgrading at the mobile phone service providers in Thailand is assessed through the factors of (1) “improvement outcome”, with mean = 4.98, SD. = 1.376; and (2) “performance driving”, with mean = 4.79, SD. = 1.340 (from Table 4.40). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.34 and 4.35 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “improvement outcome” and “performance driving” are between 4.33 and 5.22, which imply that employees at company in this industry “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the performance upgrading that affect the LO. However, this study has found that the industry should address the following undesirable performance upgrading practices (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) Lack of indicators of organization performance in terms of comparison with its competitors ii) No reward for employees who seek and share new work-related information iii) Lack of non-financial means to drive employees performance iv) The high reject rate for its products or services

5.3.1.6.2 Findings: H1-6 at Company A LO characteristics of performance upgrading are positively related to organizational readiness-to- change at the correlation coefficient of r= .683, p< 0.001, showing moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Performance upgrading at Company A is assessed through (1) “improvement approach”, with mean = 5.00, SD. 1.165; and (2) “performance outcome”, with mean = 5.87, SD. =0.980 (from Table 4.41). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.36 and 4.37 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of “improvement approach” and “performance outcome” are over 4.44, which imply that employees at Company A “mildly agree” with the questions asked. This is acceptable in terms of the performance upgrading that affect the LO. If the company would like to become an LO, the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25):

190 i) The company has formal procedures for continuous improvement in processes and products or services ii) The company is perceived as excellent in terms of punctuality of delivery iii) The company is able to increase its market share every year iv) The company always has better financial performance than its competitors On the other hand, Company A should address the following undesirable performance upgrading practices (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) The high reject rate for its products or services ii) Lack of indicator of organization performance in terms of comparison with its competitors iii) No reward for employees who seek and share new work-related information iv) Lack of non-financial means to drive employees performance v) No coordination among functions/departments

5.3.1.6.3 Findings: H1-6 at Company B LO characteristics of performance upgrading are positively related to organizational readiness-to- change at the correlation coefficient of r= .642, p< 0.001, showing moderate correlation and substantial relationship between these two variables.

Performance upgrading at Company B is assessed through (1) “improvement outcome”, with mean = 4.33, SD. = 1.405; and (2) “performance driving”, with mean = 4.86, SD. = 1.331 (from Table 4.42). Factor loading and the reliability analysis of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.38 and 4.39 respectively.

All mean values of variables under the factors of improvement outcome and performance driving are between 3.82 and 5.27, which imply that employees at Company B are “indifferent” or “mildly agree” with the questions asked. The company may need to consider some issues in terms of the performance upgrading that affect the LO. The researcher suggests the following should be further encouraged (aggregated mean > 5.25): i) The company has formal procedures for continuous improvement in processes and products or services On the other hand, Company B should address the following undesirable performance upgrading activities (aggregated mean < 5.00): i) The company does not have clear indicators of its performance for comparison with its competitors

191 ii) The company does not reward employees who seek and share new work-related information iii) The company does not use non-financial means to drive employees performance iv) The company is not perceived as excellent in terms of punctuality of delivery v) The high-reject rate for its products or services vi) The company is not able to increase its market share every year vii) Competitors may have better financial performance than the company itself

5.3.1.7 Verify Hypothesis H1: H1-1 to H1-6 Table 5.1 summarizes correlation coefficient of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to- change (Rc) both at industry aggregate and company levels. This section aims to verify Hypothesis H1 by confirming the validity of sub-hypotheses H1-1 to H1-6. Table 5.1 Correlation between LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change Correlation between LO characteristics and Industry Company A Company B organizational readiness-to-change (Rc) aggregated

1.Cultural values and Rc Moderate Moderate Moderate (r=.623) (r=.661) (r=.640)

2.Leadership commitment and empowerment High High High and Rc (r=.728) (r=.721) (r=.735)

3.Communication and Rc Moderate Moderate High (r=.647) (r=.695) (r=.723)

4.Knowledge transfer and Rc Moderate Moderate Moderate (r=.604) (r=.695) (r=.674)

5.Employee characteristics and Rc Moderate High Moderate (r=.574) (r=.750) (r=.608)

6.Performance upgrading and Rc Moderate Moderate Moderate (r=-.690) (r=.683) (r=.642)

From Table 5.1, the correlation coefficient between LO characteristics and organizational readiness- to-change support the followings: a) Sub-hypothesis H1-1: that if an organization has a high level of “cultural values” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

As indicated in Table 5.1, there is a significant relationship between cultural values and organizational readiness-to-change at the industry aggregate level of the mobile phone service industry in Thailand as well as at the company level. The findings show that cultural values are contributing to LO characteristics and readiness-to-change. Therefore, this study accepts the sub-

192 hypothesis H1-1 that an organization with a high level of cultural values appropriate for LOs also has a high level of readiness-to-change. b) Sub-hypothesis H1-2 believes that if an organization has a high level of “leadership commitment and empowerment” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness- to-change.

As pointed out in Table 5.1, there is an obvious relationship between leadership commitment and empowerment and organizational readiness at both the industry aggregate and company levels of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand. It is clear from the findings that leadership commitment and empowerment are vital characteristics that accelerate and fortify LO characteristics as well as readiness-to-change. As a result this study accepts the sub-hypothesis H1-2 that if an organization has a high level of leadership commitment and empowerment appropriate for LOs, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change. c) Sub-hypothesis H1-3 supposes that if an organization has a high level of “communication” characteristics appropriate for LOs, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

From Table 5.1, there is a significant relationship between communication and organizational readiness-to-change at the industry aggregate level of the mobile phone service provider in Thailand and at Company A; while a marked relationship, at Company B. The findings support the hypothesis that communication characteristics correlates with organizational readiness-to-change. For that reason, this study confirms sub-hypothesis H1-3 that if an organization has a high level of communication appropriate for LOs, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change. d) Sub-hypothesis H1-4 assumes that if an organization has a high level of “knowledge transfer” characteristics appropriate for LOs, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

As specified in Table 5.1, there is a significant relationship between knowledge transfer and organizational readiness-to-change at both the industry aggregate and company levels of the mobile phone service provider in Thailand. Such findings indicate that knowledge transfer is an important LO characteristic that leads to organizational readiness-to-change. In this view, this study approves sub-hypothesis H1-4 that if an organization has a high level of knowledge transfer appropriate for LOs, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

193 e) Sub-hypothesis H1-5 assumes that if an organization has a high level of employee characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

As pointed out in Table 5.1, there is a significant relationship between employee characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change at the industry aggregate level and at Company B; while the study shows marked relationship at Company A. It is clear from the findings that employee characteristics are key aspects that contribute to development of LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change. Therefore, this study accepts sub-hypothesis H1-5 that if an organization has a high level of employee characteristics appropriate for LOs, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change. f) Sub-hypothesis H1-6 believes that if an organization has a high level of “performance upgrading” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

As shown in Table 5.1, there is a significant relationship between performance upgrading and organizational readiness-to-change at both the industry aggregate and company levels of the mobile phone service provider in Thailand. It is clear from the findings that performance upgrading is a critical feature that sustains LO characteristics and organizational readiness-to-change. Thus, this study confirms sub-hypothesis H1-6 that if an organization has a high level of employee characteristics appropriate for LOs, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

The verification of the correlation coefficient between the six categories of LO characteristics and readiness-to-change has provided support to confirm the first hypothesis that if an organization has a high level of LO characteristics, it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

5.4 LO Development Stages

This section verifies and discusses the second hypothesis (H2) of the research that if an organization has completed all three LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization, it should have a higher level of readiness-to-change than if it has not. This implies that organizations, which have not completed the full LO development stages, have a lower level of readiness-to-change. To verify the validity of this hypothesis, three sub-hypotheses have been formulated as follows: H2-1: that The correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change.

194

H2-2: that The correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change H2-3: that The correlation between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change The positive verification of the three sub-hypotheses can then prove the validity of hypothesis H2.

5.4.1 Hypothesis 2: Verifying the validity of H2-1 to H2-3 This section aims to verify the validity of sub-hypotheses H2-1 to H2-3 so that hypothesis H2 can be tested.

5.4.1.1 Sub-Hypothesis H2-1: correlation coefficient of knowledge acquisition (KA) and readiness-to-change To prove the validity of H2-1, the correlation coefficient of knowledge acquisition and readiness-to- change is presented and analysed. i) Findings at the industry aggregate level At the industry aggregate level, the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition appears to be positively related to organizational readiness-to-change at the correlation coefficient of r = .711, p< 0.001. There is a high correlation and marked relationship between the two variables.

Knowledge acquisition of the mobile phone services providers in Thailand are assessed through four factors, which are: (1) “leader’s responsibility in knowledge acquisition”; (2) “employees’ expertise”; (3) “means to obtain knowledge”; and (4) “training and learning implementation”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.43 and 4.44 respectively.

ii) Findings at Company A At Company A, the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition has a positive correlationship with organizational readiness-to-change, as reflected in the correlation coefficient of r = .796, p< 0.001. There is a high correlation and marked relationship between the two variables.

Knowledge acquisition at Company A is assessed through four factors, which are (1) “supportive environment for KA”; (2) “employees’ expertise”; (3) “human resource quality” and (4) “training and

195 learning implementation”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.45 and 4.46 respectively. iii) Findings at Company B At Company B, the LO development stage of knowledge acquisition is positively related to organizational readiness-to-change with a correlation coefficient of r = .723, p< 0.001. There is therefore a high correlation and marked relationship between the two variables.

Knowledge acquisition at Company B is assessed through four factors: (1) “leaders’ responsibility in KA”; (2) “employees’ expertise”; (3) “means of KA prominence”; and (4) “learning form sources”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.47 and 4.48 respectively.

5.4.1.2 Sub-Hypothesis H2-2: correlation coefficient of knowledge sharing (KS) and readiness-to-change To prove the validity of H2-2, the correlation coefficient of knowledge sharing and readiness-to- change is presented and analysed. i) Findings at industry aggregate level At the industry aggregate level, the LO development stage of knowledge sharing has a positive correlationship with organizational readiness-to-change as reflected in the correlation coefficient of r = .723, p< 0.001. Thus, there is high correlation and marked relationship between the two variables compared to that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change (Correlation coefficient r = .711, p< 0.001).

Knowledge sharing of the mobile phone service providers in Thailand are assessed through three factors which are (1) “leaders’ task in KA and KS”; (2) “efficiency in learning and sharing (in team)”; and (3) “employee and communication issue facilitated KA and KS”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.49 and 4.50 respectively.

The correlation coeffieicent found between knowledge sharing and organizational readiness-to- change is higher than that between knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness-to-change as presented in section 5.4.1.1.

196 ii) Findings at Company A At Company A, LO development stage of knowledge sharing is positively correlated to organizational readiness-to-change with a correlation coefficient of r = .811, p< 0.001. Thus, there is high correlation and marked relationship between the two variables and the correlation is higher than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change as presented in section 5.4.1.1.

Knowledge sharing at Company A is assessed through five factors which are (1) “leader’s role due to develop into an LO”; (2) “honesty and wiliness to share knowledge”; (3) “openness and free communication”; (4) “supportive factors for LO development”; and (5) “employee competencies at work”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.51 and 4.52 respectively. iii) Findings at Company B At Company B, the LO development stage of knowledge sharing has a positive correlation to organizational readiness-to-change with a correlation coefficient of r = .787, p< 0.001. Again, the correlation and relationship between knowledge acquisition and its readiness-to-change is higher than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change as described in section 5.4.1.1.

Knowledge sharing at Company B is assessed through four factors: (1) “leader’s role in KA and KS”; (2) “employees’ role in KA and KS”; (3) “learning and sharing culture sustained LOs development”; and (4) “learning from sources”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.53 and 4.54 respectively.

5.4.1.3 Sub-Hypothesis H2-3: correlation coefficient of knowledge utilization (KU) and readiness-to-change To prove the validity of H2-3, the correlation coefficient of knowledge utilization and readiness-to- change is presented and discussed.

i) Findings at the industry aggregate level At the industry aggregate level, the LO development stage of knowledge utilization is positively related to its organizational readiness-to-change with a correlation coefficient of r = .743, p< 0.001. Thus, there is high correlation and marked relationship between the two variables. Indeed, the correlation coefficient is the highest compared to those between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change, and between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change respectively.

197

Knowledge utilization of the mobile phone services providers in Thailand are assessed through four factors: (1) “leadership commitment, empowerment, and encouragement in LO development stages”; (2) “skilful employee facilitated LO development stages”; (3) “recruitment/training, organizational memory and improvement approach facilitated LO development stages”; and (4) “openness and honesty communication supported KA, KS and KU”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.55 and 4.56 respectively.

ii) Findings at Company A At Company A, the LO development stage of knowledge utilization has a positive correlation to its organizational readiness-to-change with a correlation coefficient of r = .811, p< 0.001. This is considered high between the two variables but is at the same level as the correlation coefficient between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change as presented in section 5.4.1.2.

Knowledge utilization at Company A is assessed through four factors: (1) “leaders’ role and encouragement in LO development”; (2) “learning, willingness to share and application of knowledge”; (3) “openness and supportive communication culture”; and (4) “enhancement supportive factors”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.57 and 4.58 respectively.

iii) Findings at Company B At Company B, the LO development stage of knowledge utilization has a positive correlation to its organizational readiness-to-change with a correlation coefficient of r = .787, p< 0.001. This is considered high between the two variables but is the same level as the correlation coefficient between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change as described in section 5.4.1.2.

Knowledge utilization at Company B is assessed through four factors: (1) “leaders’ role in KA, KS and KU”; (2) “employee devotedness and competencies at work”; (3) “require factors for obtained, share, and make use of knowledge”; and (4) “free and honest sharing of ideas”. Factor loading and the reliability of Cronbach alpha coefficient are shown in Tables 4.59 and 4.60 respectively.

Table 5.2 summarizes correlation coefficient of LO development stages - knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization - and organizational readiness-to-change both at industry aggregate and company levels.

198

Table 5.2 Correlation between the three LO development stages and organizational readiness- to-change

Correlation between LO development stages Industry Company Company B and organizational readiness-to-change aggregate A

1. Knowledge Acquisition and Rc .711 .796 .723

2. Knowledge Sharing and Rc .723 .811 .787

3. Knowledge Utilization and Rc .743 .811 .787

5.4.1.4 Verifying Hypothesis H2: sub-hypotheses H2-1 to H2-3

5.4.1.4.1 Verifying sub-hypothesis 2: H2-1 Sub-hypothesis H2-1 assumes that the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to- change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change.

As indicated in Table 5.2, the relationship between knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is higher than knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change at both industry aggregate and company levels. The findings show that knowledge utilization is a stage of LO development that is more advanced than that of knowledge acquisition in terms of readiness-to-change. Therefore, this study can accept sub-hypothesis H2-1 that the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to- change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change.

5.4.1.4.2 Sub-hypothesis 2: H2-2 Sub-hypothesis H2-2 believes that the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to- change is stronger than that between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change.

This study has found that the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is higher than that between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change at industry aggregate but not at the company level. This finding shows that knowledge utilization is the final stage of LO development preceded by knowledge sharing at the industry aggregate level. However, at the company level, the correlation coefficient of knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is the same as that between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change. Nevertheless, this study still

199 accepts sub-hypothesis H2-2 because the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness- to-change is stronger than that between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change at the industry aggregate level.

5.4.1.4.3 Sub-hypothesis 2: H2-3 Sub-hypothesis H2-3 assumes that the correlation between knowledge sharing and readiness-to- change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change.

This study has found that the correlation between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change is higher than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change at both industry aggregate and company levels. This finding shows that knowledge sharing is a stage of LO development more advanced than knowledge acquisition based on the level of readiness-to-change acquired. Therefore, this study accepts sub-hypothesis H2-3 that the correlation between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to- change.

From preceding discussions, the mobile phone service providers in Thailand are going through a sequential order of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization in developing themselves into LOs since the level of readiness-to-change increases progressively as the target companies moves through the respective stages. The findings support the three sub-hypotheses which in turn verifies the validity of hypothesis (H2) that if an organization has completed all three LO development stages, it should have a higher level of readiness-to-change than when it has not. This implies that organizations, which have not completed the three LO development stages, have a lower level of readiness-to-change. Hypothesis 2 is evidently accepted at the industry aggregate level. At the company level, the same sequential order of development has been found in two of the stages, i.e. knowledge acquisition followed by knowledge sharing. Knowledge utilization stage does not show correlation with readiness-to-change any higher than that at knowledge sharing stages of LO development. While this issue should be the subject of further research, it seems still acceptable in terms of overall results to conclude that Hypothesis2 is valid.

5.5 Implications for Theory

From preceding discussions, this study shows that there is a “moderately high” to “high” relationship between LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment,

200 communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics, and performance upgrading and readiness-to-change at both industry aggregate and company levels (Table 5.1). Therefore, it is evident that these six categories of LO characteristics contribute to the development of LOs. The development of relevant LOs characteristics in turn can facilitate organization to generate and manage change so that it can adjust itself to changing business environments.

Hypothesis 2 assumes that if an organization has completed all three LO development stages, it should have a higher level of readiness-to-change than that when it has not. This study has successfully filled the gap in the literature that to develop into an LO, the sequential order of LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization may have to be followed. This study has, therefore, contributed to the furtherance of theory.

Briefly, findings in this study have two important implications for theory development in learning organization. Firstly, it launches the development of “the Inventory of LO Characteristics” as a measurement tool to assess the level of LO characteristics attained by organizations. Secondly, it demonstrates that to develop into an LO, organizations progress through a sequential order of development stages to achieve a high level of readiness-to-change.

5.6 Implications for Management and Practices

Based on the findings described in 5.6.1 to 5.6.6, this part of the chapter will discuss each LO characteristics and its relationship with organizational readiness-to-change in terms of implications for management and practices. Discussion will be based on the mean value of individual variables/questions as found in factor analysis. Variables/ questions that have high mean value are regarded as strengths, and those have low mean values, weaknesses.

5.6.1 The LO characteristics of cultural values Table 5.3 is a summary of LO characteristics of cultural values at industry aggregate and company levels. Table 5.3 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics of cultural values at industry and company levels

Variables / questions Industry A B Strengths i) Employees share their insights with colleagues X X X ii) Employees are able to improve themselves X X X from reflecting on successes and failures of

201

their work experiences iii) Leaders encourage and facilitate employees to X X - spend time reviewing their work experience iv) Leaders encourage and facilitate employees to X X - experiment new ideas v) Training and learning is part of our working life X - X in the company vi) Employees support and trust their colleagues X - - vii) Employees can apply what they have learn from - X X formal and informal training to their work Weaknesses i) Employees do not spend much time in X X - analysing competitors’ successes and failures ii) Employees do not often review ideas put X - - forward by their supplier iii) Employees are shy of accepting failures at work X X X and do not try to learn form them iv) Employees are not free to try new ideas if the X X X chance of succeeding is not high v) Employees are not feel free to speak their mind X - X openly and honesty on important issues in the company vi) Employees are not always encouraged to find X - X out from other departments’ colleagues for doing better job vii) Employees do not have chance to get promoted X X X even if they have improved knowledge and skills at work viii) Company does not spend a lot of money on - - X staff training and measures training results very vigorously X = finding from Factor Analysis and appraised as a “strength” or “weakness” from the mean value - = Not found in the Factor Analysis

Under the LO characteristics of cultural values, prominent features found in the study are: a) The culture of openness and trust Employees support, trust, and share their insights with each other. These features are suggested by Ulrich and Van Glinow (1993) who argue that learning will occur when ideas are shared among members. Bennett and O’Brien (1994) also support this suggestion and add that members in an LO should share ideas and knowledge through conversation. John (1998) advocates that the culture of teamwork and trust is important to quickly disseminate knowledge in organization. Therefore, the culture of sharing insights and knowledge are important for the learning culture in an organization. This feature is found at the industry aggregate level with mean = 5.75 (SD = 0.871), and individual company levels of Company A, mean = 5.79 (SD = 0.859); Company B, mean = 5.68 (SD = 0.886).

Gephart and Marsick (1996) advise that openness and trust, which allow organizational members to express their views freely, are necessary for the development of a learning culture. Likewise, Elliot et

202 al. (2000) advocate that trust, communication, and corporate responsibility are essential for developing a blame-free organizational culture which is a vital pre-cursor of learning. Meanwhile, Eckhouse (1999) agrees with other researchers that organizations must rely on trust rather than fear. He further argues that managers should encourage their members to share their knowledge to work collaboratively with each other. Although this characteristics is suggested to be one of the important attributes of developing into an LO, it is found only at the industry aggregate level, but not at company level.

The culture of openness and trust is suggested to be an important characteristics of developing into an LO. This study has found that employees share their insights with colleagues; however, they still need to be more open. Thus, management needs to promote the culture of trust as well as encourage organizational members to speak their mind openly. b) Training and learning culture Training and learning seems to be emphasized at the industry aggregate level and at Company B but not at Company A. While not entirely satisfactory, this finding is in line with Bennett and O’Brien’s idea (1994) that learning and training is essential for organizational change and expansion. In addition, organizational members not only need to learn, learn how to learn but also learn how to think innovatively.

Moreover, training and learning culture covers learning from successes and failures. It is found in this study at both industry aggregate and company levels that employees are able to reflect on successes and failures of their work experiences. Unfortunately, employees in this industry can apply what they have learnt from formal and informal training to their work at company but not at industry aggregate levels.

With regard to training, to have the “right people” in an LO, Goh (1997) suggest that an organization should spend financial resources on staff training and measures training outcomes vigorously. However, this study found a lack of financial resources for training at Company B.

According to the educational attainments of respondents, this industry seems to have sufficiently qualified employees. However, management must encourage training and a learning culture in order to keep employees learn to learn as well as learn to think innovatively. Training and learning culture therefore need to be further promoted.

203 c) Encouragement of leaders Leaders are found to be the one who encourage and facilitate employees to spend time reviewing their work experience as well as experimenting new ideas. This is advocated by scholars such as Nevens (1992); Garvin (1993); Ulrich and Van Glinow (1993), Amhed et al., (1999), and Liedtka (1999). This study has found leaders at the industry aggregate level and at Company A do encourage such a culture.

It is also suggested that the boundary-less organization be promoted as part of the cultural values. Employees should be able to find out knowledge and insights from other departments for their improvement (Burgoyne, 1995; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993). However, this cultural value is found to be lacking at the industry aggregate level and at Company B. Therefore, the implication for management and practices is that leaders need to encourage organizational members to cross- functional areas to learn. d) Analysis of competitor’s successes and failures Although the existing literature suggests that organizational members in LOs should spend time in analysing competitors’ successes and failures and always reviewing ideas put forward by their suppliers (Gephart & Marsick, 1996; Leitch et al., 1996; Prokesch, 1997; Teare & Dealtry, 1998), these features are lacking in this study at both the industry aggregate level and in Company A. This may be because of Company A is the market leader and their market share is nearly twice as much as Company B, as a result, organizational members omit competitors analysis. However, the analysis of competitors’ successes and failures is an issue that management needs to be focused on to move the organization towards an LO. e) Learning environment which support cultural values A finding at both industry aggregate and company levels in this study is that organizational members are shy of accepting failures at work and do not try to learn from them. Although this issue is suggested to be important by Appelbaum, (1997); Ahmed et al, (1999), it may have been compromised by the Thai culture. Thais are shy and humble people. They tend to dismiss of failures (Gross, 2001). Some Thai culture and norms are quite sensitivie such as losing face (Prado, 2003). Therefore, this local culture may have an influence on the development of LOs.

Day (1994) and Burgoyne (1995) recommend that employees should feel free to speak their mind openly and honesty on important issues in support of culture of learning environment. This study has found at both industry aggregate and company levels that employees are uncomfortable to speak out

204 openly and honesty. Again, the Thai culture may have an influence on this finding. Thais have the motto of “The more you talk the more you lose, better to stay quiet and you will earn some penny” (Niratpattanasai, 1997). Most of them tend not to express their ideas and thoughts openly. This may hinder organizations to develop into an LO.

Literature review also suggests that in LOs employees are free to try new ideas even if the chance of succeeding is not high (Ahmed et al., 1999; Barrett, 1995). However, the finding in this study at both industry aggregate and company levels shows that such a culture is not strong. Therefore, an implication for practices here is that management needs to review how to encourage employees to accept failures, speak out openly and be honest in order to enforce a learning culture in organizations. f) Supporting culture To provide promotion opportunities when organizational members have improved their knowledge and skills at work is suggested as an important cultural values of an LO (Schein, 1993; Zack, 1999b). This is not found to be strong in this study at both industry aggregate and company levels. Thus, management in this industry needs to improve this supporting culture in rewarding organizational members who promote the cultural values.

In summary, the mobile phone service industry of Thailand need to promote the following in order to develop the culture values appropriate for LOs: • Encouraging organizational members to speak their mind openly, honestly as well as encourage the culture of trust; • Encouraging training and learning; • Encouraging organizational members to go beyond their own work boundary; • Analyzing competitors’ successes and failures; • Supporting the culture of failure acceptance; and • Developing rewarding system to promote learning culture.

5.6.2 The LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment Table 5.4 is a summary of LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment at industry aggregate and company levels.

205

Table 5.4 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment at industry and company levels

Variables / questions Industry A B Strengths i) Leaders appear to prefer to stay with the X - - company for along, long time ii) Employees in the company trust their leaders X - - iii) Leaders have instilled a clear, shared sense of X X X trust, cooperate and confidence in the team’s capacity to achieve positive results iv) Leaders encourage employees to use their X X - knowledge and skills in line with their competencies and departmental goals v) Leaders usually let employees decided what X X - they need to do in their job vi) Leaders encourage employees to make - X - decision for what they want to learn vii) Leaders allow employees to have their personal - X - training and development plan to maximize their full potential Weaknesses i) Leaders are not given training to help X - - employees learn ii) Leaders do not rewards employees for involving X X X in training and development activities iii) Leaders are not always enthusiastic about - - X learning new knowledge and skills and not sharing them with us iv) Leaders are not role models of learning and - - X continuous improvement v) The company doesn’t select leaders who enjoy - - X teaching others and envisioning others vi) Leaders are not always involved in initiatives - - X elated to learning vii) Leaders do not develop shared vision and - - X delegate authority to subordinates viii) Leaders do not encourage employees to - - X decide what they want to learn ix) Leaders do not help employees to apply what - - X they have learned to their work x) Leaders do not provides employees with - - X adequate resources and information to do their works X = finding from Factor Analysis and appraised as a “strength” or “weakness” from the mean value - = Not found in the Factor Analysis

Under the LO characteristics of leadership commitment and empowerment, the distinguishing features found in the study are discussed below, emphasising on implications for management and practices. a) Leaders’ commitment

206

Leaders have a strong commitment to the organization and tend to stay with the company for a long time (Goh & Richards, 1997; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000; Vowles, 1993). This study has found this to be true at industry aggregate but not at the company levels.

Welch (1993) advises that trust is essential in organizations and that can be built by leaders committing and practicing its values - treating employees fairly and walking the talk. The study has found that employees trust their leaders only at the industry aggregate level, but not at the company level.

Additionally, Gephart and Marsick (1996) suggest that leaders at all levels need to support learning and development of individual employees. Ways to do this is being a model of learning behaviour and providing a system that facilitates learning. This study has found that leaders are not considered models of learning and continuous improvement at Company B.

It has also been found that in this industry, leaders are not trained to help employees learn. Researchers such as Ulrich and Van Gilnow (1993) and Bennett and O’Brien (1994) suggest that teaching leaders to coach and support their subordinates is one of the important factors of developing an organization into an LO.

Briefly, implication for management and practices of leadership commitment and empowerment are: embedding strong commitment to management level; encouraging leader recognitions in terms of works attitude that in turn create trust from organizational members; and training leaders to coach their employees. b) Encouragement of leaders Locke and Jain (1995) suggest that leaders should instill a clear, shared sense of trust, cooperate and confidence in the team’s capacity to achieve positive results. Agreeably, this characteristic is found in this study at both industry aggregate and company levels.

Regarding encouragement of leaders, they persuade their employees to use their knowledge and skills in line with their competencies and departmental goals. This finding is in congruence with Waldersee’s (1997) suggestion that leaders facilitate the self-regulation of employees as one of the five areas to transform an organization into an LO. However, this feature is found at the industry aggregate level and at Company A only.

207

The process of selecting leader who enjoy teaching other and envisioning others are vital for LO development (Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993). However, this characteristic is shown to be limited at Company B.

Bennett and O’ Brien (1994) suggest that one of managers’ coaching tasks is to help employees to assimilate what they have learned to their work. While, Prokesch (1997) advocates that leaders in LOs must stimulate not control employees. Nevertheless, this study has found that leaders do not encourage employees to decide what they want to learn, or help them to apply what they have learned to their work, or provide them with adequate resources and information to do their work. This limitation is found in Company B.

Thus, leaders need to be trained in teaching and envisioning organizational members. c) Leaders’ empowerment This study has found that leaders usually let employees decide what they need to do in their job at industry aggregate level and in Company A. This is in congruence with the view of Waldersee (1997) who views that self-regulation of employees should start with self-goal-setting, followed by provision of feedback on performance. Findings show that leaders encourage employees to make decision for what they want to learn and allow them to have personal training and development plan to maximize their potential. This unfortunately only applies to Company A. Meanwhile, Leithch et al. (1996) agree that it is a fundamental concerns of development of LOs.

Additionally, Bennett and O’Brien (1994) propose that the understanding of organization’s direction is essential for members so that they can anticipate the future. However, it was found that at Company B, leaders are not keen to develop shared vision and to delegate authority to subordinates. Thus, an explicit implication for practices and management is more efforts have to be devoted to this area. d) Rewarding With regard to rewarding, this study found that leaders do not rewards employees for involving in training and development activities. McGill and Slocum Jr., (1992) advocate that long-term reward policy is required for developing an organization into an LO. Therefore, appropriate reward system needs to be institutionalized at both industry aggregate and company levels in the Thai mobile phone service industry in order to develop learning organizations. e) Leadership commitment and empowerment

208

A key point to be addressed in regard to leadership commitment and empowerment in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand, which is suggested by expatriates working in the country, is that when empowering or delegating to Thais: 1) Try small things first so that the damage will be minimal; and 2) Deploy various degrees of empowerment, at the beginning, might put a lot of emphasis on instructing, directing, guiding and coaching your subordinates. The degree of instructions may vary from one person to another (Niratpattanasai, 2000).

From preceding discussions, to develop LOs in the mobile phone service industry in Thailand, leaders need to • Encourage strong commitment to management levels; • Become models of learning and continuous improvement; • Be trained in coaching their employees as well as training in teaching and envision organizational members; • Emphasise on shared vision and empowerment; and • Emphasise on members’ rewarding.

5.6.3 The LO characteristics of communication Table 5.5 is a summary of LO characteristics of communication at industry aggregate and company levels Table 5.5 Summary of findings in respect of LO characteristics of communication at industry and company levels.

Variables / questions Industry A B Strengths i) Employees know the company’s vision and - X - purpose Weaknesses i) Knowledge in the company is not X - X communicated quickly, clearly and focused ii) Employees in the company do not listen to each X - - other iii) Conflict during communication is not expected X - X and accepted in the company iv) There are no discussion of mistakes and view X X X them as an opportunity to learn v) Employees have little opportunity to take part in X X - and share key concerns vi) Leaders are not communicate freely with their X - X employees vii) The company hasn’t got flat structure for X X X effective communication viii) There is no free face-to-face interaction with X X X

209

members in other functions ix) Employees are unable to share knowledge and - - X break through thinking throughout the company x) Employees feel not free and afraid of share - - X ideas and speak their mind X = finding from Factor Analysis and appraised as a “strength” or “weakness” from the mean value - = Not found in the Factor Analysis

From Table 5.5, several points are highlighted in the paragraphs below: a) Communication of organizational vision and purpose This study has found that only employees at Company A know the organization’s vision and purpose. This aspect is suggested as essential for generating learning outcomes. Many researchers argue that employees need to understand the mission, vision and goals of the organization and know how their work contribute to attain their attainment (Goh & Richards, 1997; Goh, 1998). This subject needs to be better communicated. b) Internal communication Garvin (1993) recommends that knowledge needs to be transferred quickly and efficiently through out the organization. Hill (1996) also points out that it is essential for LOs to have free and open communication with all stakeholders. Research findings in this study show that knowledge is not communicated quickly and clearly at the industry aggregate level and at Company B.

This study has also found that employees have little opportunity to take part in and share key concerns at industry aggregate level and at Company A. At Company B, employees are not able to share knowledge and their thinking throughout the organization. Nonaka (1991) suggest that to develop LOs, employees are a main source of organizational knowledge. They should be encouraged to take part in sharing knowledge, which will benefit other members as well as the organization as a whole. However, this issue may be challenging in the Thai culture as people assumed that they have to “listen to person of authority e.g. managers, deans, principals, executives”. When there is a conflict of opinion, the ones that forward by leaders or bosses always get accepted regardless of quality. This seems to be influenced by the Thai culture of protecting leaders from losing face. (http://matrix.bangkokpost.co.th/forums/print.php?Massage_ID=1060). c) Communication culture The culture of listening effectively and a climate of openness, in which error are shared and conflict is accepted, are suggested as facilitating factors for developing LOs (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1997). However, this study has found that at the industry aggregate level, employees do not seem to listen to each other. In company B, in particular, employees do not feel free, are afraid of sharing ideas and

210 speaking their minds. Therefore, management in the Thai mobile phone service industry needs to rectify drawback in the communication culture.

This study has also found that at the industry aggregate level and at Company B, conflict during communication is not expected and accepted in the company. Ahmed et al., (1999) advise that accepting criticism, expecting and accepting conflict, alongsize with open and shared communication are a critical norms for learning and continuous improvement. Their norms are not strong according the research findings. One possible explanation is that Thais do not like disagreement. As a result, they respond to requests by agreeing but just to get themselves out of the difficult situation. They don’t expect any conflict and incline to compromise at work. Thais are also expected to agree with senior personnel in organizations and not to express any opinion in discussion with seniors (Soupap, Wachana Soontawn & Apapirom, 1975).

Waldersee (1997) suggests that leaders have to choose the right message, at the right time and to communicate to the right person to gain the greatest acceptance. The climate for open communication both upward and downward is vital for effective communication in LOs. This study has found that there might be some barrier between management and non-management at the industry aggregate level and at Company B. In addition, there is no free face-to-face interaction with members in non-work situations. This is found at both industry aggregate and company levels. Management needs to promote free flow of communication within the organization, including that between management and non-management. d) Discussion of mistakes Gephart and Marsick (1996) recommend that a learning culture enables members to share mistakes and view them as opportunities for learning. Elliot et al., (2000) also agree that the learning process is build up on organizational members in LOs feel free to report errors and learn from them. From this study, it is shown that discussions of mistake and view mistakes as an opportunity to learn are not prevalent at both industry-aggregate and company levels. However, this finding seems to be in congruence with the culture that Thais are sensitive to losing face (Prado, 2003). Implication of management and practices here is that some LO Characteristics may not be able to be developed in some countries due to cultural constraint. e) Organizational structure that support communication Prokesch (1997) recommends that organizational structure that promotes learning is flat, allowing members to have face-to-face interaction. While, Goh (1998) advocates that to support learning an

211 organization structure should be flat, decentralized with minimum of formal procedures. Jones and Hendry (1994) suggest that not only flat structure is necessary but the levels of management should be taken out also. This study has found that the companies surveyed do not have flat structure for effective communication, which is contrary to preceding suggestions. Some Multi-National Corporations (MNC’s) try to implement flat organization or self-direct teams by changing the title to “team leader”, or “coach”. However, they are advised to keep the title of their executives because the high “power distance” dimension of the Thai culture (Hofstede, 1980; Niratpattanasai, 1997). This particular point is found at both industry aggregate and company levels.

Briefly, this study recommends that management and practices of communication in the mobile phone service in Thailand should: • Be focused on communication of organization vision and purpose; • Be quick, clear, and focused on communication of knowledge; • Allow employees to discuss in key issues; • Emphasize shared knowledge and break through thinking; • Highlight communication culture of openness and freely to share ideas; • Highlight face-to-face interaction as well as free communication; • Promote discussion of mistakes and viewing them as learning opportunities; and • Be facilitated by flat organizational structure. If the industry as well as companies adopt of communication practices as listed, it is believed that the mobile phone service industry in Thailand will acquire a higher level of LO characteristics of communication, hence, higher level of readiness-to-change.

5.6.4 The LO characteristics of knowledge transfer Table 5.6, is a summary of LO characteristics of knowledge transfer at industry aggregate and company levels. Table 5.6 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristics of knowledge transfer at industry and company levels

Variables / questions Industry A B Strengths i) Employees can freely access information in the X X - company ii) The company has advance technology to obtain X - - and distribute work-related information iii) Employees desire to learn and are willing to share X X X knowledge due to improve product quality and speed, innovation, and customer satisfaction

212

iv) Employees are confident to share work-related X X X information with their colleagues v) Employees contribute their own experience, X X X beliefs, throughs, and feelings to their work team vi) Employees share their mindset, vision, and values X X X with their colleagues vii) Employees are enthusiastic about sharing work- X X X related information with their colleagues viii) Employees discuss their thoughts about work - X - within and without their team Weaknesses i) Work-related information is not distributed quickly X X X and effectively across the organization ii) Employees cannot access work-related X - X documents, organization routines, processes, practices, and norms in the company iii) Work-related information e.g. work manuals, X X X instruction sheets, data file etc. are not available in explicit form in some areas iv) Some departments may lack of method of storing X X X work-related information for members’ use v) Lack of pass on work- related information that may - - X be of use to others in the company among employees X = finding from Factor Analysis and appraised as a “strength” or “weakness” from the mean value - = Not found in the Factor Analysis

Under the LO characteristics of knowledge transfer, distinguished features found in the study are: a) Free access to information in organization This study has found that employees are free to access information in the company at industry aggregate level and at Company A. This finding agrees with Olivera (2000) who advocates that the benefit of collecting and storing knowledge provides beneficial to other organizational members. The most critical success factor of organizational memory is that it be explicit, communicable that organizational members use it easily (Hackbarth & Grover, 1999). The finding of this study therefore is consistent with previous research.

Garvin (1993) advises that knowledge transfer is one of the building blocks for an LO and knowledge needs to be distributed quickly and effectively across the organization. Nonetheless, this study has found that at both industry aggregate and company levels, work-related information is not distributed quickly and effectively across the organization. Consequently, leaders need to address knowledge transfer to promote LO development in the Thai mobile phone service industry. b) Facilitating technology Bennett and O’Brein (1994) suggest that using advanced technology to obtain and distribute knowledge is one of key factors that influence organization ability to learn and change. This study

213 has found that advanced technology is used to obtain and distribute work-related information at the industry aggregate level but not at company level. Therefore, companies operating in this industry, still need to do more to promote the use of technologies that support knowledge acquisition and sharing. c) Culture of sharing knowledge There seems to be a strong culture of knowledge sharing at industry and company levels in this study. Employees have strong desire to learn and are willing to share knowledge due to improved product quality and speed, innovation, and customer satisfaction. They are also confident to share work-related information with their colleagues. The study has also found that employees contribute their own experience, beliefs, thoughts, and feelings to their work team. They share their mindset, vision, and values with their colleagues. They are enthusiastic about sharing work-related information with their colleagues. The norms of reciprocity e.g. share mindset, vision and responsibility (Prokesch, 1997; Senge, 1990a; Ulrich & Van Glinow, 1993), are fundamental for transfer of knowledge. The findings are contradictory to the Thai culture in that Thais have the tendency to do things for self rather than doing things for the group. There is no concept of disciplining oneself for the sake of the majority (Soupap et al., 1975).

Researchers such as Garvin (1993); Goh and Richards (1997) also put forward that knowledge should be communicated and distributed across the organization. This appears not to be the case at Company B in this study. There is a lack of passing on work- related information that may be of use to others in the company among employees. Therefore, management still needs to develop appropriate strategies to overcome this cultural barrier in the context of Thailand. d) Recording system This study has found that work-related information e.g. work manuals, instruction sheets and data file, are not available in explicit forms in some areas/departments at the company level. There seems to be a lack of systematic methods of storing work-related information for use by employees. Huber (1991) suggests that the availability of knowledge for learning depends on effectiveness of this storage system, i.e. organizational memory. Argote (2000) also advocates that the more simple and the more knowledge is codified, the easier it is to transfer throughout the organization. Certainly findings in this study do not conform to suggestions in the existing literature. This may have detrimental effect on the learning culture of the organization. One explanation for lack of memory system in the companies surveyed is that Thais in general do not like to do recording and

214 documentation work as a matter of culture and tradition (Niratpattanasai, 1997). Thus, there is a demanding task ahead to overcome such cultural preferences.

In summary, from a management and practice perspective, promotion of knowledge transfer in the Thai mobile phone service industry demands managers to: • Encourage the fast and effective distribution of knowledge across the organization; • Promote technologies that support knowledge acquisition and distribution; • Encourage more distribution of knowledge among organizational members; and • Create more explicit forms of organizational memory by encouraging organizational members to develop work manual and instruction sheet for communal used.

5.6.5 The LO employee characteristics Table 5.7 is a summary of LO employee characteristics at industry aggregate and company levels in this study. Table 5.7 Summary of findings in respect of the LO employee characteristics at industry and company levels

Variables / questions Industry A B Strengths i) Employees consider themselves fast learners of X X X work-related skills and information ii) Employees prefer to work in teams X X X iii) Employees are able to take on leadership roles X X X in their work when necessary iv) Employees are able to solve problems in their X X X work by themselves in most cases v) Employees feel responsible for seeking and X - X sharing new work-related information in their work vi) Employees are responsible for update their X X X knowledge and skills at all time vii) Employees know that their jobs are important X X X and contribute to achievement of organizational goal viii) Employees are always looking for new ways of X X X doing their job more effectively ix) The company places strong emphasis on X X - training and developing employees x) Employees are keen to seek self-development X X - opportunities xi) The company has in-house training and X X - development activities that employees can participate to improve their future work xii) Employees in the company have appropriate X X - education, experience, and intellect xiii) Employees consider themselves sufficient - X - equipped to solve problems, create new ideas

215

for processes, products and services on their job xiv) The company carefully recruits new - X - employees who can fit well with existing employees Weaknesses i) The company doesn’t have in-house training - - X and developing activities that employee can participate to improve their immediate and future work environment X = finding from Factor Analysis and appraised as a “strength” or “weakness” from the mean value - = Not found in the Factor Analysis

Under the LO employee characteristics, note-worthy findings from the study are presented below. a) Employees attributes Hitt (1995) suggests that employees’ ability to learn is considered vital for developing an organization into an LO and for enhancing the commitment to life long learning. This study has found that employees consider themselves fast learners of work-related skills and information at both industry aggregate and company levels. This finding suggests that management in LOs should go beyond recruiting people to do the job. They should employ people who also fit the organization in turns of skills for learning to learn, teamwork and problem solving (Bhasin, 1998).

Hitt (1995) also advises that LOs should focus on selecting people who have the ability to learn and the desire for life long development (Solomon, 1994). This characteristic is found in both industry aggregate and company levels in this study. According to Hill (1996), employees with these characteristics should also have appropriate education, experience, and intellect. Findings in this study agree with what is suggested in the existing literature. b) Team working Bhasin (1998) and Amstrong (2000) advise that the ability for teamwork is necessary for LOs. However, this finding is in contrast to the Thai culture in that Thai people prefer the freedom of being “one’s own man”. The ability to be on one’s own is important and goes along with the desire not to be under anyone. As a result, there is no desire to work as a group or a team in Thailand in general (Soupap et al., 1975). Interestingly, this cultural characteristic is not evident in this study as employees at both the industry and company levels prefer to work in teams. Why has this occurred should be the subject of future research. c) Employees’ ability to take on leadership and problem solving roles This study has found that employees in general are able to take on leadership roles in their work when necessary and are able to solve problems in their work by themselves. They consider

216 themselves sufficiently equipped to solve problems and to create new ideas for processes, products and services. Bhasin (1998) and Amstrong (2000) advise that problem solving skill is required for employees in LOs. Meanwhile, Goh (1998) advocates that shared leadership and coaching behaviour are essential. These characteristics are found in the study both at industry aggregate and company levels. The findings are in congruence with observations about Thai employees (Niratpattanasai, 2001). However, only at Company A “employees consider themselves sufficient equipped to solve problems and to create new ideas for processes, products and services on the job”. Therefore, more work in this area needs to be done in the industry in general. d) Employees’ self-value Goh and Richard (1997) propose that employees not only need to understand organizational goal but they also need to know how their work contribute to attainment of the mission of the organization. This study has found that employees at industry aggregate and company levels know that their job are important and contribute to achievement of organizational goal. e) Training and development in organization Welch (1993) suggests that one way to upgrade employees’ skills is through intensive and continuous training. These characteristics have been found at the industry aggregate level and at Company A, according to this study. Company B, does not have in-house training nor activities that employee can participate in to improve their immediate and future work environment. Thus, in-house training and development is still an area for improvement.

Form preceding discussions, it seems that the mobile phone service industry in Thailand as a whole possesses employee characteristics that are conducive to the development of LOs. This claim is supported by employees’ educational qualification. It may assume that the industry should be able to adjust to the changing environment if they are able to develop other LO characteristics.

5.6.6 The LO characteristics of performance upgrading Table 5.8 is a summary of LO characteristics of performance upgrading at industry and company levels.

217

Table 5.8 Summary of findings in respect of the LO characteristic of performance upgrading at industry and company levels

Variables / questions Industry A B Strengths i) The company has formal procedures for - X X continuous improvement in processes and products or services ii) The company is perceived as excellence in - X - terms of punctuality of delivery iii) The company is able to increase its market - X - share every year iv) The company always has better financial - X - performance than its competitors Weaknesses i) Lack of indicator of organizational performance X X X in terms of comparison with its competitors ii) No rewards for employees who seek and share X X X new work-related information iii) Lack of non-financial means to drive employees X X X performance iv) The high reject rate for its products or services X X X v) No coordination among functions /departments - X - vi) The company does not perceived as excellence - - X in terms of punctuality of delivery vii) The company is not able to increase its market - - X share every year viii) Competitors may have better financial - - X performance than the company itself X = finding from Factor Analysis and appraised as a “strength” or “weakness” from the mean value - = Not found in the Factor Analysis Under the LO characteristics of performance upgrading, a number of issues have been found in this study that deserve further discussion. a) Availability of key indicators for organizational performance Buckler (1998) advocates that organizational performance need to be assessed by a series of specific indicators. This study has found that at the company level those formal procedures are available for continuous improvement of processes and products or services. However, the finding at industry aggregate level is not showing strongly. Therefore, key indicator for organizational performance may need to be more emphasized.

This study has also found that Company A has better financial performance and market share expansion than its competitors. It is also perceived as excellent in terms of punctuality of delivery. Such results can be explained by the fact that Company A is the market leader in Thailand, and this explains why it has a higher market share. The need for performance indicators are nevertheless supported by Hitt (1995).

218

Garvin (1993) suggests that learning from the experience and best practices of others or from benchmarking is one of the main LO activities. Dibella (1997) also advocates that an LO needs to define and measure key factors. This study has however found that there is a lack of indicators of organizational performance in terms of comparison with competitors at both industry aggregate and company levels.

This study has also found that there is a high reject rate for products or services at both industry aggregate and company levels. Apart from better delivery, better financial performance and increase in of market share, zero rejection is also suggested as a critical indicator for performance assessment (Hitt, 1995). Thus, a more comprehensive set of performance indicators need to be developed at the industry and company levels. b) Rewards and motivation Reward systems either in financial or non-financial terms encourage LO development (Ahmed et al., 1999; Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; Leitch et al., 1996). This study has found that at both industry aggregate and company levels there is a lack of both types of rewards for employees to seek and share new work-related information and to drive employees performance. c) Cooperation between functions Although this study has found that employees prefer to work in teams, there is no coordination among functions/departments. This may be attributed to the Thai culture that Thais like the freedom of not to have to be under anyone. As a result, there is little desire to work in groups. Promotion of teamwork has little success in Thailand and seems to be the case at Company A.

In summary, this study proposes that performance upgrading can be further promoted if management is able to: • Clarify key indicators for organizational performance in more explicit ways; • Benchmark with strategic partners and competitors to lift performance; • Develop a more comprehensive set of performance indicators; and • Encourage cooperation among functions and departments.

219

5.5 Conclusion

5.5.1 Verification of Hypotheses This study has positively verified the following two hypotheses and related sub-hypotheses. Hypothesis H1: if an organization has a high level of LO characteristics, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change. Sub-hypothesis: H1-1: that, if an organization has a high level of “cultural values” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change H1-2: that, if an organization has a high level of “leadership commitment and empowerment” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change H1-3: that, if an organization has a high level of “communication” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change H1-4: that, if an organization has a high level of “knowledge transfer” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change H1-5: that, if an organization has a high level of “employee” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change H1-6: that, if an organization has a high level of “performance upgrading” characteristics appropriate for LOs, then it also has a high level of readiness-to-change.

Hypothesis H2: If an organization has completed all three LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization it should have a higher level of readiness- to-change than if it has not. Sub-hypothesis: H2-1: that the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change H2-2: that the correlation between knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change H2-3: that the correlation between knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change is stronger than that between knowledge acquisition and readiness-to-change

In verifying the two hypotheses and related sub-hypotheses, this study has provided empirical evidence to prove that learning organizations do have strong capability to generate and manage change in a dynamic business environment. It also clarifies that there is a sequential order of stages

220 for organizations to go through in developing themselves into learning organizations. The development stages of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization can provide managers with clear indications of the kinds of characteristics they need to develop at different stages of their quest to turn their organizations into LOs.

5.5.2 Limitations of the research Every piece of research work has limitations. This study is no exception.

Tools developed to measure the level of LO characteristics of cultural values, leadership commitment and empowerment, communication, knowledge transfer, employee characteristics and performance upgrading in this study is “the Inventory of LO Characteristics”. Combined with questions to measure readiness-to-change, there are 129 questions in the instrument which may be considered too long if used in a commercial context. It may, therefore, needs to be simplified for application in practice.

The nature of the mobile phone market in Thailand may have an influence on this research. It is a duopoly. The first market leader has a market share of more than 1.5 times over the other. These two companies together have a market share of up to 90%. If this situation changes, such as the emergence of a more competitive market, the companies might focus on development of LO characteristics. For example, managers may need to consider improvements in resource investment, and quality of products or services (Banker, Khosla & Sinha, 1998; Quan, Hu & Hart, 2003). Therefore, the type of market may have an influence on the focus that an organization places on each category of LO characteristics. This issue poses a limitation and suggests further validation of this study by replicating it in the same industry in the more competitive markets.

The literature review suggests that leaders should be highly involved in the processes of developing their organizations into LOs. Management of both companies in this study is heavily infulenced by foreign telecom companies due to joint venture managements. There are expatriates working at the management level. This could have an effect on management practices, routines as well as organizational culture. Management would be very different if the companies are the solely-owned by the Thais. Therefore, this is also considered a limitation of this research.

This study uses the mean values of 5.25 and over to describe responses as strong, and less than 5.00, weak. Considering the 7-point rating scale used in this study, the mid-point of 4 should apply.

221

However, this study seeks to suggest areas for improvement of practice in this industry, and to avoid central tendency in survey in certain cultures. Hence, the dividing line adopted in this study is over mid-point, which means higher than the average. It could be adjusted to the midpoint in future research.

5.5.3 Recommendations for further research The measurement tool of “the inventory of LO characteristics” needs to be modified into a shorter version to reduce boredom during questionnaire completion. Hence, more reliable result can be obtained.

Since the research has been conducted in a duopolistic market, it may not have similar results if it undertaken in different market conditions. Therefore, it should be extended to the same industry with different market environments. Likewise, the research may need to be extended to other rapidly changing industries characterized by companies with sole ownership by Thai nationals.

The correlation coefficient (Table 4.79) of knowledge sharing and readiness-to-change, and that of knowledge utilization and readiness-to-change, are almost the same at the company level. As outlined in the table, at Company A, the correlation coefficient of knowledge sharing is .811, which is the same as that of knowledge utilization. At Company B, the correlation coefficient of knowledge sharing is .787, which is again the same as that of knowledge utilization. This is a need to do further research in this area.

There are a number of LO characteristics that are inconsistent with the Thai culture as shown in this research: • Employees in this industry prefer to work in teams; • Employees in this industry are confident and enthusiastic about sharing work-related knowledge and insights with their colleagues; • Employees support and trust their colleagues; and • Leaders let employees decide what they need to do in their job. Based on these inconsistencies, concepts of LOs, developed primarily on North America and European experiences, may need to be reviewed since their universal application can now be questioned. Hence, There should be areas for future research as well, and the concept of LO may need to be reviewed in the light of culture construct.

222

5.5.4 Contribution of the research The contributions of this study are observed from two perspectives: research and practice.

This research fills the gap in the literature by indicating that an organization needs to develop through the development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization in a sequential order in order to become an LO, as evidenced by the finding that there is a high readiness-to-change when an organization reaches the knowledge utilization stages. Evidence to show that organizations attain a higher level of readiness-to-change as they progress to the next stage of development. Most of the researchers suggest these development stages as a vague structure. None of them has specified that the LO development stages need to be developed through a sequential order. Therefore, this is the main contribution of this study for this area.

This finding can also be considered as a contribution to practice. Firstly, management or a human resource professionals can develop their organizations according to the sequential progression of LO development stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing and utilization in order to become an LO.

Secondly, this research has developed an inventory of LO characteristics as a measurement tool to assess the level of LO development in organizations. The inventory can help management to systematically examine different types of LO characteristics that they need to develop and prioritise those that require urgent attention in their organizations.

As mentioned earlier, this study has identified the following challenges in the development of LO characteristics in Thai organizations due to cultural constraints: The valuing of high position and title; The employees’ openness and honesty to speak their mind; The seniority culture that junior are expected to respect and agree with those in the higher- ranking positions in organizations; The lack of concern for recording and documentation at work; and The lack of cooperation among functional units in organizations.

As one of the first studies to research on learning organization in developing economies, many of the established concepts, generated predominantly in the more advanced countries, may have to be revealed in terms of universality of application. This study certainly has played a part in helping to highlight the inadequacies of the current literature.

223

References

Abernathy, D.J. (1999), 'Leading-edge Learning', Training and Development, Vol. 53(3), pp. 40-42. Addleson, M. (2000), 'What is Good Organization? : Learning Organizations, Community and the rhetoric of the "bottom line".' European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9(2), pp. 233-252. Ahmed, P.K., Loh, A.Y.E. & Zairi, M. (1999), 'Cultures for Continuous Improvement and Learning.' Total Quality Management, Vol. 10(4/5), pp. 426 - 434. Amstrong, H. (2000), 'The Learning Organization: Changed Means to an Unchanged End', Organization Speak Out, Vol. 7(2), pp. 355-361. Anand, V. & Manz, C.C. (1998), 'An Organizational Memory Approach to Information Management', Academic of Management Review, Vol. 23(4), pp. 796-809. Andrews, K.M. & Delahaye, B.L. (2000), 'Influences of Knowledge Process in Organizational Learning: The Psychosocial Filter', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37(6), pp. 797-810. Anonymous (1991), 'Business and Workers Must Play by New Economic Rules', Supervision, Vol. 52(11), pp. 9-12. Anonymous (1995), 'Building a Learning Organization', Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 19(6), pp. 3-4. Anonymous (2002), 'Organizational Change Readiness Questionnaire', SBI Group Inc., Accessed 9/30/02, Appelbaum, S.H. & Reichart, W. (1997), 'How to Measure an Organization's Learning Ability: A Learning Orientation: Part I.' Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 9(7), pp. 225-239. Argote, L. (2000), 'Organizational Learning', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45(3), pp. 622- 625. Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, United State of America, Addison-Wesley Company, Inc. Atkinson, M. (1994), 'Build Learning into Work', HR Magazine, Vol. 39(9), pp. 60-63. Baldwin, T.T., Danielson, C. & Wiggenhorn, W. (1997), 'The Evaluation of Learning Strategies in Organizations: From Employee Development to business Redefinition.' Academic of Management Executive, Vol. 11(4), pp. 47-58. Banker, R.D., Khosla, I. & Sinha, K.K. (1998), 'Quality and Competition', Management Science, Vol. 44(9), pp. 1179-1192. Barchan (1999), 'Capture Knowledge', Executive Excellence, Vol. 16(9), pp. 11.

224

Barrett, F.J. (1995), 'Creating Appreciative Learning Cultures.' Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24(2), pp. 36-49. Baruch, Y. (1999), 'Response Rate in Academic Studies - A Comparative Analysis', Human Relations, Vol. 52(4), pp. 421-438. Bates, T. & Bloch, S. (1996), 'Keeping Pace with Change: New Contracts and Responsibilities', Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 28(1), pp. 29-32. Beck, M. (1989), 'Learning Organization - How to Create Them', Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 21, pp. 21-28. Bendapudi, N. & Leone, R.P. (2001), 'How to Lose Your Star Performer Without Losing Customers, Too', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79(10), pp. 104-112. Bennett, J.K. & O'Brien, M.J. (1994), 'The building Blocks of the Learning Organization', Training, Vol. 31(6), pp. 41-49. Bhagat, R.S., Harveston, P.D. & Triandis, H.C. (2002), 'Cultural Variations in the Cross-Broder Transfer of Organizational Knowledge: An Integrative Framework', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27(2), pp. 204-221. Bhasin, R. (1998), 'There's Nothing New Under the Sun.' Pulp and Paper, Vol. 72(11), pp. 31. Bhatt, G.D. (2000), 'Information Dynamics, Learning and Knowledge Creation in Organizations', The Learning Organization, Vol. 7(2), pp. 89-98. Bierly, P.E. & Hamalainen, T. (1995), 'Organizational Learning and Strategy.' Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 11(3), pp. 209-224. Black, D.H. & Synan, C.D. (1997), 'The Learning Organization: The Sixth Discipline.' Management Accounting: Magazine for Chartered management Accountants,, Vol. 75(10), pp. 70-72. Block, P. (2000), 'Accountability for Results.' Executive Excellence, Vol. 17(5), pp. 9-10. Bohn, R.E. (1994), 'Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36(1), pp. 61-75. Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J. & Nobel, R. (1999), 'Knowledge Transfer in International Acquisitions', Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30(3), pp. 439-462. Brown, R.B. & Woodland, M.J. (1999), 'Managing Knowledge Wisely: A Case Study in Organizational Behaviour', Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 8(2), pp. 175-198. Brown, S.A. (1990), 'Service Excellence as Commitment', Canadian Banker, Vol. 97(4), pp. 56-57. Buckler, B. (1996), 'A Learning Process Model to Achieve Continuous Improvement and Innovation', The Learning Organization, Vol. 3(3), pp. 31-39. Buckler, B. (1998), 'Practical Stems Towards a Learning Organization: Applying Academic Knowledge to Improvement and Innovation in Business Processes', The Learning Organization, Vol. 5(1), pp. 15-23.

225

Buckman, R.H. (1998), 'Knowledge Sharing at Buckman Labs', Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 19(1), pp. 11-15. Burgoyne, J. (1995), 'Feeding Minds to Grow the Business.' People Management, Vol. 1(19), pp. 22- 25. Cahill, D.J. (1997), 'The "Real World" of Classroom: The Learning Organization and Innovation', The Learning Organization, Vol. 4(3), pp. 106-108. Cavaleri, S.A. & Fearon, D.S. (1996), 'Information Pathways to Organizational Knowledge', in Managing in Organizations that Learn, U.S.A, Blackwell Publishers Inc., pp. 548. Cavana, R.Y., Delahaye, B.L. & Sekaran, U. (2001), Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, Singapore, John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. Chan, K.C. (1994), 'Learning for Total Quality: An Action Learning Approach', The Learning Organization, Vol. 1(1), pp. 17-22. Chen, S. (1997), 'A New Paradigm for Knowledge-based Competition: Building an Industry Through Knowledge Sharing', Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 9(4), pp. 437- 452. Child, J. & Rodrigues, S. (2003), 'Social Identity and Organizational Learning', in Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Eds. M. Easterby-smith and M.A. Lyles, United Kingdom, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 676. Chodak, M. (2001), 'The Call for Learning Organization', http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/EMTC/Insight/vol12/learning.html, Accessed 9/16/2002, Choo, C.W. (2001), 'The Knowing Organization as Learning Organization', Educational and Training, Vol. 43(4/5), pp. 197-205. Clarke, T. (2001), 'The Knowledge Economy', Educational and Training, Vol. 43(4/5), pp. 189-196. Cohen, M.D. (1991), 'Individual Learning and Organizational Routine: Emerging Connections', Organization Science, Vol. 2(1), pp. 135-139. Cohen, M.D. & Levinthal, D.A. (1990), 'Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation', Administrative Science Quartive, Vol. 35(1), pp. 128-152. Cook, G. (1992), 'Instilling a Sense of Ownership.' Supervision, Vol. 53(7), pp. 14-16. Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2001), Business Research Methods, Seventh Edition International Edition edn, Singapore, McGraw-Hill. Corley, K.G. & Gioia, D.A. (2003), 'Semantic Learning as Change Enabler: Relating Organizational Identity and Organizational Learning', in Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge management, Eds. M. Easterby-smith and M.A. Lyles, United Kingdom, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 676. Coutu, D.L. (2002), 'The Anxiety of Learning', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80(3), pp. 100-106.

226

Croasdell, D.T. (2001), 'IT's Role in Organizational Memory and Learning', Information Systems Management, Vol. 18(1), pp. 8-11. Cross, R. & Baird, L. (2000), 'Technology is not Enought: Improving Performance by Building Organizational Memory', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41(3), pp. 69-78. Crossan, M.M., Lame, H.W. & White, R.E. (1999), 'An Organization Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24(3), pp. 522-537. Cunha, P.V. & Louro, M.J. (2000), 'Building Teams that Learn', Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14(1), pp. 152-153. Davenport, T.H. & Volpel, S.C. (2001), 'The Rise of Knowledge towards Attention Management', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5(3), pp. 212-221. Davis, S. & Botkin, J. (1994), 'The Coming of Knowledge-Based Business.' Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72(5), pp. 165-170. Day, G.S. (1994), 'Continuous Learning About Markets.' California Management Review, Vol. 36(4), pp. 9-31. De Long, D.W. & Fahey, L. (2000), 'Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management', Academic of Management Executive, Vol. 14(4), pp. 113-127. DiBella, A. (1997), 'Gearing Up to Become a Learning Organization.' Journal for Quality & Participation., Vol. 20(3), pp. 12-15. Dibella, A.J., Nevis, E.C. & Gould, J.M. (1996), 'Understanding Organizational Learning Capability.' Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33(3), pp. 361-379. Dixon, N.M. (1999), 'The Changing Face of Knowledge', The Learning Organization, Vol. 6(5), pp. 212-216. Dooley, K., Andnerson, J. & Liu, X. (1999), 'Process Quality Knowledge Bases', Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 4(2), pp. 207-224. Dowling, M.J. & Roering, W.D. (1996), 'Multifaceted Relationships under Coopertition: Description and Theory', Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 5(2), pp. 155-167. Drew, S.A.W. & Smith, P.A.C. (1995), 'The Learning Organization: "Change Proofing" and Strategy', The Learning Organization, Vol. 2(1), pp. 4-14. Dutrenit, G. (2000), Learning and Knowledge Management in the Firm: From Knowledge Accumulation to strategic Capabilities, Great Britain, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Dykeman, J.B. (1998), 'Knowledge Management Moves from Theory toward Practice', Management Office Technology, Vol. 43(4), pp. 12-13. Eckhouse, J. (1999), 'Get Creative with Knowledge Sharing', Information Week, Vol. (720), pp. 1. Edmondson, A.C. (2002), 'The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group- Level Perspective', Organization Science, Vol. 13(2), pp. 128-146.

227

Ellinger, A.D., Watkins, K.E. & Barnas, C.M. (1999), 'Responding to New Roles: A Qualitative Study of Managers as Instructors', Management Learning, Vol. 30(4), pp. 387-412. Elliott, D., Smith, D. & MaGuinness, M. (2000), 'Exploring the Failure To Learn: Crises and the Barriers to Learning', Review of Business, Vol. 21(3/4), pp. 17-24. Ensign, P.C. (1999), 'Innovation in the Multinational Firm with Globally Dispersed R&D: Technological Knowledge Utilization and Accumulation', Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 10(2), pp. 203-220. Erickson (1999), 'The Advantages of Teamwork.' Packaging Technology and Engineering, Vol. 8(7), pp. 58-59. Evans, F.J. (1998), 'Effective Leadership Depend upon Six Management Practices.' Business Journal Serving Fresno and the Central San Joaquin Valley, Vol. (322352), pp. 27. Fahey, L. & Prusak, L. (1998), 'The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management', California Management Review, Vol. 40(3), pp. 265-276. Fielden, T. (2001), 'A Knowledge Management State of Mind', InfoWorld, Vol. 23(6), pp. 47. Fiol, C.M. & Lyles, M.A. (1985), 'Organizational Learning', Academic of Management Review, Vol. 10(4), pp. 803-813. Francis, S. (1997), 'A Time for Reflection: Learning about Organizational Learning', The Learning Organization, Vol. 4(4), pp. 168-179. Garavan, T. (1997), 'The Learning Organization: A Review and Evaluation', The Learning Organization, Vol. 4(1), pp. 18-29. Gardiner, P. & Whiting, P. (1997), 'Success Factors in Learning Organizations: an Empirical Study', Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 29(2), pp. 41-48. Garvin, D.A. (1993), 'Building a Learning organization', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73(4), pp. 78- 91. Garvin, D.A. (2000a), Learning in Action: A guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work, Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Garvin, D.A. (2000b), 'Learning Organizations at Work: Harvard B-School Professor David Garvin Discusses Learning in Action', The New Corporate University Review, Vol. 8(4), pp. 9-11. Gephart, M.A. & Marsick, V.J. (1996), 'Learning organizations Come Alive.' Training & Development, Vol. 50(12), pp. 34-44. Gill, S.J. (1995), 'Shifting Gears for High Performance', Training & Development, Vol. 49(5), pp. 24- 31. Gilley, J.W. (2001), 'Taming the Organization', Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4(2), pp. 217-233.

228

Goh, S. & Richards, G. (1997), 'Benchmarking the Learning Capability of Organizations', European Management Journal, Vol. 15(5), pp. 575-583. Goh, S.C. (1998), 'Toward a Learning Organization: the Strategic Building Blocks', S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 63(2), pp. 15-20. Gross, A. (2001), 'Thailand Human Resources Update', Pacific Bridge, Inc., Accessed 23/03/04, Gustavsson, B. & Harung, H.S. (1994), 'Organizational Learning Based on Transforming Collective Consciousness', The Learning Organization, Vol. 1(1), pp. 33-40. Hackbarth, G. & Grover, V. (1999), 'The Knowledge Repository: Organizational Memory Information Systems', Information systems Management, Vol. 16(3), pp. 21-30. Hair, J.F.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Fifth edition edn, United State of America, Prentice-Hall. Handfield, R.B. & Krause, D.R. (2000), 'Avoid the Pitfalls in Supplier Development', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41(2), pp. 37-49. Harari, O. (1994), 'The Brain-Based Organization', Management Review, Vol. 83(6), pp. 57-60. Harari, O. (1997), 'Wrap Your Organization around Each Customer', Management Review, Vol. 86(11), pp. 29-32. Hardy, L. (1996), 'Ten Golden Rules', Director, Vol. 49(7), pp. 28. Hedgetts, R.M., Luthans, F. & Lee, S.M. (1994), 'New Paradigm Organizations: From Total Quality to Learning To Word-Class.' Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 23(3), pp. 4-19. Hill, R. (1996), 'A Measure of the Learning Organization.' Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 28(1), pp. 19-25. Hitt, W.D. (1995), 'The Learning Organization: Some Reflections on Organizational Renewal.' Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 16(8), pp. 17-25. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Difference in Work-related Values., London, Sage Publications. Hong, J.-C. & Kuo, C.-L. (1999), 'Knowledge Management in the Learning Organization', The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20(4), pp. 207-215. Huang, K.T. (1998), 'Capitalizing on Intellectual Assets', IBM System Journal, Vol. 37(4), pp. 570- 583. Huber, G.P. (1991), 'Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and The Literatures.' Organizational Science, Vol. 2(1), pp. 88-115. Inkpen, A.C. (2000), 'Learning Through Joint Ventures: A Framework of Knowledge Acquisition', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37(7), pp. 1019 -1043.

229

Inkpen, A.C. & Crossan, M.M. (1995), 'Believing is Seeing: Joint Ventures and Organization Learning', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 32(5), pp. 595-618. John, G. (1998), 'Share Strength', People Management, Vol. 4(16), pp. 44-47. Johnson, J.R. (1998), 'Embracing Change: A Leadership Model for the Learning Organization', International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 2(2), pp. 141-150. Jones, A.M. & Hendry, C. (1994), 'The Learning Organization: Adult Learning and Organizational Transformation.' British Journal of Management, Vol. 5, pp. 153-162. Jones, M.L. (2001), 'Sustainable Organizational Capacity Building: is Organizational Learning a Key?' International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12(1), pp. 91-98. Kahle, D. (2000a), 'Teach Your Organization to Learn.' Manager's Intelligence Report, Vol., pp. 8-9. Kahle, D. (2000b), 'Don't Become a Contracting Dinosaur', Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, Vol. 210(8), pp. 8-9. Kanter, J. (1999), 'Knowledge Management, Practically Speaking', Information Systems Management, Vol. 16(4), pp. 7-15. Kanter, R.M. (1992), 'Six Certainties for CEOs.' Harvard Business Review,, Vol. 70(2), pp. 7-8. Keys, J.B., Fulmer, R. & Stumpf, S.A. (1996), 'Microworlds and Simuworlds:Practice Fields for the Learning Organization', Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24(4), pp. 36-49. Kim, D.H. (1993), 'The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35(1), pp. 37-50. Kim, J.-O. & Mueller, C.W. (1986), Introduction to Factor Analysis: What it is and how to do it, Sage Publications Inc. King, W.R. (1996), 'IS and the Learning organization.' Information Systems Management, Vol. 13(3), pp. 78-80. King, W.R. (2001), 'Strategies for creating a LO.' Information systems Management, Vol. 18(1), pp. 12-10. Kline, P. (1997), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, London, Routledge. Koerojna, C. (1996), ' "Road to Thailand"', Thai Link, Accessed 27/12/03, Kofman, F. & Senge, P.M. (1993), 'Communities of Commitment: the Heart of Learning organization.' Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22(2), pp. 4-23. Kouzmin, A., Loffler, E., Klages, H. & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (1999), 'Benchmarking and Performance Measurement in Public Sectors: Towards Learning for Agency Effectiveness', The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 12(2), pp. 121-144. Kransdorff, A. & Williams, R. (1999), 'Swing Doors and Musical Chairs', Business Horizons, Vol. 42(3), pp. 27-33.

230

Kuwada, K. (1998), 'Strategic Learning: The Continuous Side of Discontinuous Strategic Change', Organization Science, Vol. 9(6), pp. 719-736. Laczniak, G.R. & Lusch, R.F. (1997), 'The Flexible Executive Mindset: How Top Managment Should Look at Tomorrow's Markets', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14(1), pp. 60-81. Lado, A.A. & Zhang, M.J. (1998), 'Expert Systems, Knowledge Development and Utilization, and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based Model', Journal of Management, Vol. 24(4), pp. 489-508. Lee, M. (1995), 'Learning for Work: Short-Term Gain or Long-Term Benefit?' Personnel Review, Vol. 24(6), pp. 29-42. Leitch, C., Harrison, R., Burgoyne, J. & Blantern, C. (1996), 'Learning Organizations: The Measurement of Company Performance.' Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20(1), pp. 31-44. Levine, L. (2001), 'Integrating Knowledge and Processes in a Learning Organization', Information systems Management, Vol. 18(1), pp. 21-33. Liedtka, J. (1999), 'Linking Competitive Advantage with Communities of Practice.' Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 8(1), pp. 5-16. Limerick, D., Passfield, R. & Cunnington, B. (1994), 'Transformational Change: Towards an Action Learning Organization', The Learning Organization, Vol. 1(2), pp. 29-40. Linder, J. (2000), 'Paying the Personal Price for Performance', Strategic and Leadership, Vol. 28(2), pp. 22-26. Locke, E.A. & Jain, V.K. (1995), 'Organizational Learning and Continuous Improvement', The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3(1), pp. 45-68. Lubit, R. (2001), 'Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge management: the keys to sustainable competitive advantage.' Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29(3), pp. 164-178. Lucus, B. (2000), 'It is Not Getting Through.' People Management, Vol. 6(11), pp. 63. Lundberg, C.C. & Brown, J. (1993), 'The Implications of Organizational Learning for Organizational Communication: A Review and Reformulation', The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 1(1), pp. 29-53. Luthans, F., Rubach, M.J. & Paul, M. (1995), 'Going Beyond Total Quality: The Characteristics, Techniques, and Measures of Learning Organizations.' The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3(1), pp. 24-44. Lynn, G.S. (1998), 'New Product Team Learning: Developing and Profiting from Your Knowledge Capital', California Management Review, Vol. 40(4), pp. 74-93. Maani, K. (1999), 'Rapid Team Learning: Lessons from Team New Zealand American's Cup Campaign.' Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27(4), pp. 48-62.

231

Mahler, J. (1997), 'Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning in Public Agencies', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 7(4), pp. 519-539. Mariotti, J. (1999), 'Change requires Learning--and Unlearning', Industry week, Vol. 248(12), pp. 59. Marquardt, M.J. (1996), Building the Learning Organization: A systems Approach to Quantum Improvement, McGraw-Hill. Marquardt, M.J. (1999), The Global Advantage: How the World-Class Organizations Improve Performance Through Globalization, Houston, Texas, Gulf Publishing Company. Martinez, M.N. (1998), 'The Collective Power of Employee Knowledge', HR Magazine, Vol. 43(2), pp. 88-91. Martiny, M. (1998), 'Knowledge Management at HP Consulting.' Organizational. Dynamics, Vol. 27(2), pp. 71-78. Maurer, R. (2001), 'Building a Foundation for Change', Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 24(3), pp. 38-39. Mayo, A. & Lank, E. (1995), 'Changing the Soil Spurs New Growth', People Management, Vol. 1(23), pp. 26-28. McAdam, R. & McCreedy, S. (1999), 'A Critical Review of Knowledge Management Models', The Learning Organization, Vol. 6(3), pp. 91-100. McAulay, L. & Russell, G. (1997), 'Tacit Knowledge for Competitive Advantage', Management Accounting: Magazine for Chartered Management Accountants, Vol. 75(11), pp. 36-37. McCain, B. (1996), 'Multicultural Team Learning: An Approach Towards Communication Competency', Management Decision, Vol. 34(6), pp. 65-68. McDougall, M. & Beattie, R.S. (1998), 'The Missing Link? Understanding the Relationship Between Individual and Organizational Learning', International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 2(4), pp. 288-299. McGill, M.E. & Slocum Jr., J.W. (1993), 'Unlearning the Organization.' Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22(2), pp. 67-79. McGill, M.E., Slocum Jr., J.W. & Lei, D. (1992), 'Management Practices in Learning Organizations.' Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21(1), pp. 5-17. Miles, G., Miles, R.E., Perrone, V. & Edvinsson, L. (1998), 'Some Conceptual and Research Barriers to the Utilization of Knowledge', California Management Review, Vol. 40(3), pp. 281-288. Miller, D., Eisenstart, R. & Foote, M. (2002), 'Strategy from the Inside Out : Building Capability- Creating Organizations', California Management Review, Vol. 44(3), pp. 37-54. Mohanty, R.P. & Deshmuks, S.G. (1999), 'Evaluation manufacturing Strategy for a LO: A Case.' International Journal of Operation and Production Management, Vol. 19(3/4), pp. 308-327.

232

Nesan, J.L. & Holt, G.D. (2002), 'Assessment of Organizational Involvement in Implementing Empowerment', Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13(4), pp. 201-211. Nevens, T.M. (1992), 'Organization Learning in Practice.' McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. (1), pp. 83-86. Nevis, E.C., Dibella, A.J. & Gould, J.M. (2000), 'Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems', in Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective, and Organizational Learning Process, Eds. R.L.J. Cross and S.B. Israelit, United State of America, Butterworth- Heinemann Publications, pp. 348. Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. & Swan, J. (2002), Managing Knowledge Work, Great Britain, PALGRAVE. Niratpattanasai, K. (1997), 'Thai Tales', Asian Pacific Management Forum, Accessed 01/01/04, Niratpattanasai, K. (2000), 'Thai Tales: Even the Thai Manager Can Go Wrong', Asian Pacific Management Forum, Accessed 30/12/03, Niratpattanasai, K. (2001), 'Thailand Tales: Doing Business in Thailand', Asian Pacific Management Forum, Accessed 30/12/03, Nonaka, I. (1991), 'The Knowledge-Creating Company', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69(6), pp. 96-104. Nonaka, I. & Johansson, J.K. (1985), 'Japanese Management: What About the "Hard" Skills?' Academic of Management Review, Vol. 10(2), pp. 181-191. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995), 'Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation', in The Knowledge- Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Eds. I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, United State of America, Oxford University Press, Inc., pp. 284. Norman, S. & Zawacki, R.A. (2002), 'Facilitating Transformations in It: lessons Learned Along The Journey', Information systems Management, Vol. 19(2), pp. 12-18. Ober, S., Yanowitz, J. & Kantor, D. (1996), 'Creating Results Through Team Learning', Management Decision, Vol. 34(5), pp. 49-50. Olivera, F. (2000), 'Memory Systems in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation of Mechanisms for Knowledge Collection, Storage and Access.' Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37(6), pp. 811-832. Pan, S.L. & Scarborough, H. (1999), 'Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory Case Study', Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 11(3), pp. 259-274. Parise, S. & Henderson, J.C. (2001), 'Knowledge Resource Exchange in Strategic Alliances', IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40(4), pp. 908-924. Parker, W.T. (1997), 'Assessing Change Readiness of Your Organization', Bank Marketing, Vol. 29(4), pp. 28-29.

233

Pedersen, C.R. (1998), 'Management of Knowledge new IT 'craze'', Computing Canada, Vol. 24(27), pp. 19-20. Popper, M. & Lipshitz, R. (2000), 'Organizational Learning: Mechanisms, Culture, and Feasibility.' Management learning, Vol. 31(2), pp. 181-196. Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Collier Macmillan. Porth, S., McCall, J. & Bausch, T.A. (1999), 'Spiritual Themes of the "Learning Organization".' Journal of Organization Change Management, Vol. 12(3), pp. 211-220. Prado, M. (2003), 'Top Business in Thailand', Export Quality Services Co., Ltd., Accessed 30/12/03, Prokesch, S.E. (1997), 'Unleashing the Power of Learning: An Interview with British Petroleum's John Browne.' Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75(5), pp. 146-168. Quan, J., Hu, Q. & Hart, P.J. (2003), 'Information Technology Investments and Firms' Performance - A Duopoly Perspective', Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 20(3), pp. 121- 158. Ramsey, R.D. (1999), 'Love Your Competition', Supervision, Vol. 60(11), pp. 3-5. Redding, J. (1997), 'Hardwiring the Learning Organization', Training and Development, Vol. 51(8), pp. 61-67. Rich, R.F. (1997), 'Measuring Knowledge Utilization: Processes and Outcomes', Knowledge and Policy, Vol. 10(3), pp. 11-22. Robert Jr., E.A. (1998), 'Team Training: When is Enought, Enought?' Business Journal Serving Fresno and the Central San Joaquin Valley, Vol. (322301), pp. 18-20. Roberts, J. (2000), 'From Know-how to Show-how? Questioning the Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Knowledge Transfer', Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 12(4), pp. 429-433. Robinson, T., Clemson, B. & Keating, C. (1997), 'Development of High Performance Organizational Learning Units', The Learning Organization, Vol. 4(5), pp. 228-234. Rohe, D. (2002), 'Change Readiness Tool', Duration Software, Inc., Accessed 27 September, 2002, Romme, G. & Dillen, R. (1997), 'Mapping the Landscape of Organizational learning', European Management Journal, Vol. 15(1), pp. 68-78. Roth, G. (1996), Managing in Organization that Learn, U.S.A., Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Roth, G. & Kleiner, A. (1998), 'Developing Organizational Memory Through Learning Histories', Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27(2), pp. 43-60.

234

Rowden, R.W. (2001), 'The Learning Organization and Strategic Change', S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 66(3), pp. 11-16. Rowley, J. (1998), 'Creating a Learning Organization in Higher Education', Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 30(1), pp. 16-19. Rowley, J. (1999), 'What is Knowledge Management?' Library Management, Vol. 20(8), pp. 416-419. Sadler-Smith, E., Gardiner, P., Badger, B., Chaston, I. & Stubberfield, J. (2000), 'Using Collaborative Learning to Develop Small Firms', Human Resource Development International, Vol. 3(3), pp. 285-306. Saffady, W. (2000), 'Knowledge Management an Overview', The information Management Journal, Vol., pp. 4-8. Sambrook, S. & Stewart, J. (2000), 'Factors Influencing Learning in European Learning Oriented Organizations: Issues for Management.' Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24(2- 4), pp. 209-219. Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2000), Research Methods for Business Students, Great Britain, Pearson Education Limited. Scarborough, H. & Swan, J. (2003), 'Discourses of Knowledge Management and the Learning Organization: Their Production and Consumption', in Handbook of Organizational knowledge and Knowledge Management, Eds. M. Esterby-Smith and M.A. Lyles, United Kingdom, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 676. Schein, E.H. (1993), 'How Can Organizations Learn Faster? The Challenge of Entering the Green Room', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34(2), pp. 85-92. Sekaran, U. (1992), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, Second edition edn, United State of America, John Wiley and Sons. Senge, P.M. (1990a), The Fifth Discipline, London, Random House Business Books. Senge, P.M. (1990b), 'The leader's new work: Building Learning Organization.' Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32(1), pp. 7-23. Senge, P.M. (1991), 'Team Learning', McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. (2), pp. 82-93. Senge, P.M. (1996), 'Leading Learning Organizations', Training & Development, Vol. 50(12), pp. 36- 37. Sinclair, D. (2001), 'The Latest Intelligence', People Management, Vol. 7(21), pp. 88. Sivula, P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J. & Elfring, T. (2001), 'Competence-Based Competition: Gaining Knowledge from Client Relationships', in Knowledge Management and Organizational Competence, Ed. R. Sanchez, Great Britain, Oxford University Press Inc., pp. 254. Slater, S.F. & Narver, J.C. (1995), 'Market Orientation and the Learning Organization', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59(3), pp. 63-74.

235

Smith, A.W. (1997), 'Leadership is a Living System: Learning Leaders and Organizations', Human Systems Management, Vol. 16(4), pp. 277-284. Smith, M.E. (2002), 'The Importance and Challenge of Managing the Business Culture', Supervision, Vol. 63(5), pp. 12-13. Smith, M.E. & Mourier, P. (1999), 'Implementation: Key to Organizational Change', Strategic and Leadership, Vol. 27(6), pp. 37-41. Solomon, C.M. (1994), 'HR Facilitates the Learning Organization Concept.' Personnel Journal, Vol. 73(11), pp. 56-64. Solomon, C.M. (1999), 'Continual Learning: Racing Just to Keep Up', Workforce, Vol. 78(4), pp. 66- 68. Soupap, S., Wachana Soontawn, P. & Apapirom, A. (1975), 'Values of Thai Society', Accessed 30/12/03, Srikantia, P. & Pasmore, W. (1996), 'Conviction and Doubt in Organizational Learning', Journal of Organization Change Management, Vol. 9(1), pp. 42-53. Stambaugh, D.M. (1995), 'Creating the Learning Organization- an Essential Ingredient for Attaining customer Loyalty.' CPCU Journal, Vol. 48(1), pp. 35-49. Staples, D.S., Greenaway, K. & McKeen, J.D. (2001), 'Opportunities for Research about Managing the Knowledge-based Enterprise', International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3(1), pp. 1-19. Stata, R. (1989), 'Organizational Learning - The Key to Management Innovation', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30(3), pp. 63-74. Stewart, R. (Ed.) (1999), Gower Handbook of Teamworking. Vermont, Gower Publishing Company. Stewart, T. (1994), 'Rate Your Readiness to Change', Fortune, Vol. 129(3), pp. 106-108. Storck, J. & Hill, P.A. (2000), 'Knowledge Diffusion through 'Strategic Communities'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41(2), pp. 63-74. Stuart, P. (1992), 'New Directions in Training Individuals', Personnel Journal, Vol. 71(9), pp. 86-92. Sunoo, B.P. (1999), 'How HR Supports Knowledge Sharing', Workforce, Vol. 78(3), pp. 30-32. Sweeney, P.D. & McFarlin, D.B. (2002), Organizational Behavior: Solutions for Management, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. Symon, G. (2000), 'The Learning Organization and Social Capital: An Unlikely Alliance?' Human Resource Development International, Vol. 3(2), pp. 234-240. Teare, R. & Dealtry, R. (1998), 'Building and Sustaining a Learning Organization.' The Learning Organization, Vol. 5(1), pp. 47-60. Torok, G. (1998), 'Manage Your Suppliers for a Competitive Edge', Canadian Manager, Vol. 23(2), pp. 20-22.

236

Trahant, B. & Burke, W.W. (1996), 'Traveling through Transitions', Training & Development, Vol. 50(2), pp. 37-41. Tsoukas, H. & Vladimirou, E. (2001), 'What is Organizational Knowledge', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38(7), pp. 974-993. Ulrich, D. (1993), 'Profiling Organizational Competitiveness: Cultivating Capabilities.' Human Resource Planning, Vol. 16(3), pp. 1-17. Ulrich, D. & Van Glinow, M.A. (1993), 'High-impact Learning: Building and Diffusing Learning Capability.' Organizational Dynamic, Vol. 22(2), pp. 52-66. Unruh, J.A. (1997), 'Mining the Gold in Your Organization', Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 63(11), pp. 336-339. Van der Bent, J., Paauwe, J. & Williams, R. (1999), 'Organizational Learning: An Exploration of Organizational Memory and Its Role in Organizational Change Processes.' Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12(5), pp. 377-404. Vowles, A. (1993), 'Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Organizational Learning', CMA Magazine, Vol. 67(3), pp. 12-14. Waldersee, R. (1997), 'Becoming a Learning Organization: the transformation of the workforce.' Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16(4), pp. 262. Walsh, J.P. & Ungson, G.R. (1991), 'Organizational Memory', Academic of Management Review, Vol. 16(1), pp. 57-91. Waraniak, J.M. (2001), 'Learning to Think Lean', Automotive Manufacturing & Production, Vol. 113(4), pp. 70-71. Watkins, K.E. & Golembiewski, R.T. (1995), 'Rethinking Organization Development for the Learning Organization', The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 3(1), pp. 86-101. Welch, J. (1993), 'Jack Welch's Lessons for Success.' Fortune, Vol. 127(2), pp. 86-91. West III, P.G. & Meyer, D.G. (1997), 'Communicated Knowledge as a Learning Foundation', The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 5(1), pp. 25-58. West, P. (1994), 'The Learning Organization: Losing the Luggage in Transit?' Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18(11), pp. 30-38. Wiig, K.M. (1997), 'Knowledge Management: Where Did it Come From and Where Did It Go?' Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 13(1), pp. 1-14. Wijnhoven, F. (2001), 'Acquiring Organizational Learning Norms: A Contingency Approach for Understanding Deutero Learning', Management Learning, Vol. 32(2), pp. 181-200. Wong, M.M.L. (1996), 'Organization Learning through Graduate Training Programmes: A Comparison between Japan and Hong Kong in a Japanese Organization.' Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20(5), pp. 13-19.

237

Zack, M.H. (1999b), 'Managing Codified Knowledge', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40(4), pp. 45- 58.

238

Appendices

Appendix I Questionnaire forms Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

Appendix II Appendix D: Scatterplot Appendix E: Cross Tabulation Appendix F: People who reviewed and back translated Questionnaire Appendix G: Grand mean of Factor loading

APPENDIX A

The survey of Inventory of Learning Organization Indicators and the Organizational Readiness to change

Dear Informants

I am Yuraporn Sudharatna, Ph.D. Candidate from the Adelaide Graduate School of Business, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

The purpose of this research is to check the relationship between the Inventory of Learning Organization Indicators and the Readiness to Change of your organization according to the hypotheses. The mobile phone service providers in Thailand are our perspectives since this industry is one of the rapidly change areas. Some of researches for developing into a Learning organization have been studied in some countries but not in Thailand; therefore, this study does not only contribute to the industry as a whole but also directly to your company for a changing preparation. As it was accepted that the readiness to change is the way to adjust an organization into the organizational competitive advantage in the rapidly changing environment, therefore this study would benefit to your organization or give some feedback for the future development.

There are three parts of questionnaires please indicate according to your thought. Part 1 is the general information, part 2 is the inventory of learning organization indicators and part 3 is the organizational readiness to change. Please be assured that your information will be treated confidentially, the identity will not be revealed.

Thank you very much for your kind cooperation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my mobile 06-0638122 or my email address is [email protected]

Best regards,

Yuraporn Sudharatna

SURVEY ON INVENTORY OF LEARNING ORGANIZATION INDICATORS AND ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS TO CHANGE

INFORMANT DATA

I. INSTUCTION Please mark (X) in appropriate space provided

1.Gender Male Female 2. Age Less than 20 years 40.1-45 years

20.1-25 years 45.1-50 years 25.1-30 years 50.1-55 years 30.1-35 years 55.1-60 years 35.1-40 years 3.Education High school or Vocational Associated degree Bachelor degree Master degree or equivalent Higher than Master degree 4. How long have you been working for the company? 0-3 years 12.1-15 years 3.1-6 years 15.1-18 years 6.1-9 years 18.1-21 years 9.1-12years more than 21 years 5. What is your position in the organization? Upper level manager (Your subordinates are middle level managers and first line supervisors) Middle level manager (Your subordinates are first line supervisor) First line supervisor (Your subordinates are general employees) Employee (You don’t need to supervise other people) 6. How long have you been working in the above position? 0-3 years 12.1-15 years 3.1-6 years 15.1-18 years 6.1-9 years 18.1-21 years 9.1-12years more than 21 years

*************************************************************

II. INVENTORY OF LO INDICATORS

Below are statements that can indicate whether your company is a learning organization. Please use the scale below to rate the statements that follow (circle the number of your choice on the scale):

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Mildly disagree indifferent Mildly agree agree Strongly agree disagree

1. CULTURAL VALUES

Strongly strongly disagree agree

1.I can apply what I have learned from formal and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 informal training to my work

2. I spend time at work sharing my insights with colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. We often spend time analyzing competitor’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 successes and failures

4. We often review ideas put forward by our suppliers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. My company has a continuous process of training 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and learning

6. My immediate supervisor encourages and facilitates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 me to experiment new ideas

7. My immediate supervisor encourages and facilitates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 me to spend time reviewing our work experiences on a regular basis

8. I have been able to improve myself from reflecting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on successes and failures of our work experiences

9.My co-workers are able to develop new working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 skills relationship, prioritize problems, and problem solving as a team

10.My company spends a lot of money on staff training, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 measure training results very vigorously

11. Training and learning is part of our working life in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 this company

12. My co-workers are not shy from accepting failures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at work and always try to learn from them

13. My co-workers are free to try out new ideas even 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 if their chance of succeeding is not high

14. My company is supportive of what I do even if in failures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. My company turns out new products and services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at short intervals

16. I feel free to speak my mind openly and honesty on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 important issues in the company

17.I support and trust my co-workers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. I am always encouraged to find out from employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in other departments ways to do my job better

19. My company has reward systems to reward its 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 employees

20. I have a better chance of getting promoted or paid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 more if the company knows that I have improved my knowledge and skills at work.

2. LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

Strongly strongly disagree agree

21. My immediate supervisor is always enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 about learning new knowledge and skills as well as sharing them with us

22. I am always encouraged to share and experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 what I know in the company

23. My immediate supervisor actively review company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 policies to ensure that organizational vision, values and purposes are streamlined

24. My immediate supervisor appears to prefer to stay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with the company for a long, long time

25. My immediate supervisor is a role model of learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and continuous improvement

26.My company selects managers leaders who enjoy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 teaching others and envisioning others

27. My immediate supervisor is always involved in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 initiatives related to learning

28. My immediate supervisor develops shared vision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and delegates authority to subordinates

29. I trust my immediate supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. My immediate supervisor spends time on scanning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the business environment for opportunities and threats

31. I feel my immediate supervisor encourages me to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 decide what I want to learn that is also good for the company

32. I am instilled a clear, shared sense of purpose to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 encourage teamwork, foster a shared sense of trust, cooperate and confidence in the team’s capacity to achieve positive results

33. My immediate supervisor encourages us to use our 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 knowledge and skills in line with individual competencies and departmental goals

34. My immediate supervisor usually let me decide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 what I need to do in my job

35. My immediate supervisor allows me to have my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 personal training and development plan to maximize my full potential

36. My immediate supervisor always provides me with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the opportunity to improve my knowledge and skills

37. My immediate supervisor helps me to apply what I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 have learned to my work

38. My immediate supervisor is given training to help 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 employees learn

39. My immediate supervisor works hard to ensure that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 employees are exposed to training and development opportunities in the company

40. My immediate supervisor helps me to set my own goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

41. My immediate supervisor rewards employees for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 involving in training and development activities

42. My immediate supervisor always provides me with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 adequate resources and information to do my work

3. COMMUNICATION

Strongly strongly disagree agree

43. I know organizations’ vision and purpose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44. I am able to communicate freely with colleagues, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 customers, suppliers, competitors, and all stakeholders

45. I am able to share knowledge and break-through 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thinking throughout the company

46. Knowledge in this company is communicated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 quickly, clearly and focused

47. Employees in this company listens to each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

48. Conflict during communication is expected and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 accepted in this company

49. My co-workers normally share mistakes and view 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 them as an opportunities for learning

50. My co-workers feel free and unafraid to share ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and speak their minds

51. My co-workers feel free to report errors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

52. I am given opportunities to take part in discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and sharing of key concerns

53. My immediate supervisor communicates freely with us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

54. My company has a flat structure for effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 communication

55. Employees in different functional areas interact 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with one another face-to-face freely

4. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

Strongly strongly disagree agree

56. I can freely access information in the company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (eg. data file, printed documents, and work manuals)

57. Employees pass on work-related information to one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 another without hesitation

58. My company has advance technology to obtain and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 distribute work-related information

59. Employees pass on work-related information that may 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be of use to others in the company

60. I discuss my thoughts about work with co-workers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 within or without my team

61. I desire to learn and willing to share knowledge due 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to improve product quality and speed, innovation, and customer satisfaction

62. I share information with my customers so as to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 match their needs, while demonstrating the company’s core capabilities

63. I feel confident to share work-related information with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my co-workers

64. I contribute my experiences, beliefs, thoughts, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 feelings to my work team

65. I share my mindset, vision, and values with my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 co-workers

66. I am always given the opportunity to reflect on mistakes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 made by my and other companies

67.Work-related information in my company is distributed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 quickly and efficiently across the organization

68. Work-related information is well documented and freely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 available for employees in my company

69. I can access work-related documents, organizational 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 routines, processes, practices, and norms in my company

70. Work-related information in my company is available 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in explicit forms such as work manuals, instruction sheets, data files, and computer databases

71. I can freely access work-related information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 possessed by my co-workers

72. I am always enthusiastic about sharing work-related 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 information with my co-workers

73. My company has a systemic method of storing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 work-related information for use by employees

4. EMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTICS

Strongly strongly disagree agree

74. I consider myself a fast learner of work-related skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and information

75. I consider my job important and contribute to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 achievement of company objectives

76. I find myself sufficiently equipped to solve problems, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 create new ideas for processes, products and services on the job

77. I always prefer to work in teams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

78. I do take on leadership roles in my work when necessary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

79. I can solve problems in my work by myself in most cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

80. I feel responsible for seeking and sharing new 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 work-related information in my work

81. I feel responsible for updating my knowledge and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 skills all the time

82. I know my job is important and contributes to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 achievement of organizational goal

83. I always look out for new ways of doing my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 more effectively

84. My company places strong emphasis on training 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and developing its employees

85. My company is carefully about getting new recruits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 who can fit in well with existing employees

86. Most employees in my company are keen to seek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 self-development opportunities

87. There are in-house training and development activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that I can participate to improve my immediate and future work environments

88. Employees in this company have appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 education, experience and intellect

6. PERFORMANCE UPGRADING

Strongly strongly disagree agree

89. There is good coordination among functional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 departments/units in this company

90. My company has clear indicators of its performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for comparison with its competitors

91. My company has formal procedures for continuous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 improvement in processes and products or services

92. My company rewards employees for seeking and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sharing new work-related information

93. My company uses non-financial means to drive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 employees performance (eg. Employee of the Month Award)

94. My company is perceived as excellent in terms of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 punctuality of delivery

95. My company has a zero-reject rate for its products 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or services

96. My company seems to be able to increase its 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 market share every year

97. My company always has better financial performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 than its competitors

***************************************************************************************

III. ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS TO CHANGE

Below are statements that can indicate whether your company is ready for change. Please rate each statement from 1 to 7 to reflect your general experience in your company, based on the following scale.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Mildly disagree indifferent Mildly agree agree Strongly agree disagree

CHANGE READINESS ASSESSMENT

Strongly strongly disagree agree

1.I know my company’s position in the industry in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 relation to competition in the market

2. My company highlights in serving customer’s need 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I know my customers very well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.My immediate supervisor supports my company’s goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and mission

5. My immediate supervisor conducts trustworthy and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ethical processes

6. My immediate supervisor communicates clearly and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 consistently about changes that affect members and their job 8

7. My immediate supervisor is consistent and decisive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. My immediate supervisor always shows enthusiasm in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 receiving and acting on new ideas put forward by employees

9. I get financial support to make change happen from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my immediate supervisor

10. The culture of readiness to change is considered in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 terms of vision, value, information technology, in house experience availability, comfort level with new technology and value chain target in this company

11. I have good relationship with my co-workers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. My immediate supervisor recognizes me as an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 individual with my own abilities and uniqueness

13. I openly share and contribute new ideas with my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 co-workers to help build standards and procedure into our work

14. My company has a clear and concise communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. I am always informed before any changes are made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in the company

16. I am clear in what I need to do at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. I know I have the right skills to do my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. I feel my work is challenging 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. My immediate supervisor is always able to consider 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 diverse interest when making changes in the workplace

20. My immediate supervisor listens and elicits concerns 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and fears when making changes in the workplace

21. My immediate supervisor works with others to create 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 shared vision when making changes in the workplace

22. My immediate supervisor anticipates and responds 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 appropriately to resistance when making changes in the workplace

23. My immediate supervisor keeps everyone informed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 when making changes

24. I always belief that change will benefit me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. My company rewards employees well when it does 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 well financially

26. My immediate supervisor is concerned that I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 happy at work

27. I feel secure and self-worth in my company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. My company’s structure makes it easy for me to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my work

29. I always understand the essential of change when my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 company goes through re-structuring

30. My company’s policies and procedures make it easy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for me to do my work

31. My company has technology (eg. computer and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 equipment) that supports my work

***************************************************************************************

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.

PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE WITHIN ______TO: [email protected] or ADDRESS: Yuraporn Sudharatna 274 Sananikom 1 Phaholyotin 32 Jatujak Bangkok 10900 or Department of Management, Faculty of Business Administration, Kasetsart University, Bangkhen, Bangkok 10900 Tel 06-0638122

SURVEY IS CONDUCTED DURING 17 FEBRURY - 5 APRIL 2003

10 APPENDIX B

NOTE: Appendix B is not included with digital theses but appears in the print copy. Appendix B is a copy of Appendix A written in the Thai language. APPENDIX C

Questionnaires: Indicators of Learning Organization And the Organizational Readiness towards Change

Section 1: General Information Instruction for answering questionnaires: Please mark (X) to your choice.

1. Gender 2. Age 3. Education 4. How long have you been with the company? 5. What is your present position? 6. How long have you been working in your present position (no.5)?

***************************************************************************

Section 2: Indication of Learning Organization Instruction for answering questionnaires: The following questions will indicate the level of learning organization of your company. Please mark the number that you think most appropriate to your organization. Number 1 indicates that you do not agree with the statement at all. Number 7 means that you totally agree with the statement. The level of agreement is indicated as follows:

1. Do not agree at all. 2. Do not agree. 3. Somehow do not agree. 4. Uncertain. 5. Agreeing a little. 6. Agree. 7. Most agree.

******************************* 1. Organizational Culture (Cultural values)

1. You can implement your acquired knowledge in the day-to-day job. 2. You regularly exchange your knowledge with your colleague. 1 3. You learn from the success and failure of your business competitor. 4. Your company learns from your supplier. 5. Your company has regular and continual training process in place. 6. Your superior encourages and supports you to try new ideas at work. 7. Your superior encourages and supports you learn from your own and others’ experiences. 8. You can learn and improve your capability at work from your own experience, success and failure. 9. Your colleagues can develop new ideas and solutions in the hierarchical order. 10. Your company supports and sets aside expenditures for training including measurement and follow up procedures. 11. Learning and training are part of the work in your company. 12. Your colleagues accept failure at work and learn from those mistakes. 13. Your colleagues are free to test new ideas despite the lower rate of success. 14. You are in the environment that is well supported. 15. Your company always comes up new products and services. 16. You can be opened and direct on issues that are important to your organization. 17. You and your colleagues support and trust one another at work. 18. You are encouraged to learn from colleagues in other functions for work improvement. 19. Your company has incentive system to reward work performance. 20. You are encouraged to improve your skills and performance at work by getting higher position, salary increment.

II Leadership and Empowerment

21. Your superior is eager to learn something new and share new findings with you. 22. You are encouraged to share new learning and test that learning in your work. 23. Your superior regularly checks the company policy to make sure that the strategy, vision and objectives all are in the same direction. 24. Your superior demonstrates interests and commitment towards the company. 25. Your superior sets a good standard of being self-motivated and continuous self- development. 26. In its leadership selection, your company puts emphasis on vision and the translation of vision into practice and implementation. 27. Your superior always involves himself/herself in creative and learning activities.

2 28. Your superior empowers his/her stuff and shares his/her vision with them. 29. You trust and respect your superior at work. 30. Your superior spends time analyzing opportunities and limitations of your company 31. You feel that your superior encourages you to make decision on matters of your interests. 32. You are taught and encouraged to work in team and you believe in team effort. 33. Your superior supports the use of organizational learning to enhance the organizational strength and objectives. 34. You are empowered to make decision based on your scope of work. 35. Your superior lets you attend courses of your interests and put it into action plans to fully utilize your potential. 36. Your superior often seeks opportunities to enhance your knowledge and skills. 37. Your superior helps you to apply your learning into practice at work. 38. Your superior has been taught to teach and support the learning of his/her subordinates. 39. Your superior tries to make opportunities for your learning and development. 40. Your superior helps you to set up your goal at work. 41. Your superior is rewarded for his contribution towards training and development activities. 42. Your superior supports you with resource, information and data.

III Communication

43. You are well aware of the company’s objective and vision. 44. You can freely communicate with your colleague, suppliers, competitors and others. 45. You can share knowledge, newly developed ideas and disseminate them to other functions within your organization ( For example: As frontline personnel, you are faced with a customer who has problem. You can together with your co-workers help solve the customer’s problem. As a best practice, the company introduces this solution to other service functions within the company.) 46. Your company can clearly, quickly and directly communicate organizational knowledge. 47. Employees in your company listen to each other. 48. Your company expects and accepts conflicts in communication. 49. Your colleagues discuss mistakes and view them as learning opportunities. 50. Your colleagues feel free to discuss ideas and are not afraid to discuss personal feelings. 51. Your colleagues feel free to report work related mistakes that happened. 52. You have opportunities to take part in the discussion that is of significance to the company. 53. Your superior communicates openly with his stuff.

3 54. Your company has enabling organizational structure for communication. 55. Employees in different functions can communicate openly and freely.

IV Knowledge transfer

56. You are free to access organizational knowledge such as document and manuals, etc., at work 57. You can learn from your colleagues experience. 58. Your company has advanced technology in the retrieval and dissemination of information. 59. Each team in your company transfers knowledge and experience to other teams within the company so that it can be put into good use. 60. You discuss your opinions with you colleagues within and outside the team. 61. You want to learn and are willing to share your knowledge to improve the quality, the product and come up with new product and development in order to buildup customer satisfaction. 62. You exchange data, opinion with your customers in order to match your organizational strengths with customer demands. 63. You are confident to discuss work-related viewpoints or knowledge with your organizational peers. 64. You willingly share your experience and ideas with you team members. 65. You transfer knowledge and experience using heart-to-heart open discussions. 66. You have opportunities to learn from past mistakes of your company and others. 67. Work related knowledge within your company is quickly and efficiently disseminated. 68. Work related knowledge within your company is recorded and you can use this document at work. 69. You can learn of the process, practice and organizational traditions from the recorded documents. 70. Work related knowledge and documentation such as manuals, instructions, data of the company is recorded in the format that is easily accessible. 71. You have access to knowledge and documentation of your co-workers. 72. You are eager to share and disseminate your work-related knowledge with your co-worker. 73. Your company has appropriate information system for recording data, and work-related knowledge and is able to systematically put it to use.

V. Employee characteristics

74. You can quickly learn and grasp new skills at work. 4 75. You are aware that your work is important and is significant towards the overall goals and objective of the company. 76. You are able to solve problems and contribute towards the new working processes and services of the company. 77. You are happy to work in team. 78. You can be a leader in appropriate situation. 79. You can solve most problems at work. 80. You are responsible for the acquisition and disseminate of new and up-to-date work-related knowledge. 81. You are responsible for always self-study and up-to-date skill enhancement. 82. This question is repeated to question number 75 thus discard 75 in the analysis 83. You always look for new methods to help increase work efficiency. 84. Your company stresses the importance of training and development. 85. You company stresses the importance of recruitment so that new recruiters can well fit into the organization and exiting work force. 86. Majority of the employee wants and seeks opportunities for self-development. 87. Your company creates training and development activities that you can par take. 88. Employee within your company has appropriate education and experience.

VI. Performance upgrading

89. Employees in every division or section cooperate well with one another. 90. Your company benchmarks performance efficiency with those of your competitors. 91. Your company systemically and continually improves product and service processes. 92. Your company rewards employees for their search and share of new work-related knowledge and information. 93. Your company has alternate incentive options other than cash to reward organizational members such as best employee awards, etc. 94. Your company is recognized for its on-time delivery and superior quality product/service. 95. Your company has zero-reject rate. 96. Your company can expand market share on a yearly basis. 97. Your company achieves higher return on investment than your competitors.

***************************************************************************

Section 3: Indication of Organizational readiness to change

5 Instruction for answering questionnaires: The following questions will indicate the level of change readiness of your company. Please mark the number that you think most appropriate to your organization. Number 1 indicates that you do not agree with the statement at all. Number 7 means that you totally agree with the statement. The level of agreement is indicated as follows:

1. Do not agree at all. 2. Do not agree. 3. Somehow do not agree. 4. Uncertain. 5. Agreeing a little. 6. Agree. 7. Most agree. ******************************* 1. Are you aware that your company is recognized in the market when compares with industry competitors. 2. Your company gives importance to customer satisfaction. 3. You have information on and know your customers well. 4. Your superior fully supports your company’s goal and mission. 5. Your superior gives importance to integrity and morality. 6. Your superior communicates clearly and regularly about changes that will affect employee performance. 7. Your superior is clear and steady. 8. Your superior is enthusiastic and accepts new ideas from employees and is willing to test it in practice. 9. Your superior gives monetary support for your development. 10. Your company’s readiness to change is developed from vision and value, information, experience, and appropriate technology. 11. You maintain good relationship with your colleagues. 12. Your superior recognizes your ability and trust you at work. 13. You are open and share new ideas with co-workers in order to improve work processes and standardization. 14. Your company has accurate and clear communication. 15. You are informed prior to any changes within the company. 16. You know exactly what you have to do at work. 17. You have appropriate skill and capability suitable to your work. 18. You feel that your work is challenging.

6 19. When there are any changes, you superior has the skill to lead the diverse interests of employees into the same direction. 20. When there are any changes, your superior has the skill to listen and classify information. 21. Your superior has the skill to work with others. 22. Your superior can accurately speculate and appropriately response to resistance to his subordinates. 23. When there are any changes, you superior regularly communicated what is happening to his subordinates. 24. You believe that change is to your benefit. 25. When the operation is profitable, your company shares that profits with employees. 26. Your superior gives importance on employee happiness and on the job satisfaction. 27. You have confidence and self-worthiness for working with the company. 28. The company structure help enhance your workflow. 29. When the company improves its structure, you understand the need for that change. 30. The company policy and workflow structure help to ease off your work. 31. The company has appropriate technology to support your work (such as computers and other necessary equipment).

**************************************************************************

APPENDIX D

I) Scatter plot of LO characteristics and organizational readiness to change

A. Industry aggregated level A1) Cultural values and organizational readiness to change Industry-aggregated level

Cultural values and ORC 4 172

257 -2

140 146 -4 166

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Summation of cvfac1+cvfac2 A2) Leadership commitment and empowerment and organizational readiness to change Industry-aggregated level

Leadership commit. & empower. and OR 4 172

-2

100 -4 166

111 -6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Summation of leadfac1 A3) Communication and organizational readiness to change Industry-aggregated level

Communication and ORC 4

50 -2

-4 166

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of comm2fac2+comm2fac2 1

A4) Knowledge transfer and organizational readiness to change Industry-aggregated level

Knowledge transfer and ORC 4 388 172

27 0 353

-2 22

146 -4 444 166

143 -6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of ktfac1+ktfac2+ktfac3

A5) Employee characteristic and organizational readiness to change Industry-aggregated level

Employee characteristics and ORC 4

2 110

-2

146 -4 444 166

143 -6 174 6 168

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Summation of empfac1+empfac2

A6) Performance upgrading and organizational readiness to change Industry-aggregated level

Performance upgrading and ORC 4 172

50 -2

-4 444

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Summation of pfu2fac1+pfu2fac2

B. Company A

B1) Cultural values and organizational readiness to change Company A: Scatterplot

Cultural values and ORC 6

4 18 181 2 26

-2 156 168 -4 35 206 224 -6 167 -8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Summation of cv3fac1+cv3fac2

B2) Leadership commitment and empowerment and organizational readiness to change Company A: Scatterplot

Leadership commitment and empowerm 6

4 71

0 50 15 -2 156 -4 35 206 tion of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 a -6 m 167 -8 Sum -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Summation of leadfac1 B3) Communication and organizational readiness to change Company A: Scatterplot

Communication and ORC 6

-2 237

168 -4

-6 167 -8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of commfac1+commfac2+commfac3

B4) Knowledge transfer and organizational readiness to change Company A: Scatterplot

Knowledge transfer and ORC 6

4 211 2 232 0 176 -2 237

-4 267

-6 167 -8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of ktfac1+ktfac2+ktfac3

B5) Employee characteristic and organizational readiness to change Company A: Scatterplot

Employee characteristic and ORC 6

-2

-4 267

-6 167 -8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Summation of empfac1+empfac2

B6) Performance upgrading and organizational readiness to change Company A: Scatterplot

Performance upgrading and ORC 6

2 189

0 209

-2 135 68 -4 267

-6 80 167 -8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Summation of pfufac1+pfufac2

C. Company B

C1) Cultural values and organizational readiness to change Company B: Scatterplot

Cultural values and ORC 6

2 6

-2

-4 90

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of cvfac1+cvfac2+cvfac3

C2) Leadership commitment and empowerment and organizational readiness to change Company B: Scatterplot

Leadership commit. & empower. and OR 6

2 6

-2

-4 100

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Summation of leadfac1

C3) Communication and organizational readiness to change Company B: Scatterplot

Communication and ORC 6

2 6

-2 166

-4

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Summation of comm2f1

C4) Knowledge transfer and organizational readiness to change Company B: Scatterplot

Knowledge transfer and ORC 6

2 6

-2 166 15

-4 143

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Summation of kt2fac1+kt2fac2

C5) Employee characteristic and organizational readiness to change Company B: Scatterplot

Employee characteristics and ORC 6

2 6

0 173 117

147120 -2 109 166

-4

-6 28 22

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Summation of empfac1+empfac2

C6) Performance upgrading and organizational readiness to change Company B: Scatterplot

Performance upgrading and ORC 6

4 170

2 6

-2

-4

-6 22

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of pfufac1+pfufac2

II) Scatter plot of LO development stages and organizational readiness to change

Knowledge acquisition and organizational readiness to change

Ai) Industry-aggregated level Industry-aggregated level

Knowledge acquisition and ORC 4 172

-2

146 -4 166

112 -6 174

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -10 0 10

Summation of kafac1+kafac2+kafac3+kafac4 Aii) Company A Comapany A

Knowledge acquisition and ORC 6

-2

-4

-6 167 -8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 -20 -10 0 10

Summation of kafac1+kafac2+kafac3+kafac4 Aiii) Company B Company B

Knowledge acquisition and ORC 6

2 6

0 117

120 -2 166

-4

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of kafac1+kafac2+kafac3+kafac4

Knowledge sharing and organizational readiness to change

Bi) Industry-aggregated level Industry-aggregated level

Knowledge sharing and ORC 4 172

-2

-4 166

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of kasf1+kasf2+kasf3

Bii) Company A Comapany A

Knowledge sharing and ORC 6

-2

-4

-6 167 -8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 -10 0 10

Summation of kasf1+kasf2+kasf3-kasf4+kasf5

Biii) Company B Company B

Knowledge sharing and ORC 6

2 6

0 117 5

-2 166

-4

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of kasf1+kasf2+kasf3+kasf4

Knowledge utilization and organizational readiness to change

Ci) Industry-aggregated level Industry-aggregated level

Knowledge utilization and ORC 4 172

-2

-4 166

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -20 -10 0 10

Summation of asuf1+asuf2+asuf3+asuf4

Cii) Company A Comapany A

Knowledge utlization and ORC 6

-2

-4

-6 167 -8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3 -20 -10 0 10

Summation of asuf1+asuf2+asuf3+asuf4

Ciii) Company B Company B

Knowledge utilization and ORC 6

2 6

0 1735

-2 166

-4

-6

-8 Summation of rcfac1+rcfac2+rcfac3+rcfac4 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Summation of asuf1+asuf2+asuf3+asuf4 9 APPENDIX E

Age and Level of Education Cross tabulation

i) Industry-aggregated level

Level of Education High school Associated Bachelor Master Others Total or Vocational degree degree degree or Age equivalence 20.1 - 25 years 1 1 37 8 47 25.1 - 30 years 1 97 34 132 30.1 - 35 years 1 2 92 54 149 35.1 - 40 years 1 42 20 63 40.1 - 45 years 1 13 21 35 45.1 - 50 years 4 4 1 9 50.1 - 55 years 3 3 6 55.1 - 60 years 2 2 Total 4 4 290 144 1 443

ii) Company A Level of Education High Associated Bachelor Master Others Total school or degree degree degree or Age Vocational equivalence 20.1 - 25 years 1 22 6 29 25.1 - 30 years 1 39 26 66 30.1 - 35 years 1 53 30 84 35.1 - 40 years 27 13 40 40.1 - 45 years 1 10 21 32 45.1 - 50 years 3 3 1 7 50.1 - 55 years 3 3 6 55.1 - 60 years 2 2 Total 1 3 159 102 1 266

iii) Company B

Level of Education High Associated Bachelor Master Total school or degree degree degree or Age Vocational equivalence 20.1 - 25 years 1 15 2 18 25.1 - 30 years 58 8 66 30.1 - 35 years 1 1 39 24 65 35.1 - 40 years 1 15 7 23 40.1 - 45 years 3 3 45.1 – 50 years 1 1 2 Total 3 1 131 42 177

Gender and Position Cross tabulation i) Industry-aggregated level

Position

Gender Management Non-management Total (Per cent) (Per cent) (Per cent) Male 112(25.2) 78(17.5) 190(42.7) Female 94(21.0) 160(36.0) 254(57.2) Total 206(46.3) 238(53.6) 444(100.0)

ii) Company A

Position

Gender Management Non-management Total (Per cent) (Per cent) (Per cent) Male 73(27.3) 47(17.6) 120(44.9) Female 53(19.8) 94(35.2) 147(55.1) Total 126(47.2) 141(52.8) 267(100.0)

iii) Company B

Position

Gender Management Non-management Total (Per cent) (Per cent) (Per cent) Male 39(22.0) 31(17.5) 70(39.5) Female 41(23.2) 66(37.3) 107(60.5) Total 80(45.2) 97(54.8) 177(100.0)

2 Gender and Level of Education Cross tabulation

i) Industry-aggregated level

Level of Education

High school or Associated Bachelor Master degree Others Total Vocational degree degree or equivalence (per (per cent) Gender (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) cent) Male 1(0.2) 2(0.4) 113(25.4) 73(16.4) 1(0.2) 190(42.8) Female 3(0.7) 2(0.4) 178(40.1) 71(15.9) 254(57.2) Total 4(0.9) 4(0.9) 291(65.5) 144(32.4) 1(0.2) 444(100.0)

ii) Company A

Level of Education

High school or Associated Bachelor Master degree Others Total Vocational degree degree or equivalence (per (per cent) Gender (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) cent) Male 1(0.4) 2(0.7) 63(23.6) 53(19.8) 1(0.4) 120(44.9) Female 1(0.4) 97(36.3) 49(18.3) 147(55.1) Total 1(0.4) 3(1.1) 160(59.9) 102(38.2) 1(0.4) 267(100.0)

iii) Company B

Level of Education

High school Associated Bachelor Master degree Total or vocational degree degree or equivalence (per cent) Gender (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) Male 50(28.3) 20(11.3) 70(39.5) Female 3(1.7) 1(0.6) 81(45.7) 22(12.4) 107(60.5) Total 3(1.7) 1(0.6) 131(74.0) 42(23.7) 177(100.0)

APPENDIX F

People who reviewed the questionnaire for translation (English to Thai)

Name: Ms Putita Fusakul

Educational Background: ♦ 1997 Master of Business Administrative, Kasetsart University, Thailand ♦ 1993 Bachelor of accountancy, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

Work experience: ♦ 2002-Present Credit Manager,Thai Containers Group ♦ 1997-2002 Credit Manager ,Thai Container Industry Co.,Ltd ♦ 1993 -1997 Accountant ,Thai Container Industry Co.,Ltd

Name: Ms Sirijin Wongjarupan

Educational Background: ♦ 1997 Master of Science in Restaurant , Hotel and Institutional Management, Texas Master Tech University, USA. ♦ 1993 Bachelor degree of Accounting, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Working experience: ♦ 2000- Present Instructor, Department of Production Management, Kasetsart University ♦ 1998 Assistant Manager; Super 8 Motels, Beaumont, Texas

1 People who back translated the questionnaire (Thai to English)

Name: Ms. Suprabha (Rochanasaroj) Moleeratanond

Educational Background:

♦ 1997-1998 Master of Management, SASIN, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand ♦ 1975-1976 Master of Library and Information Services, University of Maryland, U.S.A. ♦ 1969-1973 Bachelor of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand ♦ 1967-1969 Triam Udom Suksa School, Thailand ♦ 1968 Leongatha High School, Victoria, Australia ♦ 1956-1967 Rajinee School, Thailand

Work Experience:

♦ 1977 – Present Thai Airways International, Public Company Limited, Bangkok ♦ 1973 – 1975 Bangkok Pattana International School, Bangkok

Current Position:

Manager, Travel Industry Relations Department BKKSGTG

Additional Relevant Training:

♦ 1979 Supervision Techniques ♦ 1980 Public Speaking and Social Etiquette ♦ 1980 Sensitivity Training ♦ 1986 Quality Control Circles Workshop ♦ 1990 Computer Project Management Appreciation ♦ 1991 Presentation Techniques ♦ 1991 Managerial Counseling ♦ 1991 Modern Business Strategies ♦ 1993 Ethics, Values & the Professional Manager Seminar ♦ 1994 Leadership/Followership through Quality Improvement ♦ 1994 Conducting Staff Meeting ♦ 1995 Intelligent Organization Workshop ♦ 1996 Mini MBA ♦ 2000 Earning Value Analysis

Associations Experience:

♦ 2000 – Present Board member and Executive Committee Member of PATA (Pacific Asia Travel Association) ♦ 1991 – Present Board member of the Thailand Incentive and Convention Association (TICA) Bangkok ♦ 1991 – Present Hon. Secretary, PATA Thailand Chapter (Pacific Asia Travel Association), Bangkok ♦ 1991 – Present Board Member of ASEANTA (Association of Southeast Asian Nations Travel Association) ASEAN

2 ♦ 1993 – 1995 Chairman, ICCA Airlines Category (International Congresses and Conventions Association), Amsterdam ♦ 1993 – 1996 Board Member of ICCA (International Congresses and Conventions Association), Amsterdam ♦ 1995 – 1996 Vice Chairman Asia Pacific ICCA, Amsterdam

Special Skill: Bilingual in English and Thai ♦ Translation English-Thai and Thai-English ♦ Article and Speech Writing ♦ Business Correspondence Computer Literacy ♦ Words, Excel, Access, MS Front Page, Internet, etc. Analytical and Problem Solving Skills

3 APPENDIX G

Appendix G shows Grand mean of Factor loading

Table G1 (From Table 4.4) Grand mean of Factor 1: Accommodating learning culture

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .788 .162 .026244 Cv 7 .726 .01 .01 Cv 11 .490 -0.136 .018496 Cv 12 .589 -0.37 .1369 Cv 13 .637 .011 .000121 Cv 14 .785 .159 .025281 Cv 16 .625 -0.001 .000001 Cv 17 .512 -0.114 .012996 Cv 18 .476 -0.15 .0225 Cv 20 .636 .01 .0001

ΣXi = 6.264 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 = .252644 Mean = .626 S.D = .167

Table G2 (From Table 4.4) Grand mean of Factor 2: Learning from sources

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 2 .534 .033 .001089 Cv 3 .485 -.016 .000256 Cv 4 .440 .061 .003721 Cv 8 .544 .043 .001849 ΣXi = 2.003 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.009419 Mean =.501 S.D =.056

Table G 3 (From Table 4.6) Grand mean Factor 1: Enhancing of learning culture

Variables Xi (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .767 .141 .019881 Cv 7 .822 .196 .038416 Cv 10 .438 -.188 .035344 Cv 12 .636 .01 .0001 Cv 13 .696 .07 .0049 Cv 20 .397 -.229 .052441

ΣXi = 3.756 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.151082 Mean =.626 S.D =.174

Table G 4 (From Table 4.6) Grand mean Factor 2: Knowledge expansion through sources

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 1 .776 .28 .0784 Cv 2 .561 .065 .004225

1 Cv 3 .340 -.156 .024336 Cv 4 .433 -.063 .003969 Cv 8 .530 .034 .001156 Cv 18 .334 -.162 .026244

ΣXi = 2.974 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.13836 Mean =.496 S.D =.166

Table G 5 (From Table 4.8) Grand mean Factor 1: Supportive learning culture

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .772 .152 .023104 Cv 7 .801 .181 .032761 Cv 12 .468 -.152 .023104 Cv 14 .673 .053 .002809 Cv 16 .679 .059 .003481 Cv 17 .664 .044 .001936 Cv 18 .414 -.206 .042436 Cv 20 .491 -.129 .016641

ΣXi = 4.962 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.1446272 Mean =.620 S.D =.144

Table G 6 (From Table 4.8) Grand mean Factor 2: Training Background

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 1 .568 .066 .004356 Cv 10 .679 .045 .002025 Cv 11 .656 .022 .000484

ΣXi =1.903 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.006865 Mean =.634 S.D =.058

Table G 7 (From Table 4.8) Grand mean Factor 3: Learning by sharing

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 2 .493 -.006 .000036 Cv 8 .506 .007 .000049

ΣXi =.999 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.000085 Mean =.499 S.D =.009

Table G 8 (From Table 4.10) Grand mean Factor 1: Leadership commitment and empowerment

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 LeadCE 1 .846 .061 .003721 LeadCE 2 .768 -.017 .000289 LeadCE 3 .743 -.042 .001764 LeadCE 4 .733 -.052 .002704 LeadCE 5 .828 .043 .001849 LeadCE 6 .722 -.063 .003969

2 LeadCE 7 .858 .073 .005329 LeadCE 8 .825 .04 .0016 LeadCE 9 .780 -.005 .000025 LeadCE 10 .830 .045 .002025 LeadCE 11 .807 .022 .000484 LeadCE 12 .706 -.079 .006241 LeadCE 13 .813 .028 .000784 LeadCE 14 .719 -.066 .004356 LeadCE 15 .831 .046 .002116 LeadCE 17 .831 .046 .002116 LeadCE 18 .819 .034 .001156 LeadCE 19 .839 .054 .002916 LeadCE 20 .800 .015 .000225 LeadCE 21 .585 -.200 .04 LeadCE 22 .802 .017 .000289

ΣXi =16.485 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.083958 Mean =.785 S.D =.065

Table G 9 (From Table 4.12) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ role and empowerment

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 LeadCE 3 .690 -.071 .005041 LeadCE 4 .657 -.104 .010816 LeadCE 11 .761 0 0 LeadCE 12 .657 -.104 .010816 LeadCE 13 .821 .06 .0036 LeadCE 14 .694 -.067 .004489 LeadCE 15 .818 .057 .003249 LeadCE 17 .814 .08 .0064 LeadCE 18 .818 .05 .003249 LeadCE 19 .860 .099 .009801 LeadCE 20 .809 .048 .002304 LeadCE 21 .678 -.083 .006889 LeadCE 22 .790 .29 .0841

ΣXi = 9.894 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.147154 Mean =.761 S.D =.111

Table G10 (From Table 4.14) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ commitment and empowerment

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 LeadCE 1 .833 .036 .001296 LeadCE 5 .813 .016 .000256 LeadCE 6 .753 -.044 .001936 LeadCE 7 .879 .082 .006724 LeadCE 8 .730 .033 .001089 LeadCE 9 .794 -.003 .000009 LeadCE 10 892 .095 .000857 LeadCE 11 .846 .049 .002401

3 LeadCE 12 .749 -.048 .002304 LeadCE 13 .832 .035 .001225 LeadCE 17 .878 .081 .006561 LeadCE 21 .449 -.348 .121104 LeadCE 22 .815 .018 .000324

ΣXi = 10.363 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.146086 Mean =.797 S.D =.110

Table G 11 (From Table 4.16) Grand mean Factor 1: Norm of Knowledge sharing

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Com 4 .585 -.143 .020449 Com 5 .842 .114 .012996 Com 6 .801 .073 .005329 Com 7 .684 -.044 .001936

ΣXi = 2.912 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.04071 Mean =.728 S.D =.116

Table G 12 (From Table 4.16) Grand mean Factor 2: Freely to share ideas

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Com 2 .328 -.291 .084681 Com 10 .810 .191 .036481 Com 11 .767 .148 .021904 Com 12 .604 -.015 .000225 Com 13 .588 -.031 .000961

ΣXi = 3.097 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.144252 Mean =.619 S.D =.190

Table G13 (From Table 4.18) Grand mean Factor 1: Supportive and freely to share ideas

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Com 7 .564 -.085 .007225 Com 10 .621 -.028 .000784 Com 11 .482 -.167 .027880 Com 12 .900 .251 .063001 Com 13 .679 .030 .0009

ΣXi = 3.246 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.099799 Mean =.649 S.D =.158

Table G14 (From Table 4.18) Grand mean Factor 2: Openness and shared communication

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Com 1 .662 .053 .002809 Com 2 .643 .034 .001156 Com 3 .521 -.088 .007744

ΣXi = 1.826 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.011709

4 Mean =.609 S.D =.076

Table G15 (From Table 4.20) Grand mean Factor 1: Open Communication (culture)

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Com 2 .639 -.043 .001849 Com 3 .716 .034 .001156 Com 4 .745 .063 .003969 Com 6 .746 .064 .004096 Com 7 .626 -.056 .003136 Com 8 .630 -.052 .002704 Com 11 .672 -.01 .0001 Com 12 .676 -.006 .000036 Com 13 .687 .005 .000025

ΣXi = 6.137 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.017971 Mean =.682 S.D =.047

Table G16 (From Table 4.22) Grand mean Factor 1: Accessible storage system

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 12 .592 -.114 .012996 Kt 14 .661 -.045 .002025 Kt 15 .874 .168 .028224 Kt 16 .541 -.165 .027225 Kt 18 .864 .158 .024964

ΣXi = 3.532 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 = .095434 Mean =.706 S.D = .154

Table G17 (From Table 4.22) Grand mean Factor 2: Willingness to share knowledge

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 5 .305 -.297 .088209 Kt 6 .684 .082 .006724 Kt 7 .409 -.193 .037249 Kt 8 .648 .046 .002116 Kt9 .748 .146 .021316 Kt10 .795 .193 .037249 Kt 17 .623 .021 .000441

ΣXi = 4.212 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.193304 Mean =.602 S.D =.179

Table G18 (From Table 4.22) Grand mean Factor 3: Supportive data system

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 1 .833 .162 .026244 Kt 3 .509 .162 .026244

ΣXi = 1.342 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.052488

5 Mean =.671 S.D =.229

Table G19 (From Table 4.24) Grand mean Factor 1: Accessible storage system

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 12 .660 -.029 .000841 Kt 14 .654 -.035 .001225 Kt 15 .834 .145 .021025 Kt 16 .519 -.170 .0289 Kt 18 .779 .090 .0081

ΣXi = 3.446 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.060091 Mean =.689 S.D =.122

Table G20 (From Table 4.24) Grand mean Factor 2: Willingness to share knowledge

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 5 .318 -.292 .085264 Kt 6 .610 0 0 Kt 8 .565 -.045 .002025 Kt 9 .763 .153 .023409 Kt 10 .793 .183 .033489 Kt11 .569 .041 .001681 Kt 17 .652 .042 .001764

ΣXi = 4.27 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.147632 Mean =.610 S.D =.157

Table G21 (From Table 4.24) Grand mean Factor 3: Supportive data system

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 1 .633 .064 .004096 Kt 3 .506 -.063 .003969

ΣXi = 1.139 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.008065 Mean =.569 S.D =.008

Table G22 (From Table 4.26) Grand mean Factor 1: Knowledge distribution and memory system

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 1 .649 -.06 .0036 Kt 3 .626 -.083 .006889 Kt 4 .754 .045 .002025 Kt 5 .481 -.228 .051984 Kt 12 .578 -.131 .017161 Kt 14 .785 .076 .005776 Kt 15 .886 .177 .031329 Kt 16 .697 .012 .000144 Kt 18 .927 .218 .047524

ΣXi = 6.383 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.166432

6 Mean =.709 S.D =.144

Table G23 (From Table 4.26) Grand mean Factor 2: Willingness to share knowledge

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 6 .753 .084 .007056 Kt 7 .520 -.149 .022201 Kt 8 .706 .037 .001369 Kt 9 .706 .037 .001369 Kt10 .740 .071 .005041 Kt 17 .591 -.078 .006084

ΣXi = 4.016 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.04312 Mean =.669 S.D =.093

Table G24 (From Table 4.28) Grand mean Factor 1: Employee proficiency

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 1 .662 -.016 .000256 EmpC 3 .672 -.006 .000036 EmpC 4 .622 -.045 .002025 EmpC 5 .649 -.029 .000841 EmpC 6 .706 .028 .000784 EmpC 7 .694 .016 .000256 EmpC 8 .738 .06 .0036 EmpC 9 .664 -.014 .000196 EmpC 10 .684 .006 .000036

ΣXi = 6.102 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.00803 Mean =.678 S.D =.032

Table G25 (From Table 4.28) Grand mean Factor 2: Human resources emphasis

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 11 .716 .025 .000625 EmpC 12 .797 .106 .011236 EmpC 13 .442 -.349 .062001 EmpC 14 .790 .099 .009801 EmpC 15 .708 .017 .000289

ΣXi = 3.453 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.083952 Mean =.691 S.D =.145

Table G26 (From Table 4.30) Grand mean Factor 1: Employee proficiency

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 1 .727 .061 .003721 EmpC 3 .713 .047 .002209 EmpC 4 .498 -.168 .028224 EmpC 5 .842 .176 .030976

7 EmpC 6 .720 .054 .002916 EmpC 7 .668 .002 .000004 EmpC 8 .690 .024 .000576 EmpC 9 .515 -.151 .022801 EmpC 10 .621 -.045 .002025

ΣXi = 5.994 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.093452 Mean =.666 S.D =.108

Table G27 (From Table 4.30) Grand mean Factor 2: Human resource emphasis

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 11 .669 -.036 .001296 EmpC 12 .793 .088 .007744 EmpC 13 .632 -.073 .005329 EmpC 14 .771 .066 .004356 EmpC 15 .661 .044 .001936

ΣXi = 3.526 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.020661 Mean =.705 S.D =.072

Table G28 (From Table 4.32) Grand mean Factor 1: Employee proficiency

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 1 .596 -.125 .015625 EmpC 3 .632 -.089 .007921 EmpC 4 .759 .038 .001444 EmpC 5 .813 .092 .008464 EmpC 6 .691 -.030 .0009 EmpC 7 .685 -.036 .001296 EmpC 8 .790 .069 .004761 EmpC 9 .777 .056 .003136 EmpC 10 .748 .027 .000729

ΣXi = 6.491 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.044276 Mean =.721 S.D =.074

Table G29 (From Table 4.32) Grand mean Factor 2: Human resource values

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 11 .765 .002 .000004 EmpC 12 .764 .001 .000001 EmpC 14 .759 -.004 .000016

ΣXi = 2.288 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.000021 Mean =.763 S.D =.003

Table G30 (From Table 4.34) Grand mean Factor 1: Improvement outcome

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Pfu 6 .542 -.117 .013689

8 Pfu 7 .407 -.252 .063504 Pfu 8 .767 .108 .011664 Pfu 9 .921 .262 .068644

ΣXi = 2.637 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.157501 Mean =.659 S.D =.229

Table G31 (From Table 4.34) Grand mean Factor 2: Performance driving

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Pfu 2 .578 -.103 .010609 Pfu 4 .726 .045 .002025 Pfu 5 .740 .059 .003481

ΣXi = 2.044 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.016115 Mean =.681 S.D =.090

Table G32 (From Table 4.36) Grand mean Factor 1: Improvement approach

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Pfu 1 .542 -.041 .001681 Pfu 2 .614 .031 .000961 Pfu 3 .591 .008 .000064 Pfu 4 .804 .221 .048841 Pfu 5 .686 .103 .010609 Pfu 6 .486 -.097 .009409 Pfu 7 .362 -.221 .048841

ΣXi = 4.085 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.120406 Mean =.583 S.D =.142

Table G33 (From Table 4.36) Grand mean Factor 2: Performance outcome

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Pfu 8 .689 -.067 .004489 Pfu 9 .823 .067 .004489

ΣXi = 1.512 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.008978 Mean =.756 S.D =.095

Table G34 (From Table 4.38) Grand mean Factor 1: Improvement outcome

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Pfu 6 .709 -.03 .0009 Pfu 7 .837 .098 .009604 Pfu 8 .598 -.141 .019881 Pfu 9 .812 .073 .005329

ΣXi = 2.956 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.035714 Mean =.739 S.D =.109

Table G35 (From Table 4.38) Grand mean Factor 2: Performance driving

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Pfu 2 .703 .037 .001369 Pfu 3 .542 -.124 .015376 Pfu 4 .772 .106 .011236 Pfu 5 .646 -.02 .0004

ΣXi = 2.663 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.028381 Mean =.666 S.D =.097

***********************************************************

Table G36 (From Table 4.43) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ responsibility in KA

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .643 -.11 .0121 Cv 20 .462 -.291 .084681 LeadCE 1 .902 .149 .022201 LeadCE 3 .704 -.049 .002401 LeadCE 4 .758 .005 .000025 LeadCE 5 .880 .127 .016129 LeadCE 7 .869 .116 .013456 LeadCE 10 .885 .132 .017424 LeadCE 11 .753 0 0 LeadCE 15 .713 -.040 .0016 LeadCE 18 .742 -.011 .000121 LeadCE 19 .726 -.027 .000729

ΣXi = 9.037 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.408566 Mean =.753 S.D =.193

Table G37 (From Table 4.43) Grand mean Factor 2: Employees’ expertise

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 1 .563 -.105 .011025 EmpC 7 .581 .087 .007569 EmpC 8 .834 .166 .027556 EmpC 10 .693 .025 .000625

ΣXi = 2.671 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.046775 Mean =.668 S.D =.125

Table G38 (From Table 4.43) Grand mean Factor 3: Mean to obtain knowledge

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 10 .691 .115 .013225 Cv 11 .523 -.053 .002809 Com 7 .411 -.165 .027225 EmpC 12 .652 .076 .005776

10 EmpC 14 .623 .047 .002209 EmpC 15 .554 -.022 .000484

ΣXi = 3.454 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.064953 Mean =.576 S.D =.114

Table G39 (From Table 4.43) Grand mean Factor 4: Training and learning implementation

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 1 .497 .040 .0016 Cv 2 .553 .096 .009216 Cv 3 .439 -.018 .000324 Cv 4 .440 -.017 .000289 Cv 8 .441 -.016 .000256 Cv 9 .375 -.082 .006724

ΣXi = 2.745 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.023926 Mean =.457 S.D =.069

Table G40 (From Table 4.45) Grand mean Factor 1: Supportive environment for KA

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .617 -.103 .010609 Cv 13 .394 -.326 .106276 Cv 20 .515 -.205 .042025 LeadCE 1 .841 .121 .014641 LeadCE 3 .712 -.008 .000064 LeadCE 5 .866 .146 .021316 LeadCE 7 .845 .125 .015625 LeadCE 10 .886 .166 .027556 LeadCE 15 .758 .038 .001444 LeadCE 18 .706 -.014 .000196 LeadCE 19 .778 .058 .003364

ΣXi = 7.918 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.243116 Mean =.720 S.D =.156

Table G41 (From Table 4.45) Grand mean Factor 2: Employees’ expertise

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 1 .620 -.061 .003721 EmpC 7 .604 -.077 .005929 EmpC 8 .866 .185 .034225 EmpC 10 .634 -.047 .002209

ΣXi = 2.724 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.046084 Mean =.681 S.D =.124

Table G42 (From Table 4.45) Grand mean Factor 3: Human resources quality

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2

11 EmpC 12 .735 .083 .006889 EmpC 13 .637 -.015 .000225 EmpC 14 .591 -.061 .003721 EmpC 15 .645 -.007 .000049

ΣXi = 2.608 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.010884 Mean =.652 S.D =.060

Table G43 (From Table 4.45) Grand mean Factor 4: Training and learning implementation

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 1 .488 .031 .000961 Cv 2 .696 .239 .057121 Cv 9 .316 -.141 .019881 Cv 11 .329 -.128 .016384

ΣXi = 1.829 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.094347 Mean =.457 S.D =.177

Table G44 (From Table 4.47) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ responsibility in KA

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .706 -.046 .002116 Cv 20 .436 -.316 .099856 LeadCE 1 .920 .168 .028224 LeadCE 3 .710 -.042 .001764 LeadCE 4 .838 .086 .007396 LeadCE 5 .821 .069 .004761 LeadCE 7 .868 .116 .013456 LeadCE 10 .806 .054 .002916 LeadCE 11 .767 .015 .000225 LeadCE 18 .756 .004 .000016 LeadCE 19 .645 -.107 .011449

ΣXi = 8.273 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.172179 Mean =.752 S.D =.131

Table G45 (From Table 4.47) Grand mean Factor 2: Employee expertise

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 EmpC 1 .509 -.190 .0361 EmpC 7 .679 -.020 .0004 EmpC 8 .835 .136 .018496 EmpC 10 .773 .074 .005476

ΣXi = 2.796 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 = .054996 Mean =.699 S.D =.135

Table G46 (From Table 4.47) Grand mean Factor 3: Means of KA prominence

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2

12 Cv 1 .445 -.141 .019881 Cv 10 .771 .185 .034225 Cv 11 .652 .066 .004356 Cv 13 .477 -.109 .011881 Com 7 .548 -.038 .001444 EmpC 12 .639 .053 .002809 EmpC 14 .627 .041 .001681 EmpC 15 .529 .057 .003249

ΣXi = 4.688 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.079526 Mean =.586 S.D =.106

Table G47 (From Table 4.47) Grand mean Factor 4: Learning from sources

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 2 .364 -.121 .014641 Cv 3 .634 .149 .022201 Cv 4 .593 .108 .011664 Cv 8 .349 -.136 .018496

ΣXi = 1.94 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.067002 Mean =.485 S.D =.149

Table G48 (From Table 4.49) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ task in KA and KS

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 20 .470 -.288 .082944 LeadCE 1 .905 .147 .021609 LeadCE 2 .715 -.043 .001849 LeadCE 3 .687 -.071 .005041 LeadCE 4 .717 -.041 .001681 LeadCE 5 .901 .143 .020449 LeadCE 7 .912 .154 .023716 LeadCE 8 .815 .057 .003249 LeadCE 9 .787 .029 .000841 LeadCE 10 .863 .105 .011025 LeadCE 11 .778 .02 .0004 LeadCE 12 .472 -.286 .081796 LeadCE 15 .780 .022 .000484 LeadCE 18 .740 -.008 .000064 LeadCE 19 .805 .047 .002209 LeadCE 20 .766 .008 .000064

ΣXi = 12.123 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.257421 Mean =.758 S.D =.131

Table G49 (From Table 4.49) Grand mean Factor 2: Efficiency in learning and sharing (in team)

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Com 1 .364 -.245 .060025

13 Kt 6 .625 .016 .000256 Kt 7 .386 -.223 .049729 Kt 8 .624 .015 .000225 Kt 9 .618 .009 .000081 Kt 10 .559 -.05 .0025 Kt 17 .695 .086 .007396 EmpC 1 .621 .012 .000144 EmpC 4 .655 .046 .002116 EmpC 7 .698 .089 .007921 EmpC 8 .785 .176 .030976 EmpC 10 .675 .066 .004356

ΣXi = 7.305 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.165725 Mean =.609 S.D =.123

Table G50 (From Table 4.49) Grand mean Factor 3: Employee and communication issue facilitated KA and KS

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 16 .522 -.057 .003249 Cv 17 .382 -.197 .038809 Com 2 .470 -.109 .011881 Com 5 .696 .117 .013689 Com 6 .717 .138 .019044 Com 7 .697 .118 .013924 Com 8 .799 .220 .0484 Com 9 .794 .215 .046225 Com 10 .577 -.002 .000004 Com 12 .668 .089 .007921 Com 13 .647 .068 .004624 Kt 12 .451 -.128 .016384 EmpC 12 .387 -.192 .036864 EmpC 15 .307 -.272 .073984

ΣXi = 8.114 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.335002 Mean =.579 S.D =.160

Table G51 (From Table 4.51) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ roles due to develop into an LO

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 20 .434 -.291 .084681 LeadCE 1 .817 .092 .008464 LeadCE 3 .665 -.060 .0036 LeadCE 4 .628 -.097 .009409 LeadCE 5 .863 .138 .019044 LeadCE 7 .850 .125 .015625 LeadCE 8 .765 .040 .0016 LeadCE 9 .806 .081 .006561 LeadCE 10 .832 .107 .011449 LeadCE 12 .444 -.281 .078961

14 LeadCE 15 .786 .061 .003721 LeadCE 18 .705 -.020 .0004 LeadCE 19 .816 .091 .008281 LeadCE 20 .745 .020 .0004

ΣXi = 10.156 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.252196 Mean =.725 S.D =.139

Table G52 (From Table 4.51) Grand mean Factor 2: Honesty and willingness to share knowledge

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 6 .497 -.045 .002025 Kt 9 .664 .122 .014884 Kt 10 .705 .163 .026569 Kt 11 .449 -.093 .008649 Kt 17 .552 -.020 .0004 EmpC 4 .383 -.159 .025281

ΣXi = 3.25 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.077808 Mean =.542 S.D =.125

Table G53 (From Table 4.51) Grand mean Factor 3: Openness and freely communication

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Com 2 .369 -.198 .039204 Com 9 .663 .096 .009216 Com 10 .602 .035 .001225 Com 12 .725 .158 .024964 Com 13 .693 .126 .015876 Kt 4 .536 -.031 .000961 Kt 5 .475 -.092 .008464 Kt 12 .471 -.096 .009216

ΣXi = 4.534 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.109121 Mean =.567 S.D =.125

Table G54 (From Table 4.51) Grand mean Factor 4: Supportive factors for an LO development

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 11 .433 -.092 .008464 Cv 15 .466 -.059 .003481 Kt 3 .511 -.014 .001456 EmpC 12 .599 .074 .005476 EmpC 13 .618 .093 .008649 EmpC 15 .526 .001 .000001

ΣXi = 3.153 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.027527 Mean =.525 S.D =.074

15 Table G55 (From Table 4.51) Grand mean Factor 5: Employee competencies at work

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 8 .342 .160 .0256 Com 11 .479 -.023 .000529 EmpC 1 .575 .073 .005329 EmpC 8 .612 .110 .0121 EmpC 10 .502 0 0

ΣXi = 2.51 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.043558 Mean =.502 S.D =.104

Table G56 (From Table 4.53) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ roles in KA and KS

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .778 .018 .000324 LeadCE 1 .935 .175 .030625 LeadCE 2 .731 -.029 .000841 LeadCE 4 .747 -.013 .000169 LeadCE 5 .821 .061 .003721 LeadCE 7 .901 .141 .019881 LeadCE 8 .748 -.012 .000144 LeadCE 9 .706 -.054 .002916 LeadCE 10 .785 .025 .000625 LeadCE 11 .803 .043 .001849 LeadCE 12 .493 .267 .071289 LeadCE 15 .701 -.059 .002481 LeadCE 18 .762 .002 .000004 LeadCE 19 .717 -.043 .001849 LeadCE 20 .770 .010 .0001

ΣXi = 11.398 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.137818 Mean =.760 S.D =.099

Table G57 (From Table 4.53) Grand mean Factor 2: Employees’ role in KA and KS

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Kt 10 .381 -.253 .064009 Kt 17 .688 .054 .002916 EmpC 1 .560 -.074 .005476 EmpC 4 .669 .035 .001225 EmpC 7 .688 .054 .002916 EmpC 8 .787 .153 .023409 EmpC 1 0 .783 .149 .022201 EmpC 13 .518 -.116 .013456

ΣXi = 5.074 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.135608 Mean =.634 S.D =.139

16 Table G58 (From Table 4.53) Grand mean Factor 3: Learning and sharing culture sustained LO development

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 11 .440 -.131 .017161 Cv 12 .556 -.015 .000225 Cv 16 .457 -.114 .012996 Com 4 .707 .136 .018496 Com 6 .787 .216 .046656 Com 7 .720 .149 .022201 Com 9 .602 .031 .000961 Com 10 .560 .011 .000121 Com 12 .499 -.072 .005184 Kt 4 .587 .016 .000256 Kt 12 .514 -.057 .003249 EmpC 12 .580 .009 .000081 EmpC 14 .418 -.153 .023409

ΣXi = 7.427 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.150996 Mean =.571 S.D =.112

Table G59 (From Table 4.53) Grand mean Factor 4: Learning from sources

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 2 .433 .045 .002025 Cv 3 .562 .084 .007056 Cv 4 .497 .019 .000361 Cv 8 .422 .056 .003136

ΣXi = 1.914 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.012578 Mean =.478 S.D =.065

Table G60 (From Table 4.55) Grand mean Factor 1: Leadership commitment, empowerment and encouragement in LO development stage

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .746 -.010 0.0001 Cv 7 .653 -.079 .006241 Cv 20 .413 -.319 .101761 Com 11 .881 .149 .022201 LeadCE 1 .661 -.071 .005041 LeadCE 2 .682 -.050 .0025 LeadCE 3 .715 -.017 .000289 LeadCE 4 .918 .186 .034596 LeadCE 5 .866 .134 .017956 LeadCE 7 .781 .049 .002401 LeadCE 8 .807 .075 .005625 LeadCE 9 .842 .110 .0121 LeadCE 10 .759 .027 .000729 LeadCE 11 .510 .222 .049284

17 LeadCE 12 .670 -.062 .003844 LeadCE 13 .740 -.008 .000064 LeadCE 15 .843 .111 .012321 LeadCE 17 .702 -.030 .0009 LeadCE 18 .744 .012 .000144 LeadCE 19 .789 .057 .003249 LeadCE 20 .729 .003 .000009 LeadCE 22 .658 -.074 .005476

ΣXi = 16.105 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.286831 Mean =.732 S.D =.117

Table G61 (From Table 4.55) Grand mean Factor 2: Skillful employee facilitated LO development processes

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 8 .414 -.165 .027255 Com 1 .333 -.246 .060516 Kt 6 .585 .006 .000036 Kt 7 .361 -.218 .047524 Kt 8 .620 .041 .001681 Kt 9 .609 .030 .0009 Kt 1 0 .548 -.031 .000961 Kt 11 .369 -.210 .0441 Kt 17 .626 .047 .002209 EmpC 1 .623 .044 .001936 EmpC 3 .606 .027 .000729 EmpC 4 .681 .102 .010404 EmpC 5 .740 .161 .025921 EmpC 6 .657 .078 .006084 EmpC 7 .686 .107 .011449 EmpC 8 .763 .184 .033856 EmpC 9 .714 .135 .018225 EmpC 10 .704 .125 .015625 EmpC 13 .365 -.214 .045796

ΣXi = 11.004 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.355177 Mean =.579 S.D =.140

Table G62 (From Table 4.55) Grand mean Factor 3: Recruitment/training, organizational memory and improvement approach facilitated LO development stages

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 1 .334 -.159 .025281 Cv 10 .588 .095 .009025 Cv 11 .472 -.021 .000441 Cv 15 .438 -.055 .003025 Kt 1 .351 -.142 .020164 Kt 3 .413 -.080 .0064 Kt 14 .467 -.026 .000676

18 Kt15 .591 .098 .009604 EmpC 12 .502 .009 .000081 EmpC 14 .559 .066 .004356 EmpC 15 .435 -.058 .003364 Pfu 3 .518 .025 .000625 Pfu 4 .425 -.068 .004624 Pfu 5 .416 -.077 .005929 Pfu 6 .636 .143 .020449 Pfu 7 .527 .034 .001156 Pfu 8 .620 .127 .016129 Pfu 9 .582 .089 .007921

ΣXi = 8.874 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.139250 Mean =.493 S.D =.09

Table G63 (From Table 4.55) Grand mean Factor 4: Openness and honesty communication supported KA, KS and KU

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 12 .0439 -.088 .007744 Cv 13 .435 -.092 .008464 Cv 16 .471 -.056 .003136 Cv 17 .362 -.165 .027225 Kt 5 .385 -.142 .020164 Com 2 .508 -.019 .000361 Com 5 .586 .059 .003481 Com 7 .755 .228 .051984 Com 8 .755 .228 .051984 Com 9 .614 .087 .007569 Com 10 .582 .055 .003025 Com 12 .572 .045 .002025 Com 13 .392 -.136 .018496

ΣXi = 6.856 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.205658 Mean =.527 S.D =.131

Table G64 (From Table 4.57) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ role and encouragement in LO development

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 20 .452 .285 .081225 LeadCE 1 .838 .101 .010201 LeadCE 3 .662 -.075 .005625 LeadCE 4 .588 -.149 .022201 LeadCE 5 873 .136 .018496 LeadCE 7 .844 .107 .011449 LeadCE 8 .803 .066 .004356 LeadCE 9 .830 .093 .008649 LeadCE 10 .862 .125 .015625 LeadCE 11 .728 -.009 .000081

19 LeadCE 12 .497 -.240 .0576 LeadCE 13 .660 -.077 .005929 LeadCE 15 .779 .042 .001764 LeadCE 17 .792 .055 .003025 LeadCE 18 .708 -.029 .000841 LeadCE 19 .797 .060 .0036 LeadCE 20 .830 .093 .008649 LeadCE 22 .725 -.012 .000144

ΣXi = 13.268 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.259460 Mean =.737 S.D =.123

Table G65 (From Table 4.57) Grand mean Factor 2: Learning, wiliness to share and application of knowledge

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 8 .371 -.189 .035721 Com 1 .383 -.177 .031329 Kt 7 .450 -.110 .0121 Kt 8 .557 -.003 .000009 Kt 10 .357 -.203 .041209 Kt 11 .364 -.196 .038416 Kt 17 .467 -.093 .008649 EmpC 1 .702 .142 .020164 EmpC 3 .676 .116 .013456 EmpC 4 .529 -.031 .000961 EmpC 5 .827 .267 .071289 EmpC 6 .702 .142 .020164 EmpC 7 .659 .099 .009801 EmpC 8 .735 .175 .030625 EmpC 10 .627 .067 .004489

ΣXi = 8.406 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.338382 Mean =.560 S.D =.155

Table G66 (From Table 4.57) Grand mean Factor 3: Openness and supportive communication culture

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Com 8 .716 .076 .005776 Com 9 .718 .078 .006084 Com 1 0 .560 -.080 .0064 Com 12 .636 -.004 .000016 Com 13 .572 -.068 .004624

ΣXi = 3.202 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.022900 Mean =.640 S.D =.076

Table G67 (From Table 4.57) Grand mean Factor 4: Enhancement supportive factors

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 11 .442 -.089 .007921 Kt 3 .509 -.022 .000484 Kt 4 .363 -.168 .028224 EmpC 12 .651 .120 .0144 EmpC 13 .605 .074 .005476 EmpC 14 .661 .130 .0169 EmpC 15 .640 .109 .011881 Pfu 6 .381 -.150 .0225

ΣXi = 4.252 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.107786 Mean =.531 S.D =.124

Table G68 (From Table 4.59) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ role in KA, KS and KU

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 6 .822 .094 .008836 Cv 7 .739 .011 .000121 Cv 14 .502 .226 .051076 Cv 20 .408 -.320 .1024 LeadCE 1 .894 .166 .027556 LeadCE 2 .684 -.044 .001936 LeadCE 3 .701 -.027 .000729 LeadCE 4 .812 .084 .007056 LeadCE 5 .905 .177 .031329 LeadCE 6 .536 .-192 .036864 LeadCE 7 .838 .110 .0121 LeadCE 8 .685 -.043 .017329 LeadCE 9 .749 .021 .000441 LeadCE 10 .815 .087 .007569 LeadCE 11 .781 .053 .002809 LeadCE 12 .554 -.174 .030276 LeadCE 13 .690 -.038 .001444 LeadCE 15 .724 -.004 .000016 LeadCE 17 .888 .16 .0256 LeadCE 18 .719 -.009 .000081 LeadCE 19 .745 .017 .000289 LeadCE 20 .78 .052 .002704 LeadCE 22 .773 .045 .002025

ΣXi = 16.744 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.370586 Mean =.728 S.D =.130

Table G69 (From Table 4.59) Grand mean Factor 2: Employee devotedness and competencies at work

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 8 .399 -.222 .049284 Kt 8 .577 -.044 .001936

21 Kt 9 .591 -.030 .0009 Kt 10 .558 -.063 .003969 Kt 11 .367 -.254 .064516 Kt 17 .644 .023 .000529 EmpC 1 .605 -.016 .000256 EmpC 3 .619 -.002 .000004 EmpC 4 .719 .098 .009604 EmpC 5 .726 .105 .011025 EmpC 6 .683 .062 .003844 EmpC 7 .634 .013 .000169 EmpC 8 .771 .150 .0225 EmpC 9 .799 .178 .031684 EmpC 10 .786 .165 .027255 EmpC 13 .461 -.160 .0256

ΣXi = 9.939 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.253075 Mean =.621 S.D =.130

Table G70 (From Table 4.59) Grand mean Factor 3: required factors for obtained, shared and make use of knowledge

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 1 .480 -.097 .009409 Cv 11 .366 -.211 .044521 Cv 15 .384 -.193 .037249 Com 1 .372 -.205 .042025 Kt 14 .545 -.032 .001024 Kt 18 .631 .054 .002916 EmpC 12 .605 .028 .000784 EmpC 14 .485 -.092 .008464 EmpC 15 .406 -.171 .029241 Pfu 1 .545 -.032 .001024 Pfu 2 .441 -.136 .018496 Pfu 3 .553 -.024 .000576 Pfu 6 .739 .162 .026244 Pfu 7 .706 .129 .016641 Pfu 8 .730 .153 .023409 Pfu 9 .763 .186 .034596

ΣXi = 9.231 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.296619 Mean =.577 S.D =.141

Table G71 (From Table 4.59) Grand mean Factor 4: Free and hones sharing ideas

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Cv 16 .572 .006 .000036 Com 8 .523 .043 .001849 Com 9 .637 .071 .005041 Com 10 .681 .115 .013225 Com 13 .419 -.147 .021609

ΣXi = 2.832 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.04176 Mean =.566 S.D =.102

Table G72 (From Table 4.61) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ role in Change

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 4 .679 -.107 .011449 Rc 5 .822 .036 .001296 Rc 6 .763 -.023 .000529 Rc 7 .864 .078 .006084 Rc 8 .902 .116 .013456 Rc 20 .708 -.078 .006084 Rc 21 .841 .055 .003025 Rc 22 .864 .078 .006084 Rc 26 .629 -.157 .024649

ΣXi = 7.072 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.072656 Mean =.786 S.D =.095

Table G73 (From Table 4.61) Grand mean Factor 2: Change acquaintance

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 10 .407 -.187 .034969 Rc 14 .457 -.137 .018769 Rc 24 .564 -.030 .0009 Rc 25 .508 -.086 .007396 Rc 27 .468 -.126 .015876 Rc 28 .870 .276 .076176 Rc 29 .618 .024 .000576 Rc 30 .857 .263 .069169

ΣXi = 4.749 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.223831 Mean =.594 S.D =.179

Table G74 (From Table 4.61) Grand mean Factor 3: Company position

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 1 .641 .093 .008649 Rc 2 .827 .093 .008649

ΣXi = 1.468 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.017298 Mean =.734 S.D =.131

Table G75 (From Table 4.61) Grand mean Factor 4: Supportive workplace

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 11 -.483 .110 .0121 Rc 13 -.521 .072 .005184 Rc 17 -.793 -.200 .004 Rc 18 -.574 .019 .000361

ΣXi = -2.371 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.021645 Mean = -0.593 S.D =.085

Table G76 (From Table 4.63) Grand mean Factor 1: Leader’s role in change

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 4 .759 -.008 .000064 Rc 5 .872 .105 .011025 Rc 6 .811 .044 .001936 Rc 7 .863 .096 .009216 Rc 8 .904 .137 .018769 Rc 12 .514 -.253 .064009 Rc 19 .687 -.080 .0064 Rc 20 .714 -.053 .002809 Rc 21 .883 .116 .013456 Rc 22 .859 .092 .008464 Rc 23 .705 -.062 .003844 Rc 26 .629 .138 .019044

ΣXi = 9.2 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.159036 Mean =.767 S.D =.120

Table G77 (From Table 4.63) Grand mean Factor 2: Change understanding

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 10 .552 -.065 .004225 Rc 14 .537 -.080 .0064 Rc 15 .508 -.109 .011881 Rc 18 .344 -.273 .074529 Rc 24 .563 -.054 .002916 Rc 25 .533 -.084 .007056 Rc 28 .882 .265 .070225 Rc 29 .712 .095 .009025 Rc 30 .921 .034 .092416

ΣXi = 5.552 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.278673 Mean =.617 S.D =.187

Table G78 (From Table 4.63) Grand mean Factor 3: Company position

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 1 .602 -.148 .021904 Rc 2 .898 .148 .021904

ΣXi = 1.5 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.043808 Mean =.750 S.D =.209

Table G79 (From Table 4.65) Grand mean Factor 1: Leaders’ roles in change

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2

24 Rc 4 .683 -.076 .005776 Rc 5 .926 .167 .027889 Rc 7 .760 .001 .000001 Rc 8 .797 .038 .001444 Rc 12 .483 -.276 .076176 Rc 19 .717 -.042 .001764 Rc 20 .811 .052 .002704 Rc 21 .830 .071 .005041 Rc 22 .821 .062 .003844

ΣXi = 6.828 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.124639 Mean =.759 S.D =.123

Table G80 (From Table 4.65) Grand mean Factor 2: Employee awareness

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 11 .648 .024 .000576 Rc 13 .687 .063 .003969 Rc 16 .465 -.159 .025281 Rc 17 .786 .162 .026244 Rc 18 .535 -.089 .007921

ΣXi = 3.121 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.063991 Mean =.624 S.D =.126

Table G81 (From Table 4.65) Grand mean Factor 3: Change communication

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 3 .560 -.038 .001444 Rc 14 .614 .016 .000256 Rc 15 .758 .160 .0256 Rc 24 .660 .062 .003844 Rc 25 .638 .040 .0016 Rc 27 .514 -.084 .007056 Rc 29 .443 -.155 .024025

ΣXi = 4.187 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.063825 Mean =.598 S.D =.103

Table G82 (From Table 4.65) Grand mean Factor 4: Company position

Variables Xi Xi - Mean (Xi - Mean)^2 Rc 1 -.333 .107 .011449 Rc 2 -.547 -.107 .011449

ΣXi = .880 Σ (Xi-mean)^2 =.022898 Mean =.440 S.D =.151