1 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Knowledge sharing behavior
of dominant and subordinated
ethnicities in a work
environment
- A qualitative study to the underlying
mechanism.
Management of Cultural Diversity
2012-2013
Master Thesis Circle: Culture, structure or recognition: What is driving experiences and
strategies of migrants at work?
Title: Knowledge sharing behavior of dominant and subordinated ethnicities in a work
environment. A qualitative study to the differences and influencing factors.
Details student
Name
ANR
Deta
ils
stud
ent
Anna Slump
s179675
Details supervisor
Det
Name supervisor
ails
of
Name second reader
stu
den
t
Date
Word count
Dr. H. Siebers
dr. M. Spotti
September 10th, 2013
22.661 words
2 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Index
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________5
Chapter 1: Research problem statement
_________________________________________________6
Chapter 2: Theory
___________________________________________________________________8
2.1 The definition of knowledge sharing (KS)
8
2.3 Literature overview on knowledge sharing
10
2.4 Knowledge sharing behavior (KSB)
11
2.5 Ethnic diversity
12
2.6 KSB in highly skilled jobs among subordinated group members
15
2.7 The influencing factors of differences in KSB
15
2.7.1 Culture
15
2.7.1.1 Interaction
16
2.7.1.2 Meaning
16
2.7.1.3 Artifacts
16
2.7.2 Structural position
17
2.7.2.1 Structural position in the labor market
17
2.7.2.2 Structural position in the organization
18
2.7.2.3 Institutional uncertainty
18
2.7.3 Recognition
19
2.7.3.1 Recognition by colleagues
19
2.7.3.2 Recognition by organizational policies
20
2.7.3.3 Relational uncertainty
20
2.8 The importance of the research question
20
Chapter 3. Research strategy and methods applied
21
3.1 Research design
21
3.2 Sample strategy
21
3.3 Data collection
22
3.4 Data analysis
23
3.5 Research quality indicators
24
Chapter 4. Research context
__________________________________________________________24
Chapter 5. Findings on general KSB
___________________________________________________26
3 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
5.1 Donating or receiving knowledge
27
5.1.1 The influencing factors
28
5.1.1.1 The influence of the factor culture
29
5.1.1.2 The influence of the factor structural position
29
5.1.1.2 The influence of the factor recognition
33
5.2 KSB: the (non-) hierarchical manner
5.2.1 The influencing factors
35
38
5.2.1.1 The influence of the factor culture
38
5.2.1.2 The influence of the factor structural position
40
5.2.1.3 The influence of the factor recognition
41
5.3 Presenting the knowledge
5.3.1 The influencing factors
41
42
5.3.1.1 The influence of the factor culture
42
5.3.1.2 The influence of the factor structural position
43
5.4 KSB and the means of communication
5.4.1 The influencing factors
43
44
5.4.1.1 The influence of the factor culture
44
5.4.1.2 The influence of the factor structural position
45
5.5 Differences in gender and age
45
5.5.1 Donating or receiving knowledge
45
5.5.2 KSB: the (non-) hierarchical manner
46
Chapter 6. Conclusion and recommendations
____________________________________________46
6.1 Conclusion
46
6.1.1 The factor culture explained
47
6.1.2 The factor structural position explained
47
6.1.3 The factor recognition explained
47
6.1.4 Differences in gender and age explained
47
6.2 Practical recommendations
47
6.3 Recommendations for future research
48
Chapter 7. Discussion and limitations
___________________________________________________48
7.1 Discussion
48
7.2 Limitations
52
Acknowledgments
___________________________________________________________________53
4 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Chapter 8. Literature references
_______________________________________________________53
Chapter 9. Appendices
_______________________________________________________________56
9.1 Extended list of subquestions
56
9.2 Diary interview script
60
9.3 Semi-structured interview script
60
9.4 Codes
62
5 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Introduction
“We asked for workers. We got people instead.” - Max Frisch
Abstract
This research aims to explore the underlying mechanisms of differences
in knowledge sharing behavior between subordinated ethnic group
members and dominant ethnic group members in work-related situations.
It is suggested that knowledge sharing behavior of subordinated
ethnicities is influenced by the underlying factors of culture, structural
position and recognition. This focus is underexposed, little is known
about the behavior of knowledge sharing and its differences, especially
where these differences stem from. Qualitative research is carried out in a
Dutch situated multinational to explore these underlying factors among
high skilled workers at the ICT department.
Keywords: Knowledge management, knowledge sharing behavior,
ethnicity, subordinated ethnicities, recognition, position, culture,
inequality, high-skilled workers.
6 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Chapter 1: Research problem statement
Knowledge is seen as capital and as an important resource of
organizations (Ravn, 2004). For them to create, use and share knowledge
effectively, knowledge management (hereinafter labeled KM) is of great
significance (Cheng & Tsai, 2010). Prior research of KM has explained
the intention to share knowledge or the willingness of knowledge sharing
(hereinafter labeled KS), only few explain the behavior of KS. While
literature on ethnic diversity has expanded over the years (Zanoni,
Benschop, Janssens & Nkomo, 2010), no literature is to be found on
ethnicity and differences in knowledge sharing behavior (hereinafter
labeled KSB). Being aware of the fact that additionally very little is
known about the underlying mechanism (Avery, 2011; Harris & Ogbonna,
2006; Reskin, 2003; Zanoni et al, 2010), this research will explore those
factors.
Never has there been made the connection to culture as an
underlying mechanism (Cheng & Tsai, 2010). This is perplexing in view
of the fact that the dominant factor in the field in explaining ethnic
differences in behavior so far is done by cultural factors. Arguing that
subordinated ethnicities bring with them to the workplace different
cultural orientations and languages that stem from their country of origin
(Siebers, 2009b). Accordingly it is suggested that culture could be the first
underlying mechanism for ethnic differences in KSB. Zanoni et al (2010)
think that there may be found evidence for ethnic differences in behavior
that stem from societal or organizational influences. Cohen and Huffman
(2004) for example confirmed that subordinated ethnicities have less
resources at the job-market compared to dominant ethnicities. Therefore
structural position could be presented as the second mechanism. The third
proposed mechanism is to be named recognition. In his research Siebers
(2009b) discovered that the subordinated ethnic groups experience
relational uncertainty at the work floor, apart from being or not being
rejected or discriminated. Maak and Pless (2004) state that employees
who feel recognized are at ease with their personality and are therefore
confident and motivated.
It is suggested that due to these three proposed factors KSB could
vary between dominant ethnicities and subordinated ethnicities, hence the
aim is to explore the underlying mechanisms and to elucidate the
supposed difference in KSB. Due to the fact that in Dutch society
dominant and non-dominant ethnic groups live and work together,
qualitative research will be held in a Dutch situated organization. This
will be done mong high professionals of two different departments, so
that results within this research can be compared. To avoid the
underrepresentation of ethnic subordinated- high skilled workers, this
research is carried out in a multinational organization, which will be
named multinational X, due to confidentiality reasons. Consequently the
following research question is submitted: What are the ethnic differences
in knowledge sharing behavior and how are these differences influenced
by factors related to culture, structural position and recognition among
subordinated and dominant ethnic high-skilled workers of multinational X
in work related situations?
7 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
According to the used concepts in the research question,
subquestions are made to make the research question more apprehensible.
The summarized list of nine subquestions can be found below, for the
more extended list of subquestions, see Appendix 9.1.
SQ 1: SQ 2: SQ 3: SQ 4: SQ 5: SQ 6: SQ 7: SQ 8:
SQ 9:
KSB
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in their knowledge sharing behavior?
Culture
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in their way of interacting when sharing
knowledge, stemming from ones cultural background?
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in their knowledge sharing behavior
related to values and meanings stemming from ones cultural
background?
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in their knowledge sharing behavior
related to artifacts stemming from ones cultural background?
Structural position
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge
sharing behavior to their position in the labor market?
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge
sharing behavior to their position in the organization?
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge
sharing behavior to institutional uncertainty?
Recognition
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups when sharing knowledge, in their feeling
of recognition by colleagues?
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups when sharing knowledge, in their feeling
of recognition by the organizational policies?
Multinationals are a reflection of today’s society. While dealing with
diversity struggles, global organizations could use the outcomes of this
research to improve the individual capabilities of their employees and
therefore improve their teamwork regarding knowledge sharing.
Additionally the outcomes of this research can be used for managers or
leaders to improve their KM strategies. They should understand the subtle
differences of team interaction in ethnic diverse teams (Watson, Johnson
& Kumar, 1998; Lingham, Richley & Serlavos, 2009). This research will
enable future research on this topic to move forward.
The current research is structured as follows. In the next sections,
the relevant literature on ethnicity, differences in KSB and its influencing
factors are reviewed. The third chapter describes the research
8 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
methodology and the fourth chapter reports on the organization and the
subject, chapter five to eight present the findings. The ninth and tenth
chapter include the conclusion and discussion on the findings and the
limitations of this study, followed by suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2: Theory
Knowledge is capital and the “ability to create and make efficient use of
knowledge is seen as the vital change for most organizations” (Ravn,
2004: 161-162). In order to make efficient use of knowledge, employees
must share the knowledge that they have at the right time, at the right
place and to the right person (Lin, Wu & Lu, 2012). This is vital, because
the more knowledge is shared, the more value is created. “The interesting
characteristic of knowledge is that its value grows when it is
shared” (Bhirud et al, 2005: 1 in Gumus, 2007). Knowledge is therefore
seen as the most important resource on KM, a field that emerged in the
1990s (Liu & Liu 2011; Lin et al, 2012). According to Cheng and Tsai
(2010) this management form was introduced “...to help organizations
create, use, and share knowledge effectively” (Cheng & Tsai, 2010:
8480).
2.1 The definition of knowledge sharing (KS)
In the existing literature, knowledge is divided into an explicit and an
implicit form. All storages, like databases, sorted written materials in the
office and online sources, are explicit knowledge which is created from
implicit knowledge. Ravn (2004) refers to implicit knowledge as tacit
knowledge and states: “The main traits of tacit knowledge are that it is
difficult to communicate and that it is embedded in the person or in the
community” (p. 165) and not in the organization. This knowledge is
personal and embedded in thought behavior and perception and is for
instance referential expertise and know-how (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;
Chiang, Chuang & Han, 2011; Lin et al, 2012). “A study by Clark and
Rollo reveals that 42% of corporate knowledge is held in employees’
minds (i.e. tacid knowledge)” (Gumus, 2007: 1). Explicit knowledge and
implicit knowledge are mutual and complementary units (Ravn, 2004),
therefore this study does not distinguish between the two forms and treats
them as one unit: knowledge.
KS can be found in interactions between people, processes,
organizational memories and products and is therefore a form of
communication (Gumus, 2007; Halonen & Thomander, 2008). Dinsbach,
Feij and de Vries (2007) mention four aspects of communication: rolerelated communication, task-related communication, organizationalrelated communication and person-related communication. The first three
aspects all refer to work-related communication, for instance job-related
know-how, job-experience, learned skills, receiving feedback on a project
from the senior manager, information about who knows what in the team
or the provision of task information. Since knowledge is seen as workrelated information, only these communicational aspects are taken into
account. Person-related communication in this research is seen as a part
9 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
of personalized relationships and will be explained further in paragraph
2.7.1.1. In communication there is always a person who donates and a
person who receives. Since KS is a form of communication, it consists of
two parts; knowledge is being donated or / and being collected (Gumus,
2007; Srivastava, Bartol & Locke, 2006). Knowledge donating can be
defined as “communicating to others what one’s personal intellectual
capital is”, whereas knowledge collecting is defined as “consulting
colleagues in order to get them to share their intellectual capital” (van den
Hooff & de Ridder, 2004: 118). Intellectual capital being the knowledge
that a person holds in his / her mind.
KS could take place in both formal- and informal settings. A formal
setting for example is a planned meeting of two or more employees
initiated by a manager or a team leader. An informal setting can be any
unplanned meeting between two or more people and can be called by
anyone, for example during lunch. In the formal settings participants
know more or less what the topics to be discussed will be and what is
required from them. In the informal settings this employees are not
prepared beforehand, because there is nothing planned (El Sawy &
Raven, 2012). In both these settings collaboration of KS can be achieved
via all sorts of channels, for example via conversations, meetings,
conferences, networking, messaging or databases, all offline or online
(Barth, 2003; Gumus, 2007).
Offline communication is referred to when employees communicate
through(conference) calls or when they communicate face-to-face. Faceto-face communication is more than speaking only, because besides
speech it involves multi-modality and nonverbal communication to a
large extent. “Speakers not only hear but also see each other producing
sounds as well as facial and more generally body gestures. Gaze together
with speech contribute to maintain mutual attention and to regulate turntaking for example. Moreover, speech communication involves not only
linguistic but also psychological, affective and social aspects of
interaction” (Bailly, Dohen & Schwartz, 2010: 478). Bailly et al (2010)
mention that the greatest challenge is to integrate the environment into
the conversation, which is influenced by the participants’ roles or
environmental conditions. Liu and Liu (2011) mention vertical and
horizontal face-to-face communication, the former is the hierarchical way
of communicating which is good for learning, such as a manager who
shares with an employee, the latter can promote familiarity and is about
sharing among peers. They found results in their study for the positive
effect that face-to-face communication has on the willingness to share
knowledge.
Online communication is referred to when online communicational
tools are used, like e-mail, search-applications, chat or video-conference
calls. Due to globalization and the growing importance of internet, this
form of communication has become popular. “The Internet as an
environment may allow a distortion of these normal interactions through
the facelessness of its participants. In this environment, “swift trust” is
developed that is often fragile and may be easily destroyed” (Campbell &
Greenfield, 2006).
10 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
2.3 Literature overview on knowledge sharing
KS is a concept which is widely discussed in literature. Prior research
tries to explain KS by different individual behavior theories. These
theories are the expectancy value theory, the social cognitive theory,
several motivational theories, the relational models theory and will be
explained further in the following.
The expectancy value theory is used by Liu and Liu (2011), this
theory has a cognitive-motivational perspective for explaining a persons
individual goals and the motivation to get there. By use of this theory
they have proven that research and development professionals, who
believed that KS influenced their performance, were more willing to
share knowledge. Thus, they argued it is more likely that effective KS
will take place. Additionally they state that perceived self-efficacy could
play a role in the psychological processes of KS. For example if selfefficacy is lacking, the person may give up too soon and fail to complete
the task, on the other hand if a person feels high levels of self-efficacy,
the person will try its absolute best to complete the task.
The social cognitive theory states that self-efficacy and outcome
expectation have an effect on “a person’s cognition to act in a certain
way” (Chang et al, 2007, p.154). Chang et al (2007) used this theory and
found similar results as Liu and Liu (2011); self-efficacy plays an
important role in guiding an individuals’ KSB, as do personal outcome
expectations. Additionally they state that successful KS is based on
identification-based trust among members. This form of trust is based on
the emotional interaction between members of a group. Cheng and Tsai
(2010) also used the social cognitive theory to show that self-efficacy and
outcome expectancy affect individual intentions of KS, as does
organizational climate. Moreover they found proof for organizational
climate and perceived managerial incentive to enhance an individuals’
KSB.
Durcikova, Hung, Lai and Lin (2011) used motivational theories and
therefore assumed that altruism (sharing knowledge with a selfless
concern), economic reward, reputation feedback and reciprocity (donate
knowledge, only if you receive as well) are the key motivational factors
that should influence KS. Three of the four factors did not have
significant influence, though a KM system with built-in reputation
feedback was found to be crucial to support successful KS.
Boer (2002) and Lin et al (2012) used the relational models theory,
introduced first by Fiske (1992). This theory assumed that only in the
context of human relationships individual behavior gets social meaning.
They found proof that three styles of human relationships generate
different impacts to employees willingness of KS. These three styles are
communal sharing (CS), equality matching (EM) and market pricing
(MP). CS refers to a relationship wherein people feel comfortable,
because they are in a group were there is equality and therefore it is
normal for them to share knowledge. EM is based on the balance between
donating and receiving knowledge and in a MP relationship knowledge is
being valued in financial terms. Furthermore Boer, Berends and van
Baalen (2011) found that “knowledge sharing behavior is thwarted when
11 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
relational models conflict and when implementation rules do not
correspond with the relational models in use” (p. 95).
What becomes lucid in these studies on KS is that they explain
people’s intention or the willingness that a person has to share his/her
valuable knowledge. Hence in these prior researches KS and KSB is
about meaning making, which refers to individual decisions and
intentions. According to Liu and Liu (2011), actions are based on what
people believe they can do and Cheng and Tsai’s (2010) results proof that
KSB is highly correlated with the intentions of an individual to share
knowledge. This research likes to take it one step further and is not
interested in decisions and intentions, but in the actions itself. This will be
explained further in the next paragraph.
2.4 Knowledge sharing behavior (KSB)
Human beings are the only ones who can store explicit and implicit
knowledge at the same time and are capable to re-adapt and re-construct
this knowledge to new situations (Lin et al, 2012). Like Ravn (2004)
states “this places a focus on the nurturing of the interaction, arranging it
so that the costumer is no passive recipient, but one who obtains through
own activity” (p. 164). He explains that “knowledge is not something you
just posses, but rather something that you do”. It is not just facts and
information that can be stored, because knowledge is not passive in itself
but active. “The context from where the facts and information originated,
and its potential differences from other contexts in which the knowledge
will be sought put to use” gives knowledge its active character (Ravn,
2004: 163).
The fact that knowledge has an active character, indicates that
behavior is connected to knowledge. Whereas KS is about what people
want to do, KSB is about into what behavior their intentions translate to.
KSB is behavior to gain experience and learn from someone else (Lin et
al, 2012). Like Gumus (2007) state, knowledge is the residue of thinking.
It circulates through various forms of communication and is created at the
present moment, therefore individuals have the free option to share
knowledge with others or not to. Consequently it is argued that team
results stem from individual behavior of knowledge sharing. KSB is not
everything that is communicated, it is about the context versus the subject
that influences what employees do with this stored knowledge. It is what
makes them behave in a certain way. It could for example be unnatural
for a person to share knowledge, because of the competitive advantage of
valuable information. A natural tendency is that people are suspicious
when it comes to KS with others (Chang et al, 2007; Lin et al, 2011).
There are very few studies to be found that try to explain KSB, and
just like the studies that explain KS, they use different individual
behavior theories. One of these theories is the theory of planned behavior,
which Chen (2011) used in his research to KSB of high school teachers.
He found proof for subjective norms, attitudes and KS intentions all to
have an effect on teachers’ KSB. Chen (2011) operationalized KSB as the
strength of willingness to share knowledge, which in this research is
considered to be KS instead of KSB and therefore not fully applicable.
12 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Chiang et al (2011) demonstrated that KSB was dominated by HRM
practices via perceived organizational support and commitment. They
used another individual behavior theory, namely the social exchange
theory (or social identity theory). In their research, KSB is referred to the
frequency in which employees shared their knowledge. To this study,
KSB is not just a matter of differences in frequency, but more a matter of
different styles in KSB and therefore their results lack in contribution to
this research. Just like Durcikova et al (2011), Fang and Liu (2010) used
motivation theories for their statistical research. They claim that altruism
has a strong influence on KSB and on KS among paid staff and
volunteers in different types of social welfare nonprofit organizations. A
correlation between KS-willingness and KSB was found, “but the
correlation was only moderately significant indicating that people who
are willing to work for a nonprofit organization are generally altruistic
and willing want to serve the public” (p. 758). This brief outline
demonstrates three important things.
First none of the individual behavioral theories of KS succeed in
explaining which factors influence differences in behavior of knowledge
sharing. It does show factors that are believed to influence people’s
meaning making, thus their intentions. These factors are related to trust,
altruism, organizational commitment or HR practices, self-efficacy, the
believe in KS or KS intentions, personal outcome expectation,
organizational climate, perceived managerial incentive, reputation
feedback, subjective norms, attitudes and styles of different human
relationships.
Therefore second, literature mostly fails to explain what people do
after they made a decision.
Third, these studies are all Asian (especially Taiwanese) or EasternEuropean studies, no Western studies on this topic have been found so far.
This could mean that literature so far is biased and outcomes would be
different in other (mixed) cultural contexts (Cheng & Tsai, 2010).
2.5 Ethnic diversity
Similar to KM, the concept of ethnic diversity gained importance in the
1990s, resulting in numerous reports being published. Ethnic diversity
became a fact of life and it was seen as something very stimulating to
organizations. Nowadays literature is divided, ethnic diversity can be seen
as a dynamic force versus a problematic force. Before these forces are
explained, it is good to have a look at the definition of ethnic diversity.
Ethnic diversity or ethnicity, derives from ethnos, the Greek term
for people. Often culture and ethnicity are used interchangeably, probably
because it has a broad overlap, but there is quite a difference between the
concepts. In a work situation where employees with different
backgrounds interact with each other, Betancourt and López (1993)
explain that the ethnicity of the employees “becomes a means by which
culture is transmitted” (p. 631). Someone’s culture refers to the meanings
and practices shared by members of the same society in a certain nation
state (Hofstede, 1980). Ethnicity also refers to a system of meanings and
practices, but is shared by members of a minority/subordinated group or
13 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
majority/dominant group in society and could exist across nations. Ethnic
identity is the idea and belief in a common origin, decent, and history that
distinguishes ethnic identity from other social identities. This is perceived
by in-group members, as well as by out-group members (Verkuyten,
2005). Majority as well as minority groups can refer to these beliefs.
In literature three views on ethnicity are to be found. First, the static
classical view in which “ethnicity is defined by people sharing the same
unique culture, held together by communitarian solidarity and are bound
by shared identity” (Wimmer, 2009: 246). This means that the ethnicity of
the respondents is given to them as an objective criteria. Herder is one on
the key figures in this view. Barth’s (1969) concern with ethnic
boundaries implied a paradigm shift towards the second view; the ethnic
boundary-making paradigm or, the relational view. This view sees
ethnicity as “the subjective ways that actors established group boundaries
by pointing to specific markers that distinguished them from ethnic
others” (Wimmer, 2009: 250-251). Thus it argues that ethnicity is driven
by mutual identification of difference and not by objective criteria’s.
Additionally it distinguishes ethnic identity from other social identities
(Barth, 1969; Verkuyten, 2005). Last is the dynamic post-modern view,
which states that due to globalization ethnicity is increasingly on the
move between territories and is therefore not static anymore, it has
become a dynamic process in which a persons ethnicity does not need to
coincide with a specific group and therefore cannot provide the basis for
ethnicity. In this view the focus is on individuals dealing with
contradictory orientations stemming from different and conflicting
discourses (Bauman, 1996; Vertovec, 2011). The latter two views both
argue that ethnicity is not something that can be given, but depends
strongly on self-categorization of a person. Because the three views have
different perspectives on the concept ethnicity, a bridge must be built
between those three views. Hence the classical view is used at first, but
alongside self-categorization is perceived at all times, because
“individuals might disagree about which are the most relevant and
meaningful ethnic categories” (Wimmer, 2009: 252).
In this study, ethnicity is divided between subordinated group
members and dominant group members on the basis of the classical view.
A respondent is categorized as being a subordinated group member when
his/her place of birth is in another country than The Netherlands or when
one of his/her parents were born abroad. The employee is categorized as
dominant group member when this person, just like one of his / her
parents, has a Dutch place of birth. Furthermore within the categorization
of subordinated group members, differences between for example
Western and non-Western groups are acknowledged, details are to be
found in the methodology section, chapter 3.
After this operationalization, a look is to be given on the two
different forces, starting with the positive side of ethnic diversity. Like
Zanoni et al (2010: 12) state, “the notion of diversity revolutionized the
understanding of differences in organizations”, as it gives strategic assets,
which could provide teams with several competitive advantages. For
example ethnic diversity could lead to knowledge creation, because
14 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
diversity stimulates and encourages KS (Rosendaal, 2009), or “a common
presumption is that diversity should enhance group performance, because
people with different backgrounds can be expected to bring different
knowledge and skills to group tasks... groups having cognitive diversity
of this sort will outperform groups selected on a more singular basis” (van
Bodenhausen, 2009: 8). Additional literature explains that ethnic diversity
enhances creativity, which leads to new viewpoints and fruitful
discussions. These strategic assets make that ethnic diverse teams are very
innovative, create high turnover rates and outperform others (Milliken &
Martins, 1996). But van Bodenhausen (2009) explains that it is not just
the virtue of a subordinated group member that brings new perspectives in
a meeting, just this persons presence among dominant group members can
already bring a competitive motivating factor and can lead to more
complex thinking patterns in the meeting.
On the contrary, research detected negative effects of ethnic
diversity. Miliken & Martins (1996) and Rosendaal (2009) for example
explain that cognitive differences between team members are not always
positive for team outcomes, because it could lead to difficulties in mutual
understanding and coordination of efforts, which could cause
misunderstanding. There must be a “sufficient overlap of cognitive
background to understand the impact of what other colleagues
know” (Rosendaal, 2009: 12). Arguing that open ways of exchanging
knowledge and insights are hindered, and therefore (decision making)
processes, like knowledge sharing are slowed down (Harrison, Price &
Bell, 1998; Rosendaal, 2009; Bogenrieder & Noteboom, 2004). Lauring
(2011), De Dreu and Weingart (2003) found that after the introduction of
ethnic diverse group members, interpersonal dynamics within a group can
suffer. Horwitz & Horwitz (2007), De Dreu and Weingart (2003) and
Williams & O’Reilly (1998) even found evidence for lack of
communication and harmful conflicts. Like McLeod, Baron, Marti and
Yoon (1997) indicate “expressing minority opinions is socially risky”,
because this creates conflicts (McLeod et al, 1997: 707). These conflicts
in teams stem from ethnic diversity by the differences between
subordinated and dominant group members. “These differences have
consequences for their access to job and career opportunities, as some
ways of acting in this respect are rewarded and others are not” (Siebers,
2009a). Most research has focussed on why rather than on how a variation
is produced in access to opportunities.
Based on different ethnic backgrounds that people have,
employees may be involved in different ethnic behavior. While research
on ethnic diversity has expanded over the years, the link between KSB
and ethnicity has never been made before (Cummings, 2004; Zanoni et al,
2010). Literature shows that people are more supportive of KSB and are
more willing to share knowledge to people of the same group, than to
people of the out-group (Gumus, 2007). It is therefore suggested that
differences in KSB exist between the subordinated and the dominant
group members.
15 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
2.6 KSB in highly skilled jobs among subordinated group members
Compared to low skilled workers, high skilled workers could be less
identified with their ethnic background, because of their cosmopolitan
environment. Besides, especially high-skilled workers are experts in their
field and to share knowledge successful is therefore suggested to be a
challenging task. High-skilled workers differ from low-skilled workers in
an important way; their work is characterized by the successful
application of their knowledge. Hence this research identified employees
and managers with a higher education degree from university or
university of applied sciences or employees with high relevant work
experience, as the respondents (CBS, 2013). Whereas low-skilled
workers have no such a degree or lack in relevant work experience.
2.7 The influencing factors of differences in KSB
Very little is known about the underlying mechanism of behavior and
differences in behavior regarding KS (Avery, 2011; Harris & Ogbonna,
2006; Reskin, 2003; Zanoni et al, 2010). To better understand how
diversity influences differences in KSB between team members, it is
necessary to understand these underlying factors.
2.7.1 Culture
Sociology and psychology explain ethnic differences through individual
cognitive processes, with a strong focus on meanings, and with a strong
focus on the artifacts, the products and services of the organization
(Zanoni et al, 2010). Therefore the dominant factor in the field of
explaining differences in behavior, is done by factors stemming from
one’s own cultural background. Arguing that subordinated group
members bring with them to the workplace different cultural orientations
and languages that stem from their country of origin. Subordinated group
members themselves often ascribe their differences in behavior to their
cultural background (Siebers, 2009b). Grillo (2003). Vertovec (2011) and
Schinkel (2007) respectively call this ‘cultural essentialism’,
‘commonsensical structural-functionalism’ or ‘culturalist explanation’,
this research refers to ‘culture’. Just like ethnicity there are three views on
culture. The static classical view by for example Hofstede (1980) is the
first one. In this view culture is seen as a static system in which the basic
components coherently fit together and is fixed to a nation state. Culture
here is bounded, shared and homogeneous and the dominant view in
business studies and cross-cultural psychology (Siebers, 2012). Second is
the multicultural view in which culture is not connected to a nation state,
because there are no subordinated and dominant cultures in this view.
Third is the dynamic post-modern view by for example Baumann (1996)
and Vertovec (2011), and is the opposite of the classical view; not
bounded, not shared and heterogeneous. Vertovec (2011) speaks about
super diversity, central here is how people make meaning in new,
conflicting and contradicting situations. This view is central in
anthropology, culture studies and interpretative sociology and argues also
that culture is not fixed to one certain nation state (Siebers, 2012).
16 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
According to Betancourt and López (1993), subordinated group
members and dominant group members differ from each other on key
cultural dimensions. Just as in sociology and psychology, in this study
cultural differences are explained by interaction, meaning and artifacts
and are used as the focus points of culture (Siebers, 2012).
2.7.1.1 Interaction
Cultural differences are marked by the way that people interact, for
example by their language, religion, life-style or identity. Every culture
has its own communicative norms, which are the values and preferences
in communicating. “Communication helps create shared meaning, the
norms, values and culture of the organization” (Gumus, 2007: 2). Not
being aware of these preferences makes communication harder, because
without shared norms and communicational routines, relationships are
more fragile. It is suggested that employees need personalized
relationships to feel good and to be able to share knowledge. It is
expected that employees only share knowledge when personalized
relationships are present, because organizational or person-related
communication is considered to be the social glue. Therefore the fourth
communicational aspect by Dinsbach et al (2007) is used here; personrelated communication.
2.7.1.2 Meaning
The cultural background that employees bring with them to work could
influence how they feel or think, this is referred to as meaning. This
dimension for example entails norms and values, attitudes, cognitions,
expressions and traditions of culture. The culture in which a person grows
up is a place where one develops a mindset and a perspective on others or
about themselves and where a particular code of conduct exists. Existing
research shows how misunderstandings in KS can exist due to the fact
that people of different scientific backgrounds have developed a different
code of conduct (Ravn, 2004). This code of conduct can differ between
organizations as well: Do you know the codes and the norms; do you
wear a dress and do you give a firm handshake? This is all about the work
values and attitudes. It is suggested that this might work the same with
different cultural codes of conduct. Values are one’s fundamental views
and if employees’ values differ from each other this might influence their
KSB.
2.7.1.3 Artifacts
Artifacts are explicit products or objects of a culture, like clothing,
religious texts or religious services. Different cultures can have different
habits referring to these products or objects. Means of communication
could also be an object of culture. Online communication could provide a
common medium for work and shared meaning (Amelinckx, Wilemon &
Zakaria, 2004). This could therefore reduce or overcome the difficulties
that different ethnic employees would face. Besides this it could reduce
organizational hierarchy, equality of participation and enhance member
participation (Amelinckx et al, 2004; Kock, 2000; McLeod et al, 1997;
17 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Strauss & Corbin, 1997). There is for example proof that expressing
minority opinions can be a social risk, but by using online
communication anonymity increases and makes this less a problem
(McLeod et al, 1997). In their study, McLeod et al (1997) state that ethnic
subordinated individuals appear to be more influential in online
communication, compared to face-to-face. On the other hand face-to-face
communication provides verbal, plus non-verbal communication,
whereby “visual cues like a nod, smile, posture, voice and eye-contact
provide important indications and meanings to establish certain
understanding of what is communicated by the other person” (Amelinckx
et al, 2004, p. 23). High context cultures find this more important than
low-context cultures. High context cultures value indirect and subtle
speech for example (Amelinckx et al, 2004). It is therefore assumed that
subordinated and dominant groups have a different preference for means
of communication.
According to Siebers (2009b) culture as an underlying mechanism is
not fully convincing, because there is a contradictory in the literature.
Non-assertiveness in work meetings or interviews for example is
displayed as a trait of behavior by people stemming from different ethnic
backgrounds, but on the other hand, Siebers (2009b) found that people
with a subordinated background “tend to leave their culture behind the
moment they go to work”. It is therefore still unsure if there are
differences in KSB that stem from culture.
2.7.2 Structural position
Zanoni et al (2010) think that there may be found evidence for ethnic
differences in behavior that stem from other causes, such as societal and
organizational influences. Therefore the second mechanism perhaps stems
from societal influences and is referred to as structural position.
2.7.2.1 Structural position in the labor market
The structural position of subordinated ethnic group members and
dominant ethnic group members in society and in work settings are in
general unequal. This ethnic inequality gives subordinated ethnic group
members lower socioeconomic achievement, resulting in weak and
vulnerable positions on the labor market. Market indicators show ethnic
inequality in job opportunities and career advancements. Battu, Seaman &
Zenou (2011) state that the vulnerability of subordinated ethnic group
members in the job market is due to differences in language proficiency.
The vulnerability and weakness of them is suggested to influence their
ways of different KSB. McLeod et al (1997) explain that getting support
for their position would encourage subordinated ethnic group members to
express their opinions, and thus might influence the differences in their
KSB. Cohen and Huffman (2004) found evidence that subordinated ethnic
group members have less resources compared to dominant ethnic group
members at the job-market. Anderson (2010) states that some
subordinated ethnic group members are willing to take on jobs at wages
and conditions that dominant ethnic group members would not even
18 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
consider. Therefore the position of employees is expected to influence
different ways in which they share knowledge.
2.7.2.2 Structural position in the organization
Differences in behavior in work related situations “play a considerable
role in producing ethnic inequality in career advancements” (Siebers,
2009a). Siebers (2009a) stated that subordinated and dominant ethnic
group members prefer different working methods, ways of labor control
and ways of participating in work related communication and language.
“These differences have consequences for their access to job and career
opportunities, as some ways of acting in this respect are rewarded and
others are not” (Siebers, 2009a). Hence this could be a reason for
subordinated ethnic group members having different positions in the
organization.
Moreover knowledge is an important resource which can give
employees more power over others. Additionally when having more
power, it is easier to obtain knowledge (Ravn, 2004). Thus the the role of
power relationships in organizational processes could complicate the
transaction of knowledge (Ravn, 2004). This is in line with what Duke
(2001) found in his research where employees with an ethnic background
were geographically and socially isolated and subjected to hazardous and
exploitative working conditions. Which resulted “from specific,
asymmetrical matrices of power affecting particular groups of people
within a given place and time” (Duke, 2011: 412). He also claims that this
ethnic inequality is difficult for the workers to advocate for themselves,
even in the best circumstances.
2.7.2.3 Institutional uncertainty
Siebers (2009b) made a distinction in his research between institutional
uncertainty and relational uncertainty. The first is to be explained here,
the latter will be explained in section 2.7.3.3. He (Siebers, 2009b), stated
that as new comers subordinated ethnicities could, regardless of their hard
work, feel uncertain regarding expectations and organizational standards.
Lower positions of subordinated ethnic group members in society and in
the organization could lead this uncertainty which activates in high
institutional uncertainty (Siebers, 2009b). This might lead to less
participance in KSB. For example KSB is a social phenomenon, hence it
involves social interactions (Lin et al, 2011). It might be that once a
person does not feel comfortable (s)he starts feeling uncertain and
therefore does not care or dare to share knowledge. For instance,
immigration- and integration policies in society could give subordinated
ethnic group members less access to resources like (language) education,
employment, earnings, but also knowledge (Cohen & Huffman, 2004;
Kroon & Vallen, 2006). It is suggested that if the immigration- and
integration policies play a role for subordinated ethnic group members in
society, it could also play a role for their structural positions in
organizations, for instance power inequality in structural hierarchical
positions. Liu and Liu (2011) found evidence for the relation between
perceived self-efficacy and uncertainty. Uncertain employees perceive
19 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
themselves as lacking efficacy, this could lead to less KSB and failure in
KS.
2.7.3 Recognition
The structural position of weakness of migrants at work can lead to
objective indicators just mentioned like lower education levels, higher
chances of unemployments or lower wages, but also to subjective
indicators like vulnerable non-recognition, due to ethnic markers, like
accents, skin color or religious rituals on the work floor (Wimmer, 2009;
Battu et al, 2011). Therefore the third factor that might explain a
difference between migrants and non-migrants is recognition.
2.7.3.1 Recognition by colleagues
Maak and Pless (2004) state that people want to be recognized by their
friends and by their colleagues for who they are, for instance employees
who feel recognized are at ease with their personality and are therefore
confident and motivated. Actual recognition in this research refers to a
coincided subscribed and ascribed identity. An individuals subscribed
identity is the way a person identifies him/herself, whereas the ascribed
identity refers to the way others identify the individual (Verkuyten, 2005).
An employee feels non-recognized when there is a clash of the subscribed
and ascribed identity. Non-recognition “can hinder a person to develop
self-esteem, which is important, because this is the basis for delivering
high performance contributions under pressure. Ultimately it hinders to
create healthy and sustainable relationships with people, which is needed
to work effectively and to serve clients” (Maak & Pless, 2004: 132).
This seems to be especially important in post-bureaucratic
organizations, because these organizations have a non-hierarchical
structure and therefore employees are involved in much teamwork
(Siebers, 2009a). It is expected that in these surroundings sustainable
relationships and positive interaction are very important to create trust
within teams. While in bureaucratic organizations employees work in an
individual environment (Siebers, 2009a) it is consequently suggested that
employees in these surroundings are less in need of positive interaction
and trust. “KS is influenced by the degree of trust, because KS depends
besides explicit knowledge mostly on implicit knowledge, which is
created in the human mind. It is easier to trust “someone who is thought
to be ‘like me’ rather than ‘different from me’” (Newell, David & Chand,
2007: 160). Thus trust may be of great importance for KSB, “because it
could create a necessary atmosphere that makes interaction with others
more open and rules out the undesired and opportunistic
behaviors” (Chang et al, 2007: 154). Research shows that without trust,
employees might hesitate to reveal their knowledge, because it is unclear
how the other party will behave (Chang et al, 2007; Lin et al, 2012).
Besides the individual identity beliefs, meta-beliefs are the concerns
about how one is viewed by others, this view of others can influence
group members’ behavior (Kaplan, King & Zaccaro, 2008). For example
like Kaplan et al (2008) state, once dominant ethnic members and
subordinated ethnic members have negative meta-beliefs they will both
20 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
avoid interaction. It is suggested that due to this subjective indicators
KSB could vary between dominant and subordinated ethnic groups.
2.7.3.2 Recognition by organizational policies
Williams (2007) beliefs that people need to be recognized as existing
sentient humans to fight against existential angst and purposelessness, to
pertain the individual success within the group. Dobbin, Kalev and Kim
(2011) state that subordinated ethnic group members are seen as a
resource by the organization and therefore their cultural norms and values
are denied. Maak and Pless (2004) acknowledge this political- and legal
(non-)recognition and according to them it refers to creating equality in
organizations. Legal and political recognition are moral forms, solidarity
is “the actual face-to-face recognition among equal but different people,
that provides affirmation and motivation and ultimately unleashes any
given potential” (Maak & Pless, 2004:132).
Consequently it is important to note that this concept also refers to
institutional uncertainty that employees may feel their legal recognition.
Legal recognition makes the issue of subscribed and ascribed identity
even more vital, because this implicates a justice case in the organization,
which means that there are equal chances and access to resources. Dobbin
et al (2011) state that minority employees are only seen when it suits the
companies goals. They are just seen as a resource themselves and cultural
norms and values are denied. This indicates that some organizations miss
out on the justice case and only focus on the business case; the
performance of a team and its individuals. There is still a struggle going
for subordinated ethnic group members to be recognized, organizations
have a lack of good diversity policies. They often forget that the business
case does not justify the justice case.
2.8 The importance of the research question
2.7.3.3 Relational uncertainty
Hence non-recognition and the lack of trust by colleagues might influence
differences in KSB. Siebers (2009b) found that besides institutional
uncertainty, subordinated ethnic group members experience relational
uncertainty at the work floor. This means that they feel uncertain about
being recognized by their peers as a good colleague, apart from being or
not being rejected or discriminated. Relational uncertainty exists when
the dominant group identifies the individual different, because ethnic
markers like an accent or clothing, trigger this feeling and therefore
undermine acceptance by their colleagues (Siebers, 2009b).
Ravn (2004) explains that difficulties in knowledge sharing can arise
when two different parties do not operate according to the same code.
Knowledge sharing in itself is part of a two-way transfer which “always
implies bringing knowledge to use in a new context” (Ravn, 2004:163). It
is assumed that subordinated and dominant ethnic group members do not
operate according to the same code and therefore will have different
KSB. Relational dynamics between subordinated and dominant ethnic
group members and their own position might determine what they will
21 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
hear, think, say and do. Understanding and clarification might differ per
person. This means that which parts of knowledge employees pick up
possibly differs between ethnic groups. Additionally the ways in which
they process this knowledge, which parts of this knowledge they will
share or decide not to share with others and how they will do this is
assumed to differ.
Chapter 3. Research strategy and methods applied
The aim of this research is to explore the underlying mechanism of the
ethnic differences in KSB and provide an in-depth understanding of the
experience of employees, therefore qualitative research is most suitable
(Lewis & Richie, 2010). Due to the explorative nature inductive methods
were applied, because concepts are based on existing literature
additionally deductive methods were used. Next, this section explains the
used collection- and analysis method and will start with the designmethod.
3.1 Research design
A singular case study in Multinational X was held, because this is an
excellent source to identify possible causal mechanisms (Reskin, 2003).
To understand the differences in KSB, the experiences from the
individual on the work floor were acquired, thus the level of observation
is the individual. The level of analysis is on the intergroup level, since
comparisons were made between subordinated ethnic group members and
dominant ethnic group members.
3.2 Sample strategy
Purposive sampling was done and was sampled among high skilled
professionals in Multinational X in the Dutch Headquarters. In this
organization much of the work is being outsourced to Eastern Europe or
Asia and it has companies across over 70 different countries worldwide.
It was therefore expected to be able to sample between subordinated and
dominant ethnic group members in the organization. A multinational
profit organization was expected to be the right context for this research,
because it was presumed that teams would include many high-skilled
subordinated ethnic group members. Specifically Multinational X is well
known for its diversity and its diversity policies. Within the two chosen
teams, it was sampled on ethnicity as widespread as possible. This was
done first on the basis of classical categorization, alongside during the
semi-structured interviews self-categorization was perceived. Besides,
this research sampled on three control variables of which every group
was tried to be present in the sampling, as can be seen in table 3.2.1. It
was believed that the younger generation shares more digital knowledge
compared to the older generation, and men and females cognitive
schema’s differ. It is therefore that these variables could both influence
KSB differently. Two teams were chosen; the first team is the HONE
Infra/Business team which operates in China, India and The Netherlands,
the second team is the Lotus Notes Services team, which operates in India
22 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
and The Netherlands. These two teams operate in similar ways, but
consist of different ethnic groups, it was suggested that this could effect
the findings.
Table 3.2.1. Ideal overview of the respondents
< 35
team 1
12
team 2
12
35 - 50
50 <
dominant
subordinated
dominant
subordinated
dominant
subordinated
male
1
1
1
1
1
1
female
1
1
1
1
1
1
male
1
1
1
1
1
1
female
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 3.2.2. Real overview of the respondents
< 35
dominant
Hone
team
13
Lotus
team
10
35 - 50
subordinated
dominant
50 <
subordinated
dominant
subordinated
D
C
I
D
C
I
D
C
I
male
0
2
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
female
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
male
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
female
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
*C: Chinese respondents, D: Dutch respondents, I: Indian respondents
3.3 Data collection
To cover both online and offline KSB, observing could have easily biased
this research, instead the diary-interview method was used. This method
is seen as the perfect method to study underlying mechanisms, because it
“offers a unique window on human phenomenology” and it “can be used
to evaluate whether individuals differ in these processes, and if so,
determine the sources of these individual differences” (Bolger, Davis &
Rafaeli, 2003: 587). With this method the respondent was used as an
observer of his/her own KSB in which (s)he was participating (Jones,
2000), it entails a rich and detailed record of the observed activity
(Czarniawska-Joerges, 2007).
Because of time restrictions by the organization, the respondents
were asked to fill in the diary once. All the 23 respondents of the
sampling were send a Google.doc file containing an online list with
questions. The first page contained instructions on the report, the next
page was used for background information on the respondents, the third
page included questions of a KS activity with someone from the same
23 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
ethnic group, the fourth page included questions of a KS activity with
someone from a different ethnic group and the last page was used to pose
questions or comments by the respondents. When filled in, the file was
send to the researcher automatically. The diary interview can be found in
Appendix 9.2. To register their KSB, the respondents were asked to fill in
the report of at least two different KS activities, which took them no
longer than ten minutes. “A fundamental benefit of diary methods is that
they permit the examination of reported events and experiences in their
natural, spontaneous context, providing information complementary to
that obtainable by more traditional designs” (Bolger et al, 2003: 580). An
additional advantage is that the individual may learn from his/her own
reflections (Czarniawska-Joerges, 2007).
To explain the data from the diaries, the data served as input for the
followed semi-structured interviews. This was additionally done to avoid
the problem of degrees of freedom in case-studies, triangulation was done
by using two different data collection methods. The same 23 respondents
who filled in the diaries were interviewed. One of the purposes of the
semi-structured interviews was to test the plausibility of the data provided
in the diary-interviews, it was checked whether the reported KSB in the
diary was general or coincidental behavior (Czarniawska-Joerges, 2007).
“The interviews can be seen as instances of negotiations of meanings of
the diaries” (Czarniawska-Joerges, 2007: 85). Additionally in teams it
was possible to check if KSB went smoothly, if not, person A has said so
in the diary about person B and than both were asked to explain their
differences in KSB in the semi-structured interview. Finally the three
perspectives were used to let the respondents explain their KSB. The
interview guide can be found in Appendix 9.3. Access to the organization
was gained via the Center Manager who is seen as the gatekeeper in the
organization. Confidence was gained by giving the employees trust, by
letting them know that individual findings would not be made public.
Confidentiality forms were signed with voice and the researcher tried to
be neutral during the full research.
3.4 Data analysis
Besides the research question subquestions were made to make the main
question more apprehensible. These subquestions were made to guide the
further research process. Questions in the diary- as well as in the
interview script were based on the basis of these subquestions, the
obtained answers form the data. All data from both interview-methods
were transcribed and the semi-structured interviews were recorded. The
collected data was coded to the main topics of the diary-interview and the
interview guide. Open coding was used, thus additionally there was room
for respondents to bring in new topics. Axial coding followed, to make
the connection between the codings and by clustering these codes,
subquestions were brought together. This formed the groundwork of the
current research, in consequence the following chapters were written on
the basis of the coding. The codes and clusters can be found in Appendix
9.4.
24 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
3.5 Research quality indicators
The researcher tried to be objective and focussed during the full research.
To make sure that respondents did not loose dedication, the diaryinterview file was made easy, short and took them only several minutes to
complete. High-skilled workers are used to work with computers and email and therefore no problems were foreseen by using this online
technique. To minimize data entry errors in the diary-interview, the most
important concepts of the research were explained. Additionally it was
easy and fast to transcript, and no mistakes would be made due to
different types of handwriting. To keep the respondents on track,
reminding e-mails were send and phone calls were made. With the semistructured interview relevant answers were obtained by following the
interview guide, which was based on the subquestions. Prior to the diaryinterview and the semi-structured interviews a pilot has been done, to
check if the questions were suited and understandable. By this internal
validity was secured.
External validity shows the limits of this research. Intensive
research was done within one case on the individual level only,
consequently it is difficult to generalize this research. It should be noted
that this research can be generalized to other cases only when they have a
common background, common contextual characteristics and the same
level of analysis (Swanborn, 2008).
Subquestions and the operationalizations of the concepts made sure
that the right answer to the research question were found. According to
Jones (2000) the diary interview method is one of the most reliable forms
of obtaining information. The diary-interview was made short and to the
point, to be secured of data. Because the phenomena of KSB does not
have a fixed rate and is an ongoing process on a daily basis, the timebased design was used (Bolger et al, 2003). This way all the KSB was
covered and the times at which the diaries were filled in were most
appropriate for the respondents.
To make sure that the respondents were being honest, confidentiality
was important. Additionally bias was reduced by explaining that findings
would not be used on the individual, but on the aggregate level and that
the researchers’ thoughts were independent from the CEO, managers or
leaders. Further it was clarified that this is a university based research, the
researcher introduced herself therefore like a researcher who is
independent of her own ethnic identity. It was asked to not bias their
answers, because the researcher belongs to the dominant ethnic group.
Most respondents took their time for the interviews, as can be seen by the
following quote: “Ik stap nu in de auto, en mijn rit duurt ongeveer twee
uur, dus neem je tijd” [“I’m getting in the car right now and the ride will
take about two hours, so take your time”]. Additionally emotional
confessions were done, like: “To be honest...”. All the above mentioned
indicators gave this research a reliable state.
Chapter 4. Research context
This research was hold in one of the leading multinationals in the ICT
sector, at the Dutch Headquarters situated in Amsterdam. The companies’
25 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
original basis is the United States of America. The company would like to
remain anonymous, due to the sensitive research topic ‘ethnicity’ and is
therefore throughout this thesis referred to as Multinational X.
The organization was founded in the beginning of the last century
and operates in the information technology sector. It became dominant in
one of the most notable growth industries of the century (Boudreau, 2010).
Nowadays, the organization differentiates itself on its practical know-how
and the ability to deliver its services quickly, effectively and efficiently.
Its competitive advantage hinges on globally optimizing service delivery
rather than on coordinating multiple operations across several nations.
This means that for example while a client might have operations in one
country, the client’s purchasers might be in another country (Boudreau,
2010). Because of their diverse clients, work diversity is very important
to them, their website even says that diversity is ‘in their DNA’.
Diversity in this organization is not just seen as a Human Resource
matter, but instead as a business topic. Five major diversity constituencies
are being acknowledged by this organization, namely: generational
diversity, cultural diversity, sexual diversity, people with disabilities and
gender diversity, which are applicable to every department of the
organization in the world. There are also several regional constituencies
which are applicable in specific areas of the world, such as people from a
minority group in The Netherlands, aboriginals in Australia, AfricanAmericans in the USA, and so on.
The organization has a large Account department in Europe where
The Netherlands, France, Italy, the Nordics, Germany and Austria work
together on the development of 5000 applications. Together they are
responsible for large parts of the internal computerization of the
company. The researched teams are part of the Account department
Netherlands and are both part of the Global Business Services, which is
an ICT business unit. The main parts of the teams exist of technical
business innovations and business applications and are managed by an
international management team. The first team is called HONE Infra/
Business, it operates in China, India and The Netherlands. It builds and
innovates applications at the HONE platform. The second team is called
Lotus Notes Services and builds and innovates many applications with
Lotus Notes software. The employees of both teams are responsible for
the infrastructure of certain programs, the hardware, how programs are
connected and the middleware. Clients ask for certain applications and
the team needs to work on the requirements of these clients. Applications
need to be build, and developed, adapted, tested, implemented and
maintained. It is the full track from the beginning until the last stage.
Both teams are considered to be global virtual teams. Individuals
working in a virtual team “have no historical work background, and
seldom meet face-to-face; in fact team members may not even have the
opportunity to do so” (Amelinckx et al, 2004: 16). “A virtual team is
considered global when backgrounds are culturally diverse, and members
are able to think and work with the diversity of the global
environment” (p.17). Besides this, the employees have very flexible
schedules. Flex-places are common in the offices, which means that
26 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
direct colleagues in the same country might not even see each other on a
weekly basis. When having a business call, it is normal to them to hear
dogs barking and children playing at the background. The teams are
encouraged to work in an interdependent way, continuously interacting
and sharing knowledge, to provide opportunities for synergy. It is seen as
part of the organizational policies to share knowledge as much as
possible.
Both teams started of in The Netherlands with only Dutch
employees, but because of the management strategies, ten years ago work
was being outsourced. According to the Center-Manager: “When ten
years ago we started to integrate India, at first mainly maintenance was
moved towards India. Meanwhile for a lot of projects also development
and design have been moved to India or China. This trend will continue
and I expect that within several years most of the work that is still being
done in The Netherlands will be in India or China.” Business trips have
been made to The Philippines, thus this might be the third option to
outsource their work. The management sees India and The Netherlands as
successful partners, because they believe that there is an ongoing
understanding of cultural differences and effort on both sides to further
improve, there is a mirrored management structure and leadership team in
both countries. They draw upon each others experiences and understand
each others environment and local targets. They believe to have built trust
and personalized relationships. They are still working to get a successful
partnership with China (Ebeling & Kesavan Nair, 2010).
In the following chapters it will be referred to the two different
teams in the terms: Hone and Lotus. Due to the fact that both teams
started of in The Netherlands, the Dutch employees are seen as the
dominant ethnic group and the Indian and Chinese employees are seen as
the subordinated ethnic groups within both teams.
Chapter 5. Findings on general KSB
This chapter will give answers to the subquestions on basis of the results
stemming from the diary-interviews and semi-structured interviews. The
answer to the research question is presented in the conclusion after,
chapter 6. This chapter starts off with an answer to the first subquestion.
In terms of general KSB, four patterns were found in which differences
occurred between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated ethnic
groups. These differences refer first to the amount of donated or received
knowledge, second to the hierarchical or non-hierarchical way of sharing
knowledge, third to the way of presenting the information when sharing
knowledge and fourth to the preferred and used means of communication
when sharing knowledge. The differences will be explained in detail and
will be illustrated by quotes from the respondents in the sections that
follow.
All presented results hold true for both teams, it seemed that there
were not much dissimilarities between the different teams, because they
operate almost in the same way. When it is referred to situations in which
Chinese respondents participate, it is only referred to the HONE team,
since only this team has Chinese team members. When there are
27 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
noticeable differences, they are explicitly mentioned. It is referred to the
global environment when (Chinese), Indian and Dutch employees share
knowledge together, it is referred to the local environment when they
only share knowledge with their local peers. Differences in the other two
control variables; age and gender are discussed separately in the last
section of this chapter.
5.1 Donating or receiving knowledge
First clear differences in receiving and donating patterns between the
ethnic groups were noticed. In the global environment overall the
dominant ethnic groups donates more knowledge than they receive. This
seems to be due to a difference in the basic knowledge level and because
the Dutch provide courses to them. In the interview it was asked to an
Indian employee:
“In the diary you explained something were you shared knowledge
with the Dutch... Can you tell me a little bit more about this?” The
respondent replied: “So what happens, we got some application from
The Netherlands and they were expecting support from India. So the
application was needed to evolve so we asked them to give us all of
the particular information on the application and what is the
expectation on the particular application from the India site. What
they expecting from us to do. So they give us the IDP on the
application work flow what actually happening in the application and
what they want us to develop from India site. Because they examine
the application for each and every scenario, but first they explain us
about the structure and architecture of the particular application, how
to speak and what is the current workflow of that particular
application and they explain us what they’re expecting from India
site.”
The Dutch explain that certain projects in India are being accompanied by
the them:
“Uhm, ja de gezamenlijke projecten worden toch wel vanuit
Nederland begeleidt, maar er zijn wel projecten, vooral maintenance
projecten, ja dat is dan geen ontwikkeling, maar meer het in de lucht
houden van bepaalde applicaties, dat gebeurt eigenlijk helemaal
vanuit India.”
[“Uhm, well the common projects are being accompanied from The
Netherlands, but there are projects, especially the maintenance
projects, well that is no development, but more keeping certain
applications in the air, that happens actually from out India only.”]
The subordinated ethnic groups receive more knowledge from the Dutch
than they donate to them. When I asked the Dutch about knowledge that
they receive from the Indians respectively a Dutch manager and an
employee answered:
28 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
“Als ik ernaar vraag, dan krijg ik alles, alleen is dat op zijn Indiaas.
Je krijgt heel veel, maar pro-actief zullen ze heel weinig doen. Ik had
bv een Excel sheet samen met een collega gemaakt en die moesten we
invullen, die hebben we dus samen naar India gestuurd en daar moest
het ene gedeelte voor mij worden gevuld en een ander gedeelte voor
mijn collega. Als ik dat aan jou vroeg, dan hou je één Excel sheet en je
stuurt het op. Wat hebben zij nou gedaan, heel die sheet in tweeën
gesplitst, de informatie voor mij in sheet A ingevuld, van mijn collega
in sheet B en dat hebben ze apart naar mij toegestuurd. Dus wat ik
vroeg hebben ze perfect gedaan, alleen wat ik kreeg moest ik zelf
allemaal weer gaan samenvoegen. Met alle ellende van dien en als ik
daar nu iets over zeg, dan zeggen ze ‘ja maar ik heb toch gedaan wat
je vroeg?’”
[“If I ask for it, I’ll get everything, only in the Indian way. You will get
a lot, but pro-active they will not do much. For example, together with
a colleague I had made an Excel-sheet and we needed to fill it in, so
we sent it to India where one part needed to be filled in for me and the
other part for my colleague. If I would have asked you, you keep one
Excel-sheet and sent it. What did they do, they separated the sheet in
two parts, filled in the information about me in sheet A, about my
colleague in sheet B and they sent it separately to me. So what I asked
they did perfectly, only what I received I needed to put together
myself. With all misery of serve and if I say something about that now,
they would say, ‘yes but I did what you asked me to didn’t I?’”]
“I sometimes provide courses on the internet in virtual meetings”.
One of the Chinese employees stated to following:
“Do you also share knowledge with India or The Netherlands?” He
answered: “Yes, we have remote education. The India team came to
China in March and then we have face-to-face communication. The
Dutch team, we contact very frequently, almost always through
conference calls or chat.”
In the local environments all ethnic groups explain that the ones
higher in rank receive as much as they donate and the ones lower in rank
receive more than they donate. This is mainly due to the learning process
of younger peers in the team.
5.1.1 The influencing factors
The differences in receiving and donating patterns in the global
environment between the ethnic groups seem to stem from all three
factors; culture, structural position and recognition. Though culture does
not seem to have a very strong influence. Structural position and
recognition are both the dominant factors that explain this difference,
both by all key dimensions.
29 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
5.1.1.1 The influence of the factor culture
The first thing that is noticeable is that the work norms and values of
subordinated ethnic groups differ in certain ways from the dominant
ethnic group. Indians and Chinese value hierarchy more than the
dominant ethnic group does. Asking questions towards people higher in
rank is therefore something that the first two ethnic groups would not do,
especially not, when they do not know the person very well. Thus in the
global environment they almost only receive knowledge from the ones
higher in rank and do not donate knowledge, it is a one way process. The
Dutch always dare to ask questions, regardless their rank. A Dutch
employee clarifies this KSB about their subordinated colleagues:
“We merken dat dat makkelijker is om met elkaar te communiceren
(als men op hetzelfde niveau zit) en dat merk je in dat soort landen.
Maar op het moment dat zij dat begrijpen, dan wordt het makkelijker.
Zie je ook dat af en toe, zeker buiten als ze niet in een groep zitten, dat
ze rechtstreekser vragen durven te stellen en de dingen die ze niet
begrijpen naar voren durven te brengen... Ja, dat komt door hun
normen en waarden, je hoort te luisteren en te doen naar iemand die
meer verstand heeft van. Iemand die hiërarchisch hoger staat.
Daarvan neem je aan dat die gelijk heeft en dat is zeker voor ons in
het begin heel erg moeilijk en verwarrend.”
[“We notice that that is easier to communicate with each other (when
everyone has the same rank) and that is noticeable in these countries.
But at the moment that they understand, than it becomes easier. You
see that every once in a while, especially outside when there not in a
group, that they dare to ask questions straight... Yes, that is because of
their norms and values. You are supposed to listen to someone who
knows more, who has a higher hierarchical position. You assume that
he is right and that is especially to us in the beginning very difficult
and confusing.”]
5.1.1.2 The influence of the factor structural position
The second thing that is very noticeable is that the years of experience
and therefore knowledge on the work floor differs tremendously between
the different ethnic groups. In view of the fact that the organization
started off in The Netherlands most knowledge is with the dominant
ethnic group, there the average years of experience is fifteen years,
whereas in China and India it lays between one and two years.
Additionally due to the work culture in these countries it is found to be
normal to switch to a new stage, role and project once you finished the
first. Both create a knowledge gap between the different ethnic team
members:
“Een programmeur in India zit maar 1,5 jaar op een klus en voor
aanzien moet hij daarna eigenlijk weer naar een volgend project en
probleem is in Nederland zitten mensen bijvoorbeeld al 20 jaar aan
een applicatie te sleutelen en die weten gewoon goed waar bepaalde
dingen gebeuren, waar ze aan moeten denken en dat weten ze in India
30 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
niet. Dus in India vallen ze toch constant weer op Nederlandse kennis
terug....”
[“A programmer in India is on the job for only 1,5 year and actually
for esteem he needs to move to another project and the problem is in
the Netherlands for example there are people that yet have been
working on an application for 20 years and they know where certain
things happen, what they should think of and they do not know this in
India. So in India they fall constantly back on the Dutch knowledge.”]
By the dominant team members it is perceived very hard to share
knowledge with Young Graduates (which most subordinated ethnic
members are), they explain that in their local environment knowledge can
be put into context more easily:
“Ja, dat gaat zeker makkelijker (kennisdeling tussen Nederlanders),
nou moet ik eerlijk zeggen. Het kennis verschil tussen mijn
Nederlandse collega’s is aanzienlijker kleiner, wij zijn allemaal wat
ouder en werken dus al langer en dat is een heel groot goed,
waardoor we dingen makkelijker in een context kunnen plaatsen en
een plekje kunnen geven, ook al weet een collega hier niet helemaal
waar ik het over heb, dan kan die collega het waarschijnlijk wel een
plekje geven dan mensen van Global Resources met heel weinig
ervaring. Alle mensen waar wij mee te maken hebben, dat zijn de
Young Graduates en die hebben gewoon weinig ervaring en dat maakt
het extra moeilijk.”
[“Yes, that is definitely easier (knowledge sharing among the Dutch),
well I have to say. The knowledge difference between my Dutch
colleagues is considerably smaller, we are all older and thus work
longer and that is a big value, as a result of which we can easier place
things in a context or just place it, even though my colleague might
not know what I am talking about, this colleague can probably place it
better than the people from Global Resources [overseas colleagues]
with less experience. All the people that we are dealing with, those are
Young Graduates and they just have less experience and that makes it
extra difficult.”]
Whereas the subordinated ethnic members need to be given much more
knowledge at first. Mostly therefore the subordinated ethnic groups
receive more knowledge than they donate. In the diary-interview an
Indian employee explained that he shares lots of knowledge with two
Dutch colleagues. In this process the communication is slow, and
miscommunication about the concepts and learning was conceived, he
explained:
“So this is the thing for this example, in this example, person A and
person B (his Dutch colleagues) are very highly experienced. So, when
they use some things I cannot completely understand the clear
concepts always. Because they are highly experienced and have a high
31 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
level of knowledge. So when they give some information, I might have
some doubts, but they are helping a lot.”
Second, the role of power relationships in the KS processes
sometimes complicates the transaction of knowledge, resulting in less
open KSB and therefore less KS. Dutch respondents for example mention
that when they are seen by the Indians and Chinese as being equal in
rank, they receive more knowledge from them. Two Dutch employees
clarify this KSB about their subordinated colleagues:
“Je hebt in India heel sterke hiërarchie. En als je niet uitkijkt dan
vinden zij dat jij hun baas bent, terwijl wij ook gewoon werknemers
zijn en op hetzelfde niveau staan als de Indiërs, maar ze zijn geneigd
om jou hoger aanzien te geven, ze zijn minder geneigd daarom om
veel vragen te stellen en zijn minder open om alles te bespreken.”
[“In India you have a very strong hierarchy. If you do not watch out
for it, they think that you’re their boss, while we are also just
employees and we are at the same level as the Indians, still they place
you higher in rank, it is therefore that they are less tended to ask many
questions and they are less open to discuss everything.”]
“Een paar keer in China geweest en dan merk je gewoon dat in het
begin ben je de leraar, dat je op een voetstuk staat, ontastbaar,
onbereikbaar. En ja als Nederlander probeer je dat zo snel mogelijk
weg te werken, want ja, we proberen allemaal op hetzelfde niveau te
staan. We merken dat dat makkelijker is om met elkaar te
communiceren en dat merk je in dat soort landen. Maar op het
moment dat zij dat begrijpen, dan wordt het makkelijker. Zie je ook dat
af en toe, zeker buiten als ze niet in een groep zitten, dat ze
rechtstreekser vragen durven te stellen en de dingen die ze niet
begrijpen naar voren durven te brengen.”
[“I have been in China a couple of times and than you notice that
especially in the beginning you are the teacher, you are the one higher
in rank, untouchable, unreachable. And well as a Dutch person you try
to get rid of this fast as you can, because well, we all try to be on the
same level. We notice that that is easier to communicate with each
other and that is noticeable in these countries. But at the moment that
they understand, than it becomes easier. You see that every once in a
while, especially outside when there not in a group, that they dare to
ask questions straight.”]
A Chinese team leader explains how the power relationship also can be
an obstacle within their own ethnic group:
“Yes, it is just because of different roles in the project, because I am
the team leader. Sometimes after I told them a question, I would like to
check if you really understand the question, than sometimes I got the
answer no. Just because of different roles in the project. I understand
the cause, that they just worry about their performance, but maybe I
know their worries, so I can understand.”
32 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Third, especially in the organization it can be seen that there is
inequality in resources. The subordinated ethnic groups have less
knowledge than the dominant ethnic group, it is therefore harder for them
to obtain (more) power and therefore to obtain more knowledge. The role
of the power relationship is definitely complicating the KS process and is
therefore influencing the KSB of the different groups. One of the Indian
employees mentioned:
“When you communicate with your peers and management is totally
different. With your peers you can be totally friendly, but with the
management, they have their own limits I think, they can’t be friendly
every time and therefore the way you communicate and share
knowledge with management is totally different than from your peers
or colleagues.” I asked: “different?” The respondent continued:
“Mentally we’ll take it in that way. The information or what you’re
going to share will be the same, but the way we whatever the
information this differs. If you are in my age only, in front of
management, they have their own power and therefore you are more
be careful when you discuss things with them. So it is more in the way
that I tell them the knowledge. The attitude I cannot change in front of
the management, so that stays the same....”
Fourth, due to labor division the tasks of the Dutch employees
changed enormously. At first only mainly maintenance was moved
towards India. Meanwhile for a lot of projects also development and
design have been moved to India or China. It is expect that within several
years most of the work will be in the subordinated countries. It was
expected from the dominant ethnic employees to move their tasks to their
colleagues overseas. This made them loose several parts of their original
job tasks, which make them loose knowledge and insight in certain
projects. Therefore eventually a shift can be expected towards the
subordinated ethnic groups.
“Het handwerk als developer, het onderhoud van applicaties, dat gaat
steeds meer naar lage lonen landen en uiteindelijk waarmee ik hier
binnen gekomen ben, het onderhoud en de applicaties, dat gaat nu
verdwijnen bij Multinational X”
[“The artificial work as a developer, the maintenance of applications,
that is moving more and more to low remuneration countries and
eventually what I came came for here, the maintenance and the
applications, that is about to disappear at Multinational X.”]
Last, the labor division causes high feelings of institutional
uncertainty. Respondents mention that less knowledge is being shared, to
protect their own jobs. This becomes a viscous circle, because the
dominant group only shares knowledge when the other ethnic groups
have an open attitude, but this open attitude is less when feelings of threat
are acknowledged. Less participance and/ or failure in KSB is a result.
Two quotes to illustrate this from a Dutch and a Chinese respondent:
33 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
“Maar er zit altijd een gedachte achter, en dat verschilt van persoon
tot persoon, hoe je er maar mee omgaat, is natuurlijk job protection
hè, want we brengen natuurlijk werk weg, veel naar India, maar
tegenwoordig brengen we ook werk weg van India naar China en
India ziet dat weer als bedreiging. Als mensen zich openstellen en er
ook adequaat op reageren, nodigt dat bij Nederlanders uit om weer
meer te delen en om iemand meer verantwoordelijkheid te geven.”
[“But there is always a reason behind it, and it depends from person to
person, how you cope with it, it is of course job protection hè, because
we transfer work, a lot to India, but nowadays we also transfer work
from India to China and India sees that as a threat. If people open up
and react on that adequately, it invites the Dutch to share more and to
give someone more responsibility.”]
“But, for example, if the Dutch teams, gives us an invitation for
knowledge sharing, maybe I feel pressure about that. I will feel
actually it is different team, from different country, maybe. Maybe we
cannot get the question and the presentation, maybe they think they
can’t. So I think therefore we should have different ways of KS for
different teams.” Me: “Do you feel uncertainty about what the Dutch
think?” “Yes, maybe, I think maybe sometimes, for projects and for
habits, maybe don’t show us the real thing or only half of the KS, they
have their own appearing for the transfer. And also I think maybe they
thought it is not a good presentation and between Dutch and China
team. But we have our own ways for the transfer, so maybe it is not a
good way for the presentation. For our China team, I can talk to my
colleague and I can tell him directly to you did a very good job, or not
very well. But if I do that with Dutch or Indians, maybe they feel heavy
about that and they will feel pressure on that and next time maybe they
won’t tell me the truth or give me the full information so that is why.
5.1.1.2 The influence of the factor recognition
First the difference in KSB can be explained by differences in recognition
by organizational policies. Due to outsourcing, Dutch employees feel that
their management is busier with downsizing, cutting costs and making
more money than that they spend time on recognizing the employees for
their performance. The dominant ethnic groups tries to behave the same
way, though they get more easy with their KSB; they pay less attention to
their ways of sharing, they adapt less to the other cultures or sometimes
even hold back information, to make the KS process faster. The only
thing that is keeping them from not sharing knowledge with the
subordinated ethnic groups at all is that their colleagues might face
problems if they do so.
“...ik heb wel het idee dat het management zich minder bezig houdt
met hoe ik mijn werk doe, die zijn meer bezig met het wegbrengen van
al die werkzaamheden naar het buitenland en dat mijn werk daarmee
hier gaat verdwijnen dat ja dat is dan jammer. Het kosten plaatje, er
gaan hier allemaal mensen uit. En de waardering van het
management en de laag die daar weer boven zit, ja dat voelt wat
34 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
minder.... Ik probeer het niet te laten beïnvloeden, misschien heb ik de
neiging om af en toe wat makkelijker te worden. Maar aan de andere
kant, ja de collega’s aan de andere kant die raken daar natuurlijk
misschien door mee in de problemen, dus dat is eigenlijk de drive om
te zorgen dat de kwaliteit van het kennisdelen hoog blijft.”
[“I have the idea that management is less concerned with how I
operate, they are more concerned with outsourcing part of the work
and that by this my job here seems to vanish, well that’s not on their
mind. The costs, people need to leave. And the appreciation by the
management and the layer above, yes that feels less... I’ll try not to be
influenced by this, perhaps sometimes I have the tension to become
less focusses. But on the other hand, yes the colleagues on the other
side, they might get into trouble by this, so that is actually my drive to
make sure that the quality of KS stays high.”]
This feeling of recognition is opposite for the subordinated ethnic groups;
they receive considerable recognition by the organizational policies and
the management. The Indian subordinated colleagues elucidate that this
recognition helps them to share more and better, in the sense that they are
more open to donating and receiving knowledge. Additionally it
motivates them, which consequently makes them share more. One of the
Indian employees explains this:
“Yeah, the best thing about Multinational X is recognition I think.
Multinational X is measured in that and recognized people that do
hard work and contribute to the organization and recognition is very
good in this organization.” I asked: “Is it important for you to be
recognized and does it influence your KSB?” He replied: “Yes, of
course, when you are noticed and recognized by your management,
peers and colleagues, you get motivated automatically you put more
effort in it and also interest. Obviously that is what you do in any
organization and with any employee. And in my case, yes, that plays a
very very big role.
Second, there is non-recognition of the subordinated ethnic groups
by their dominant ethnic peers which could also clarify the difference in
KSB. The Dutch do not value personalized relationships and trust as
much as the subordinated ethnic groups do. Indian and Chinese
employees need to have a certain basis of trust and want to know the
person that they are sharing knowledge with, otherwise it is hampering
the KS process. I asked an Indian and Chinese respondent about this:
“Do you have the feeling that recognition by your peers influences
your KSB?” She replied: “I would say yes, because if you are not
comfortable with the person who you are sharing knowledge with, you
are not comfortable with sharing knowledge. I wouldn’t be that open
and would hesitate to give actual examples to them, because they don’t
understand you, so how are they going to understand your example?
35 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
In that scenario, I will not be so comfortable in giving the
knowledge.”
“Before our knowledge sharing, getting to know people from different
countries is the most important thing... in order to reduce some
misunderstanding or make it more effective it is very important to
bond and understand each others culture.”
This non-recognition of the Indians and the Chinese by the Dutch is
having an enormous influence on the KSB of all parties, although these
feelings were mentioned more often by Indian respondents than by the
Chinese. Due to non- or wrong recognition, the subordinated ethnic
groups do not share as much knowledge as they would want.
Finally, due to the lack of trust, the subordinated employees face
relational uncertainty towards the Dutch. They are not sure what to expect
and how their other ethnic colleagues will react. These feelings were
noticed most among the Chinese employees, one of them explains:
“For our China team, I can talk to my colleague and I can tell him
directly to you did a very good job, or not very well. But if I do that
with Dutch or Indians, maybe they feel heavy about that and they will
feel pressure on that and next time maybe they won’t tell me the truth
or give me the full information...”
5.2 KSB: the (non-) hierarchical manner
Besides differences in the donating and receiving KS patterns, differences
were seen in (non-) hierarchical manners of KSB. In the global
environment, the dominant ethnic group works and shares knowledge in a
non-hierarchical manner on the contrary, the subordinated ethnic groups
do this in a hierarchical manner. For the dominant ethnic groups this
translates into informal, open and independent KSB, whereas the
subordinated groups show formal, closed and dependent KSB.
First examples of the informal and formal ways in which the ethnic
groups share knowledge are given. The Indian and Chinese respondents
explained that when facing problems, they need to report this first to their
team leaders, project leaders and/ or managers, before reporting their
overseas colleagues. When they need to start with given assignments by
their overseas colleagues, this also needs to be checked with the same
leaders and/ or managers. Two Indian employees explains this further:
“I just say suppose I see some issue in the development and during my
maintenance time. We directly contact my Indian colleague, my team
lead, and first the India team will try to resolve the issue, it is very
depending on if we are able to resolve and the time it takes to transfer
to other colleagues”.
“So the type of assignments we usually get (from the Dutch), first the
management decides the things and than later on they check with the
technical expertise if it is possible to do or not. Than we pick it up and
identify people, with whom we can assign this particular task... So
typically the management decides it and has a discussion with the
36 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
technical lead, and than the technical lead decides if India is going to
do it or not. So there is no straight assignment from Holland-India
person-to-person. Nothing comes directly to the developer.”
The formal process of the Indian and Chinese respondents makes their
KSB indirect and therefore much slower than their Dutch colleagues.
They share problems in a very direct way and straight to the person they
got the knowledge from in the first place. There are very few formal rules
that they need to follow in this process. This makes them sometimes
annoyed, because they believe that their KSB can go faster and more
efficient. What they do is using their power and their place within the
hierarchical system to make Indian and Chinese employees donate and/
or receive certain knowledge. They explain that it makes the
communications lines shorter and therefore KS faster:
“In die zin heb ik geleerd inmiddels dat het al handig is om via
management lijnen te spelen. Mijn project manager, als zij een
opdracht uitvoert, waarbij wellicht het idee kan zijn van waarom moet
ik dat? Dat ik het via mijn manager speel, hij door naar haar manager
en dan krijgt zij het vanuit hiërarchische lijn opdracht en dan is het
voor haar rol gewoon duidelijk, mijn hiërarchische lijn staat hier
achter om dit te doen. Dus dat is niet om te dwingen dat ze iets doet,
maar meer om duidelijk te maken van deze opdracht komt niet alleen
van mij vandaan, maar jouw manager staat daar ook achter. En je ziet
wel dat daar verschil in zit, zij wordt natuurlijk gewoon aangestuurd
vanuit hiërarchische lijnen in India en dat kan weleens botsen met wat
wij vanuit Nederland willen doen.”
[In that sense I learned that it could be practical to play via the
management lines. My project manager, if she is working on an
assignment where she might can get the idea of why should I? Than I
communicate with my manager, he with her manager and than she will
get the assignment from the higher hierarchical rank and than for her
role it is clear, my hierarchical line wants me to do this. So it is not to
force her to do something, but more to clarify that the assignment does
not only come from me, but your manager stand by this as well. And
you see that there is a difference, of course she is just directed out of
hierarchical lines in India and that can sometimes strike with what we
want to do in The Netherlands.]
Due to the history of labor division, the Dutch employees have the
most power and are seen to be at the top of the hierarchical pyramid.
They try to reduce this by explaining the Indians and the Chinese that
they are one team with equal positions. At the same time often situations
like this reach the opposite, because what they do is changing from
informal to formal, which only creates confusion for the subordinated
ethnic group. It could also create distrust, which is explained next.
Second the difference between the open and closed KSB of the
different ethnic groups is noticed. It can be compared with the Dutch
sharing knowledge in a business manner, while the Indians and Chinese
37 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
interact and share knowledge in a people-to-people manner. This clear
difference in KSB especially becomes lucid when focussing on
personalized relationships. To the Dutch, KS is business, no matter the
relationship or level of trust that exist between them and the other
(receiving) party, knowledge will be shared. For them the work place is
not a place to make new friends, personalized relationships with
colleagues do not exist much and are of no importance for their KSB, like
one of the Dutch respondents clearly states:
“No, these relations exist simply only in work relations”.
Only are open relationships and trust valued, when this seems to enhance
KS, this is explained by another respondent:
“Well, it seems to make my job easier. I can benefit from this when I
put effort in it and if I do not, it only costs me more time to get done
what I want”.
On the contrary, the subordinated ethnic groups see their colleagues as
their friends and personalized relationships with them are valued highly.
In fact, personalized relationships are seen as the basis before one is able
to share knowledge in an active, open and direct way. This basis is
missing in the global environment, because personalized relationships
have not been established and it is not known what to expect from the
other party, which make them share knowledge in less active, less open
and indirect manners. A Chinese and Indian employee explained:
“I like to make friends with my peers and I have friends that are my
peers, we do not only see each other at work. Yes I think so, because
when you are friends you can say more things directly. It is easier
yes.”
“If you are not comfortable with the person who you are sharing
knowledge with, you are not comfortable with sharing knowledge. I
wouldn’t be that open and would hesitate to give examples to them,
because they don’t understand you, so how are they going to
understand your example?”
Indian and Chinese respondents explained that these personalized
relationships are needed to feel trusted and be confident when sharing
knowledge. Without trust the Indians still share knowledge only a little
bit less, KS to them is seen as part of their job. While the Chinese will not
share knowledge at all with persons they do not trust. An Indian
respondent explained this:
“Trust, so that we know what I share and they have the same view on
so when I share knowledge with them they know quickly what I am
talking about and they can raise questions and than we can discuss
together and we can learn from each other”.
38 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Third an example of the Dutch independent manner of KS is their
individual work style, which is related to their business manner. It is
explained by one of the Dutch respondents:
“Maar wat ik ook heel erg herken is dat Nederlanders heel erg
individueel zijn en dat als we iemand hebben geholpen, iemand heeft
geen huis bijvoorbeeld, dan is het de volgende dag wel van nou, he, nu
moet je wel weer op eigen benen kunnen staan en weer vertrekken en
dat is een beetje moeilijk. We zijn tolerant, maar ook wel individueel
en dat is af en toe wel lastig.”
[“But what I see is that Dutch are very individualistic and that when
we helped someone, somebody does not have a home for example,
than the next day we’ll expect him to stand on his own feet again and
to leave and that is a little bit difficult. We are tolerant, but also very
individualistic which is pretty complicated sometimes.”]
An example of the dependent way in which subordinated ethnic group
members share knowledge is their teamwork, therefore they have much
more dependency in their work tasks.
“As a Chinese person, you can not think alone, other people can help
you”. An Indian employee adds to this: “You know, in our place if
people seek for any help or knowledge sharing, in the team you cannot
work individually. If we see that the better person can help us or the
person that doesn’t understand to help us.”
5.2.1 The influencing factors
Culture and structural position explain most of the hierarchical and nonhierarchical ways in which respectively the subordinated and the
dominant ethnic groups behave while sharing knowledge. Recognition
only seems to have a small influence on this difference, only one key
dimension seemed to be important.
5.2.1.1 The influence of the factor culture
First their (non-) hierarchical ways of KSB can be explained by the
dimension interaction. Every culture has its own communicative norms;
the values and preferences in communicating. China and India are both
countries in which hierarchy can be seen throughout society. Traditionally
these are countries in which family roles are very important and hierarchy
is common. Not long ago India abolished the caste system officially, still
the marks are clearly visible and practicing of ranking in this system
sometimes happens quietly. One of the Dutch mentioned that at a certain
point a new Indian member of one of the higher ranks in the caste system
joined their team and all of a sudden his local team members started
listening to him instead of the manager:
“In India we also had the problem that if someone in the team is
coming from a different caste, than the team will listen to this person
39 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
from the higher caste. While this person perhaps just graduated from
school and has no knowledge about procedures or functionality.”
The Netherlands is a society in which family roles play a less important
role and which is less hierarchical. These differences were people stem
from are influencing the way that they feel, act and think and result
therefore in for them normal hierarchical or non-hierarchical manners of
sharing knowledge.
Second, Indians and Chinese employees differ from the Dutch in
their work values and attitudes. This causes friction in the KS processes,
because not all values are adapted well by others. A Dutch respondent
said that when sharing knowledge with employees with other ethnic
backgrounds, he sticks to his own background and work values:
“Ik denk gewoon vanuit de Nederlandse normen en waarden.”
[“I just think out of Dutch norms and values”.]
Which are explained by another Dutch respondent, she
explained:
“Ik denk dat werk en privé, voor Nederlanders gewoon vaak
gescheiden is. Nederlanders delen ook minder misschien en het is ook
een stukje terughoudendheid om een persoonlijke band op te bouwen
met mensen. Ik merk ook dat er niet vaak collega’s zijn die vragen van
nou hoe was het, hoe gaat het, o je hebt iets bijzonders gedaan..
Mensen staan er gewoon niet bij stil en gaan direct op werkinhoud
vragen stellen.”
[“I think that for the Dutch, work and private life are just separated.
Dutch also perhaps share less and maybe it is also being a bit reserved
to build personal relations with people. I also notice that it is not often
that colleagues ask like ‘how was it’, ‘how are you’, ‘o you did
something special’. People just don’t realize and almost immediately
work-related questions are asked.”]
Opposite to this quote, Indians explain that having personalized
relationships is important for them to be able to do their work and thus
share knowledge:
“It definitely helps to connect with your Indian colleagues and to help
each other, better than I do my work and you do your work”.
Instead of leaving their culture behind, it seems like all the cultures are
enforcing their own culture and therefore their code of conduct. Except
for the Chinese, they seem to adapt to the Dutch work values and
attitudes. Their adaptation exists of over-structuring the work and
focussing less on personalized relationships. One of the Dutch managers
explained, the people that behave according to their work standards are
getting more knowledge, projects and power:
40 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
“If people open up and also react adequate on this, than it triggers the
Dutch to share more and to give someone more responsibility. I see
that happening with China, I surely would like to give them more
responsibility, with India I am thinking, if I do that, than it will
become one big chaos. India isn’t quality driven and China is.”
This results into lacking knowledge and responsibility on the Indian site,
because they still have a different work attitude than the two other ethnic
groups do, which is not appreciated.
5.2.1.2 The influence of the factor structural position
This difference in KSB can also be explained by the factor structural
position. Due to labor division and outsourcing the Dutch lost several
parts of their original job tasks, this therefore makes them less motivated
to share knowledge. It results into being less focused in their KSB and not
feeling the need to adapt as much as might should. On top of that
managerial work policies changed, which means that the Dutch got a
bigger workload for the same amount of time. Their business way of
sharing knowledge seems to be their way of coping with this.
“En als je van iemand ook weet hoe zijn thuissituatie is en waar zijn
hobby's liggen en waar zijn interesses liggen en dus zo’n goed
mogelijk beeld van een persoon hebt en dus weet waar iemands
krachten liggen, dan heb je ook meer een beeld van op hoe mensen op
een bepaalde situatie reageren. Maar de werkdruk is de afgelopen
jaren zo erg opgevoerd, dat mensen daar gewoon niet meer aan toe
komen. Dus het is niet dat mensen geen interesse hebben, maar je hebt
er simpelweg de tijd niet meer voor. Het wordt een beetje
ondergeschoven eigenlijk. Eind van de dag moet je takenlijst klaar zijn
en dan is er geen tijd meer over om even met een collega te
socializen...”
[“And if you know from someone what his situation at home is and
what his hobbies are and where he has interest in and so having a good
image of a person and so knowing what someones’ power is, than you
have more an idea of how people react to certain situations. But the
work pressure has been raised so high the last years, that people do not
have the time for it anymore. Actually it has been suppositious. By the
end of the day your task list needs to be finished and than there is no
time left to socialize with a colleague.”]
The Dutch employees feel that their management is busier with
outsourcing, downsizing, cutting costs and make more money than that
they spend time on recognizing the employees for their performance. Due
to these policies they also explain that they have less time to do their daily
activities, so after outsourcing labor to India and China, they needed to
behave different and there is not always time. Almost half of the Dutch
employees do acknowledge that getting to know people would help, but
partly their reason for the business way of KS is the shortage in time:
41 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
“The last years the work pressure has been increased so much that
people just don’t have the time anymore. So it is not that people do not
care, but you just simply do not have the time for it anymore. Actually
it is being made less important. By the end of the day your list of tasks
need to be finished and than there is no time left to socialize with a
colleague and ask someone who has the same position like ‘he, how
do you do this?’.”
Especially the Chinese respondents do not speak up when sharing
knowledge with someone higher in rank, because this could jeopardize
their performance or position in the organization.
5.2.1.3 The influence of the factor recognition
Regarding to the factor recognition it can be seen that due to the power
exercise of the dominant ethnic group social processes that facilitate trust
are hampered. Therefore structural problems in terms of trust arise which
hinders KSB of the personnel. This also reinforces an extreme form of
relational uncertainty, uncertainty of what the other party is doing. It is
unclear what team members in the global environment are working on
and how their policies are structured which results in uncertainty An
answer of one of the Chine respondents illustrates this:
“For example, if the Dutch team gives us an invitation for knowledge
sharing, maybe I feel pressure about that. I will feel actually it is
different team, from different country, maybe we cannot get the
question and the presentation. So I think therefore we should have
different ways of KS for different teams. I asked: “Is this uncertainty
towards the Dutch?” He replied: “Yes, maybe, I think maybe
sometimes, for price and for habits, maybe don’t show us the real
thing or only half of the KS, they have their own appearing/appealing
for the transfer. And also I think maybe they thought it is not a good
presentation and between Dutch and China team. But we have our
own ways for the transfer, so maybe it is not a good way for the
presentation. For our China team, I can talk to my colleague and I
can tell him directly to you did a very good job, or not very well. But if
I do that with Dutch or Indians, maybe they feel heavy about that and
they will feel pressure on that and next time maybe they won’t tell me
the truth or give me the full information so that is why”.
5.3 Presenting the knowledge
The fourth difference is the way of presenting knowledge, especially in
the global environment. Dutch respondents try to present their knowledge
in a for them extremely clear and over-structured way so that when
sharing, it will be received well. In their view misunderstandings by the
Indians and Chinese when KS will be less when the important knowledge
that needs to be shared is stated clearly in paragraphs, point by point and
as short as possible:
42 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
“Wat ik ook geleerd heb is dat als je een vraag hebt, moet je dat
puntsgewijs opstellen, niet in een volledige paragraaf, maar in een
mooie lijst, met dit is vraag 1, 2 en 3 en dan weet je redelijk zeker dat
ze ze allemaal zien, maar dan is het nog wel de vraag of ze ze
allemaal beantwoorden.”
[“What I also learned is that if you have a question, you need to type
point by point, not in a full paragraph, but in a nice list, this is
question 1, 2, 3 and than you can be certain that they see them all, but
still the question remains if they will all be answered.”]
The Indian and Chinese respondents did not mention this being important
to them once. In order to reduce miscommunication when KS, the Indian
employees explained that to them clarity is very important. They try to
establish this by speaking more clear and asking for repetition of
sentences. Besides, especially by the Indians, being patient and giving
examples was mentioned as being important to them.
“So we need to speak very slowly, we need to repeat the sentence a
number of times, so that kind of issues we face, but finally they can
understand. I need to be more patient and it takes some longer”.
“...so if I explain everything in English, the person will understand
me. Maybe not in a technical way, I have seen that technical way is
not the best way to explain details, but I will use a real life example
than to explain. So most kind of small examples will help you to match
the particular stuff to understand that topic more clearly.”
5.3.1 The influencing factors
The way that knowledge is presented when sharing seems to be
influenced by the employees’ structural position and for one key
dimension also by the factor culture. Recognition seems not to have an
influence on this difference.
5.3.1.1 The influence of the factor culture
The dimension that influences the difference in KSB here is the meaning
of the employees. The different ways in presenting their knowledge to the
others is for all of them very normal and stems partly from their
cognitions and expressions of culture. The Indians for example mention
that giving examples is a very normal way for them to learn and therefore
a normal way for them to present knowledge, one of them explains:
“I think it could influence me, because the way I am explaining it to a
person, maybe he don’t understand, than I will repeat it or say it in
another way or but I think our culture suits that. Explaining in another
way in a realtime example, that is in my nature I think for knowledge
sharing.”
Dutch and Indian respondents did not mention this as being particularly
being common to them.
43 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
5.3.1.2 The influence of the factor structural position
The two subordinated ethnic groups grew up in societies were family ties
and friendships have an important role in life. They take this with them to
the work floor and therefore value these ties in work situations too. The
Dutch grew up in a society were this is of less importance. This makes
the ethnic groups prefer different working methods and ways of
participating in KSB. This makes the different ethnic groups present their
knowledge different, they especially seem to cope with problems in
different manners. Dutch employees try to solve issues independent,
whereas the subordinated ethnic employees discuss issues with their
friended colleagues. First an answer of a Dutch, second of a Chinese after
which an answer of an Indian respondent is presented:
“En wij zijn toch iets individualistischer opgesteld en in India niet,
daar leven ze veel meer in groepsverband, doen ze veel met familie en
gaan ze veel naar familie.”
[“And we are a little bit individualistic and in India they’re not, there
they live more in groups, do more with family and they visit family
often.”]
“Also in the Chinese culture we understand and know each other very
well, that is important to me. We learn a lot of things from our friends
or parents, we adapt it to work. We feel very comfortable to this kind
of environment, so I think that is why the Chinese culture is very
important to us.”
“Yes, because sometimes I don’t know how to complete the task, or
how to achieve the goal, or to how to do things. So sometimes I do not
feel so confident and always my colleagues will help me and teach me
how to solve this kind of problems or questions, so that next time I can
do it by myself. Another task starts also like this. They teach me
something and summarize and review and than next time you can do it
by yourself.”
5.4 KSB and the means of communication
Fifth, all ethnic groups prefer face-to-face KS the best, since facial
expressions and body language give away substantial bits of the
communication and therefore understanding. Yet this communication
form is found to be too expensive, consequently they are bound to other
forms of communication. Therefore second best the Chinese respondents
prefer e-mail or online communication, like chat or online communication
tools. These forms of communication make them able to see the words
and thus still ables them to share knowledge, since their English language
proficiency is low. Two of them explain:
“Well for me, I think e-mail, because when I talk with somebody,
maybe I cannot understand the full content you want to express, so if
you use the e-mail I can understand the whole meaning, the content
you want to express, but I think chat is also very efficient to
communicate with each other”.
44 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
“the way we communicate with each other by call I think is a little bit
difficult, because you know English is not our first language. Maybe
there are some misunderstandings”.
The Dutch too prefer online communication over (conference) calls.
Though besides e-mail, they like to use internal platforms where
information can be posed and updated easily. Only the Indian employees
prefer (conference) calls and second like to share knowledge via online
communication:
“Face-to-face, or online, but over the phone usually. I prefer face-toface, but when someone is in another location the phone is okay too”.
5.4.1 The influencing factors
The means of communication that the employees prefer when not being
able to have face-to-face communication seems to be influenced only by
the factor structural position and culture. The factor recognition seem to
have no influence on this difference in KSB of the respondents.
5.4.1.1 The influence of the factor culture
First the cultural expressions that the different ethnic groups have
influences their chosen means of communication. All different groups
mentioned that one of the difficult parts when KS is understanding the
lingual expressions. Some expressions have different meanings in
different languages and cultures and are therefore at times misunderstood.
Additionally do these cultures have different expression styles, which can
be very confusing. To overcome this problem, the Dutch and Chinese
prefer written communicational forms, they explain their difficulties:
“Because English is not our own local language, nor is India's, we
can't get the whole exact meaning from each other at the beginning of
our communicating. And what they want to express in Hindi is not the
same as in English, so to us, what we get by English is also not the
same as what we express in Chinese.”
“The English of Chinese colleague A is on itself good, but some
expressions (for instance priority) or not well understood.”
Additionally Chinese respondents seem to be uncertain about their
language proficiency at times and therefore choose to use online
communication so that they are less confronted with miscommunication.
The other ethnic groups only choose their means of communication on the
basis of what is most practical to them, they do not face this uncertainty.
A Chinese employee explains:
“Well for me, I think e-mail, because when I talk with somebody,
maybe I cannot understand the full content you want to express, so if
you use the e-mail I can understand the whole meaning, the content
you want to express, but I think chat also very efficient to
communicate with each other.”
45 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
5.4.1.2 The influence of the factor structural position
Second, the reason for the different preferred means of communication
between the three ethnic groups is mainly due to differences in language
proficiency, different accents and therefore difficulties in understanding
each other. The communicational preference seem to be the strongest for
the Chinese respondents. Due to their low English proficiency it helps
them to see words while sharing knowledge, additionally they find it
easier if they do not need to deal with the, for them, difficult to
understand Indian-English accent. Chinese employees elaborate on this:
“It is hard for me to understand the whole meaning of what person A
thought. Then person A will type the keyword on the chat window the
same time. It is really very helpful.”
“Well, for me, I think e-mail, because when I talk to somebody maybe
I cannot understand the full content you want to express, so if you use
e-mail I can understand the full meaning, the content you want to
express, but I think chat also is very efficient to communicate with
each other.”
English for most Indian respondents is their first language and it seems
therefore that they prefer the fastest communicational form; (conference)
calls. The Dutch do not face much problems with the English language,
although they do seem to care about the current status of their knowledge.
They prefer online platforms, so that their knowledge can stay up-to-date.
Although it was not mentioned specifically by the employees it
could be that their language proficiency is being hampered, because of
organizational policies. They have less chances to go abroad and practice
the language, additionally it could be that not much attention is paid to
their language skills and therefore do not get the right training. Unequal
access to resources therefore has the most influence on the employees’
means of communication.
“In China, Chinese is the mother language, we communicate with
each other in Chinese. I don’t have the environment to practice my
spoken English.”
5.5 Differences in gender and age
This section shows results on the control variables gender and age in this
research. On the differences in donating or receiving knowledge and
differences in the (non-) hierarchical KSB results were found. Therefore
it is only elaborated on these differences.
5.5.1 Donating or receiving knowledge
Differences in the variable age are seen. These can be explained mostly
because of higher levels of experience that the older generation in the
teams has. They operate sometimes as mentor for the younger generation.
They older generation already poses most knowledge that they need,
while the younger generation need to learn much. This means that the
younger generation receives more knowledge than they donate, for the
46 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
older generation the other way around holds true. Just as with the general
differences in KSB, this difference can be partly explained by the factor
structural position; because due to the work culture in societies of the
subordinated ethnic groups especially Young Graduates are hired and do
not stay long at their position. While in The Netherlands people change
their jobs less often.
There are no differences to be seen for the variable gender.
5.5.2 KSB: the (non-) hierarchical manner
Miscommunication and problems when sharing knowledge were
conceived less among woman. Both woman and man state that woman
are easier to understand while sharing knowledge. The most given
arguments for this are that woman behave with more patience and their
pronunciation and accents are better to understand. This could relate to
the different cognitive schema’s of man and woman and is therefore
partially explained by the factor culture.
Personalized relationships were to be found important for Dutch
woman too, although in the overall results of this group it was not. These
relationships are hampered by their organizational policies and the
management, due to time and their work load it is seen as not being
possible to built or maintain them.
There were no differences found for the variable age.
Chapter 6. Conclusion and recommendations
The purpose of this research was to understand if different factors
influence general KSB and how dissimilarities among dominant ethnic
members and subordinated ethnic members vary. First, this chapter will
give an answer to the research question and it will end by giving
managerial/ practical recommendations and recommendations for future
research.
6.1 Conclusion
What became clear in this research is that differences in KSB can exist
between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated ethnic groups.
Proof was found for all three factors to have an influence on KSB and the
differentiations in KSB. The structure in this section will follow the order
of the subquestions.
From the results of this study, the factor structural position seems to
have the most influence. Of this factor all key dimensions were able to
explicate the found differences of KSB. Second best, the factor culture is
seen to be influential on differences in KSB too. The key dimension
artifacts did not seem to be influential for differences. All the key
dimensions of the factor recognition have a small significant influence.
Only on the difference in the amount of donated or received knowledge
and on the (non-) hierarchical manners of KS.
Differences on the control variables gender and age were found on
the differences in donating or receiving knowledge and differences in the
(non-) hierarchical KSB results.
47 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Below an overview of all results is clearly enumerated:
6.1.1 The factor culture explained
1. Differences in the amount of donated or received knowledge, due to
different meanings.
2. Differences in the (non-) hierarchical KS manners, due to different
meanings and interaction.
3. Differences in ways of presenting the knowledge, due to different
meanings.
4. Differences in the means of communication, due to differences in
interaction and artifacts.
6.1.2 The factor structural position explained
1. Differences in the amount of donated or received knowledge, due to
different structural positions in the labor market and in the
organization and due to feelings of high institutional uncertainty.
2. Differences in the (non-) hierarchical KS manners, due to different
structural positions in the organization and due to feelings of
institutional uncertainty.
3. Differences in ways of presenting the knowledge, due to different
structural positions in the organization.
4. Differences in the means of communication, due to different
structural positions in the labor market.
6.1.3 The factor recognition explained
1. Differences in the amount of donated or received knowledge, due to
non-recognition by colleagues and the organizational policies and
due to feelings of relational uncertainty.
2. Differences in the (non-) hierarchical KS manners, due nonrecognition by colleagues and feelings of relational uncertainty.
6.1.4 Differences in gender and age explained
The control variable age has an influence on the difference in donating or
receiving knowledge. Differences in miscommunication and personalized
relationships were found to be influenced by the control variable gender.
No further results were found.
6.2 Practical recommendations
KM in a global diverse environment is challenging. Managers,
stakeholders, clients, employees and the directional board are all involved
in the functioning of global teams and all of them seem to be diverse in
lots of factors. Ethnic diversity is one of these factors, therefore
organizations are called upon to guarantee equal opportunities to all
different ethnic groups. To make sure that equal chances and equal access
to resources are facilitated, KM in these surroundings is important. To be
able to implement successful KM strategies, management and employees
should understand ethnic diversity and in what ways it influences their
KSB. To focus on a small part of their processes this study provided proof
that differences in KSB can exist and that they are influenced by several
48 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
factors. Managers therefore should take these results into consideration
when trying to improve the team’s results, performance and trust levels.
To realize this managers themselves should be trained and advised
on the underlying mechanism of KSB in ethnic diverse teams. They need
to understand the interaction between cultural background, structural
position and recognition. The results show that the employees have
cultural awareness, and do not mean to harm others or the KS process,
but by not knowing how to deal with cultural differences they do hamper
KS processes within the teams. Basically it means that management
cannot loose sight of the justice case, due to their diverse clients, the
diverse labor market or just simply by the fact that conflicts may be very
costly and can be prevented when more knowledge is gathered (Jack &
Lorbiecki, 2000; Siebers, 2012).
Finally global virtual teams usually rely on technologies, such as email and online internal tools. The findings show that these technologies
work fine, although face-to-face communication is still preferred. If due
to management policies employees are not able meet face-to-face, more
time should be spend on different ways to build personalized
relationships to develop higher levels of trust, which would eventually
create positive KSB and therefore better individual and team
performances.
6.3 Recommendations for future research
Existing literature has a limited focus on KSB in work situations, regular
organizational and management aspects and societal influences.
Additionally there is a limited understanding of the diversity of the
several stakeholders (Jack & Lorbiecki, 2000; Siebers, 2012). Therefore
future research is first advised to use this study as a first step in the right
direction to get to know more about differences in KSB. Three
influencing factors have been researched, it is very likely that there could
be other factors that influence this behavior too. Second this research is
small scale, and therefore cannot be generalized, to be able to do this in
the future, more research and studies on a larger scale are needed.
Chapter 7. Discussion and limitations
This research extended my understanding of the underlying mechanism
of ethnic differences in KSB and provided an in-depth understanding of
the experience of employees. In the reflection part the relationship
between the three factors is discussed and theory is connected to the
conclusion, the chapter ends by shining light on the limitations of this
study.
7.1 Discussion
7.1.1 Culture:
In the theory I stated that it was still unsure if culture could be an
influencing factor of differences in KSB, because like Siebers (2009b)
states while at work people tend not to ‘bring’ their culture with them.
The opposite was found in this research, cultural differences were
49 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
strongly noticed by all ethnic team members, even while they all try to
adapt to the others. The fact that a global virtual team was being studied
could have effected this relation. The respondents all worked in their
home country and therefore it could feel strange to them to leave their
culture behind the moment the stepped into their offices.
In the theory chapter, this study explained three different views on
culture. The company that has been researched gives cultural awareness
courses available to every employee. These courses are given by means
of the classical view, because their distinction between different ethnic
groups and their cultural background is based on a static system and fixed
nation states. The different ethnic groups are seen as unequal; dominant
and subordinated groups are seen. Although they would like to see it that
in another way, thus that all groups are treated and seen as equal. It would
enhance their performance once culture is seen in the multicultural view
in which there are no subordinated ethnic groups under the dominant
ethnic group. This makes sense, since the environment in which they
operate as a global virtual team needs to be an open culture, which is not
bounded to nation states in order to work together effectively.
Due to different codes of conduct, due to the fact that employees
have different fundamental views, misunderstandings between the
different ethnic groups exist, this is in line with what Ravn (2004) found
on his research of people of different scientific backgrounds working
together. Additionally just like Gumus (2007) stated it was seen that all
three ethnic groups have different ways in which they communicate.
Especially the Indian respondents do not realize the structured way of
KSB that is preferred by the Dutch. While the Dutch do not seem to
realize that the preferred way of communicating for the Indians and the
Chinese is related to trust and personalized relationships. Without this
being present, for sure their communication and therefore KSB is
hampered. The expectation that the communicational aspect personrelated communication by Dinsbach et al (2007) needs to be present only
holds true for the subordinated groups and partially for the woman.
Because in this study a global virtual team is being studied, the only
artifact that was noticeable to the employees was their mean of
communication. In an ethnic diverse team, where team members use lots
of face-to-face communication other products of a culture could become
more visible too, like for example clothing or religious services which
would make this focus point even more influential than was found to be
in this research. But since it was researched in a global virtual team, let us
examine the literature on the preferred and used communication means in
this team. The online form of communication seems to enhance the KSB,
especially for the ones that do not have English as their mother tongue. It
reduces miscommunication, because through typed messages the
respondents do not have to deal with harsh accents and interpretations can
be checked more easily, this is in line with what Amelincks et al (2004)
found. Though they explained, just like Kock (2000), McLeod et al
(1997) and Strauss and Corbin (1997) that it could also reduce hierarchy
and enhance participation, while this research proved it does the opposite.
Hierarchy became less once participants met face-to-face. Participation
50 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
seemed to be less, because it is easier for respondents to discuss certain
problems first among their local peers than using online communication
and wait for (right) responses. All ethnic groups preferred face-to-face
over online communication, because of the same reasons that Amelickx et
al state, physical gestures, voice and eye-contact made KS easier, because
the KSB over others became more readable and therefore easier to
understand.
7.1.2 Structural position:
Possibly due to the fact that all respondents live and work in their own
home country, their structural positions in society have different stances
and cannot be easily compared. Against the results of Battu et al (2011),
Cohen and Huffman (2004) and McLeod et al (1997) no weak and
vulnerable positions of the subordinated ethnic group members were
found in their societies, in fact they feel more confident about their
positions on the labor market than the dominant ethnic respondents feel.
This could be true though again for teams that consist of ethnic diverse
members that are actually subordinated members in a certain society, but
that needs to be researched to give further explanations on its influence
on KSB.
Because these societies have different ways of labor control and
different ways of working, it does influence the fact that subordinated
team members hold on to one position for a short time, to continue to a
new job. Which consequently evolves in unequal positions, because the
dominant ethnic group has developed more knowledge and experience
over the years that they stick with one job. Subordinated ethnic members
are still being rewarded and managed first by their local policies and
managers. Thus opposite to what Siebers (2009a) found they seem to
have the same career opportunities and access to resources as the
dominant ethnic members have. In fact, it seems to have even more,
because due to cost cutting, the dominant ethnic group seem to have less
opportunities to grow and to develop themselves. In line with what Duke
(2011) and Ravn (2004) found (though not as extreme), the unequal
positions implicate the important influence of power relationships. Which
evolves into Chinese employees getting more access to certain projects
than the Indians, because they seem to adapt their KSB better to the
Dutch way than the Indian employees do.
Opposite to the results of Cohen and Huffman (2004), Kroon and
Vallen (2006) and Siebers (2009b), institutional uncertainty does not
seem to be a big issue in this case. Respondents do not seem to change
their KSB, because they need to prove themselves to their colleagues.
They do not seem to face high forms of institutional uncertainty, than
again, since they never meet their other ethnic team members face-toface, this could differ in teams that do.
7.1.3 Recognition:
Subjective indicators like vulnerable non-recognition play a role. Like
Maak and Pless (2004) explained respondents need to feel recognized and
appreciated for who they are. Especially the subordinated ethnic groups
51 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
feel this, they get motivated and feel more confident. In the local
environment the ascribed and subscribed identities explained by
Verkuyten (2005) seem to coincide, on the contrary in the global
environment a clash is present.
Since there is non-recognition Maak and Pless (2004) say that
healthy relationships are hampered, this is definitely also the case in this
study, consequently KSB is not as efficient as should and as wanted.
It was suspected that because of their non-hierarchical
organizational structure, post-bureaucratic ethnic groups like the
dominant ethnic group, would value trust more than the subordinated
ethnic group members. Because they experience less levels of
interdependency (Siebers, 2009a). Though in this study the postbureaucratic team did do much as a team, but saw their KS as part of their
job, something that they just do. While the Indians and Chinese had less
interdependency, they valued arguments, help and discussions with their
peers a lot. To be able to do this this trust is needed. While this was not
present, KSB is badly influenced, like Chang et al (2007:154) said it
“rules out the undesired and opportunistic behaviors”. It is seen that
without trust KSB does not even happen at all, knowledge is been holding
back (Chang et al, 2007; Lin et al, 2012).
The feelings of relational uncertainty are in line with the results that
Siebers (2009b) found; subordinated ethnic members experience
relational uncertainty apart from being discriminated or rejected.
7.1.4 The connection
While three factors culture, structural position and recognition were
presented as three separate factors, connections between the them can be
made too.
While from a cultural perspective interactions between team
members are seen to be very important to the subordinated ethnic
employees, trust is seen as important. Personalized relationships are
intertwined with trust that employees get from their colleagues. Without
trust, there can be no personalized relationship and vice versa. So in order
to be recognized by colleagues, subordinated team members need to have
personalized relationships. And in order to be friends and have a good
bond with their peers, employees need to feel trusted.
Meanings that stem from ones cultural background can be seen as
triggers for relational uncertainty. It is seen that the different ethnic
groups do not share the same (work) norms and values and do not see
what is important to their colleagues from another ethnic group.
Therefore no ethnic group seems to be recognized in the way that they
should be in order to share knowledge in an efficient way. Uncertainty of
what colleagues are working on and uncertainty on if they are doing the
right things in their work are feelings that are playing part especially in
the subordinated ethnic groups.
The two different forms of uncertainty seem to have an influence on
each other as well. If employees face institutional uncertainty, like the
Dutch do, they face some form of relational uncertainty as well. Their
feeling of not being recognized by their management, by their
52 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
organization leaves them behind with doubts on a more personal level
and high levels of relational uncertainty could arise.
But most importantly there is the lack of trust that employees face
and this can be interlinked to all three factors. Due to the power distance
between the dominant and the subordinated ethnic team members, trust
levels are being hampered where to personalized relationships cannot be
established, which is seen to be negative for the KSB of all employees.
Due to different (work) norms and values employees do not understand
each other always right. Which could lead to situations in which the
different ethnic groups try to adapt to one another, by strengthening their
own preferred ways of KS. This makes it harder for every employee to
trust colleagues with a different background, which again hinders their
KSB. And last KSB is influenced in a negative way, because the
employees seem to face high levels of relational uncertainty and therefore
do not trust each other.
These final remarks seem to make the question of what the
influences of the three factors are very important. Future research should
be done to explore the underlying relationships in a more comprehensible
way.
7.2 Limitations
This study has several limitations which should be taken into account
before using the results.
One them is sample size and sample characteristics. Of both teams
not all the members had the chance to participate in this research,
therefore results reflect a large part of the teams, but do not speak for
every employee in these teams. Besides, in total only 23 employees were
used to build this research on, that is highly insufficient to generalize to a
larger context.
Second, while attempted to gather data from two teams in different
departments, access was only granted to the ICT department. Employees
in this field work with lots of tacit knowledge, because the personnel has
expertise and therefore knowledge in one specific area. This knowledge
will only be available to others when shared. It is expected to differ from
other departments, where employees are all round and have more overlap
in their knowledge, this could therefore influence KSB different and
should be taken into account(Liu & Liu, 2011).
Third since this study was hold in two virtual global teams, results
might differ from teams that meet regularly face-to-face. Online
communication could “reduce social barriers to participation, because
most of them rely on anonymity as the default communication mode.
Anonymity can reduce inhibition associated with evaluation apprehension
and social status differences” (McLeod et al, 1997:707). “Face-to-face
minorities may be viewed as more sincere and credible... while at the
same time receiving more courteous reception from majorities... than
GDSS-mediated minorities. Both mechanisms could substantially amplify
the impact of face-to-face minorities provided that they have the fortitude
to mention their arguments” (McLeod et al, 1997: 715).
53 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Fourth it was asked to the participants to not let them be biased by
the (different) ethnic background of the researcher. Findings might be
colored, because some subordinated ethnic members could felt threatened
or did not dare to speak freely.
Fifth is an important warning which concerns external validity. The
study reported here was the first to examine different factors that
influence differences in KSB. Replicating these findings in other
organizations and settings is needed to fully understand the roles of the
three factors in KSB. Consequently one must be cautious in generalizing
from these results until additional data are accumulated.
Finally, the organizational culture of the company where this
research was held may be special in that it acknowledges and encourages
cultural diversity and thus results might be biased.
Taking into account these cautions, the present results nevertheless
offer several provocative outcomes that are believed will prove useful in
guiding future literature.
Acknowledgments
The researcher of this thesis would like to thank her three colleague
master thesis students. I had a lot of fun, feedback and support from all of
you. I also thank the organization and my gatekeepers for giving me the
the permission and the needed help to gather my data. Additionally I like
to thank the employees of the organization who enthusiastically
participated and greatly helped in this research. Of course, I thank the
second reader and my supervisor Dr. Hans Siebers in special for giving us
the opportunity of putting together a master thesis, for constant
confidence, support, constructive feedback during the full process, but
most important for getting the best out of ourselves.
Chapter 8. Literature references
Amelinckx, A.,Wilemon, D., & Zakaria, N. (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing
Culture for Global Virtual Teams.
Anderson, B. (2010). Migration, immigration controls and the fashioning of precarious workers. Work, employment
and Society, 24(2): 300-317.
Avery, D. R. (2011). Support for diversity in organizations: A theoretical exploration of its origins and offshoots.
Organizational Psychology Review, 1(3): 239-256.
Bailly, G., Dohen M. & Schwartz, J. L. (2010). Speech and face-to-face communication - An introduction. Speech
communication, 52: 477-480.
Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of cultural
difference (pp. 9—38). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Barth, S. (2003). “A framework for personal knowledge management tools”. KMWorld, 12/1, 20-21. In Gumus, M.
(2007). The Effect Of Communication On Knowledge Sharing In Organizations, Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice, 8(2).
Bauman, G. (1996). Contesting culture: Discourses of Identity in Multiethnic London, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press 1999, The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic and Religious Identities,
London: Routledge.
Battu, H., Seaman, P. & Zenou, Y. (2011). Job contact networks and the ethnic minorities. Labour Economics, 18:
48-56.
54 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Betancourt, H. & López, S. R. (1993). The Study of Culture, Ethnicity, and Race in American Psychology. American
Psychologist, 48(6): 629-637.
Bhirud, S., Rodrigues, L. & Desai, P. (2005). Knowledge Sharing Practices In KM : A Case Study In Indian
Software Subsidiary. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. In Gumus, M. (2007). The Effect Of
Communication On Knowledge Sharing In Organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 8
(2).
Boer, N. I., Van Baalen, P. & Kumar, K. (2002). The implications of different models of social relationships for
knowledge sharing. Paper presented at the third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge,
Learning and Capabilities, Athens, Greece.
Boer, N. I., Berends, H. & van Baalen, P. (2011). Relational models for knowledge sharing behavior. European
Management Journal, 29: 85-97.
Bolger, N., Davis, A. & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary Methods: Capturing Life as it is Lived. Annual Reviews
Psychology, 54: 579-616.
Bogenrieder, I., & Nooteboom, B. (2004). Learning groups: what types are there? A theoretical analysis and an
empirical study in a consultancy firm. Organization Studies 25 (2): 287–313.
Boudreau, J. W. (2010). Multinational X’s Global Talent Management Strategy: The Vision of the Globally
Integrated Enterprise. Society for Human Resource Management: 1-16.
Campbell, J. & Greenfield, G. (2006). Communicative Practices in Online Communication: A Case of Agreeing to
Disagree. Journal of organizational computing and electronic commerce, 16(3&4): 267-277.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (February 10, 2013). Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl
Chang, C.M., Hsu, M.H., Ju, T. & Yen, C.H. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The
relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Human Computer Studies, 65: 153-169.
Chen, C.C. (2011). Factors affecting high school teachers’ knowledge-sharing behaviors. Social behavior and
personality, 39(7): 993-1008.
Cheng, N. C. & Tsai, M. T. (2010). Programmer perceptions of knowledge-sharing behavior under social cognitive
theory. Expert systems with Applications, 37: 8479-8485.
Chiang, H. H., Chuang, J. S. & Han, T. S. (2011). The relationship between high commitment HRM and knowledge
sharing behavior and its mediators. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6): 604-622.
Cohen, P. N. & Huffman, M. L. (2004) Racial Wage Inequality: Job Segregation and Devaluation across U.S. Labor
Markets. American journal of sociology, 106(4):902-936.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization.
Management Science, 50(3): 352-364.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (2007). Diary Studies, Observant Participation, or Things to Do When You Cannot Be All
Places at the Same Time. In B. Czarniawska-Joerges (red.), Shadowing: And Other Techniques for Doing
Fieldwork in Modern Societies. Malmö, Sweden: Liber.
De Dreu, C. K. W. and Weingart L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team
member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741-749.
Dinsbach, A. A., Feij, J. A. & de Vries, R. E. (2007). The role of communication content in an ethnically diverse
organization. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31: 725-745.
Dobbin, F., Kalev, A. & Kim, S. (2011). You Can’t Always Get What You Need: Organizational Determinants of
Diversity Programs. American Sociological Review, 76(3): 386-411.
Duke, M. (2001). Ethnicity, Well-Being, and the Organization of Labor among Shade Tobacco Workers. Medical
Anthropology, 30(4): 409-424.
Durcikova, A., Hung, S.Y., Lai, H.M. & Lin, W.M. (2011). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on
individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior. Human-Computer Studies, 69: 415-427.
Ebeling, E. & Kesavan Nair, A. B. (2010). Successful Partnership between India and The Netherlands.
El Sawy, O. A. & Raven, A. (2012). Silence or Knowing in IT-facilitated Face-to-Face Meetings. Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 22: 111-131.
Fang, C. L. & Liu, W. C. (2010). The effect of different motivation factors on knowledge-sharing willingness
55 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
and behavior. Social behavior and personality, 38(6): 753-758.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Psychological Review, 99: 689–723.
Grillo, R. D. (2003). Cultural essentialism and cultural anxiety. Anthropological Theory, 3(2): 157-173.
Gumus, M. (2007). The Effect Of Communication On Knowledge Sharing In Organizations. Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice, 8(2).
Halonen, R. & Thomander, H., (2008). Measuring Knowledge Transfer Success by D&M. National University of
Ireland Galway, Ireland. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 8(41).
Harris, L. C. & Ogbonna, E. (2006). The dynamics of employee relationships in an ethnically diverse workforce.
Human Relations, 59(3): 379-407.
Harrison, D., Price, K. & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and
deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of
team demography. Journal of Management, 33 (6): 987-1015.
Jack, G. & Lorbiecki, A. (2000). Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management. British Journal of
Management, 11: 17-31.
Jones, R. K. (2000). The Unsolicited Diary as a Qualitative Research Tool for Advanced Research Capacity in the
Field of Health and Illness. Qualitative health research, 10: 555-567.
Kaplan, S., King, E. B. & Zaccaro, S. (2008). Metaperceptions in diverse work groups: Intrapersonal perspectives
and intragroup processes. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 11: 109-141
Kock (2000). In Gumus, M. (2007). The Effect Of Communication On Knowledge Sharing In Organizations,
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 8 (2).
Kroon, S. & Vallen, T. (2006). Immigrant Language Education. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 5:
554-557.
Lauring, J., (2011). Intercultural Organizational Communication: The Social Organizing of Interaction in
International Encounters. Journal of Business Communication, 48 (3): 231-255.
Lewis, J. and Richie, J. (2010). The Foundations of Qualitative Research. In J. Lewis and J. Richie (red), Qualitative
Research Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (pp. 1-24). SAGE Publications:
London.
Lin, T. C., Lu, C. T. & Wu, S. (2012). Exploring the affect factors of knowledge sharing behavior: The relations
model theory perspective. Expert Systems with Applications, 39: 751-764.
Lingham, R., Richley A. & Serlavos S. (2009). Measuring and mapping team interaction. A cross cultural
comparison of US and Spanish MBA teams. Cross cultural management: An international journal, 16(1):
5-27.
Liu, N. C. & Liu, M. S. (2011). Human resource practices and individual knowledge sharing behavior - an emperical
study for Taiwanese R&D professionals. The international Journal of Human Resource Management, 22
(4): 981-997.
Maak, T. & Pless, N. M. (2004). Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes and Practice. Journal
of Business Ethics, 54: 129-147.
McLeod, P. L., Baron, R. S., Marti M. W. & Yoon, K. (1997). The Eyes Have It: Minority Influence in Face-To-Face
and Computer Mediated Group Discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5): 706-718.
Milliken, F. J., and Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of
Diversity in Organizational Groups. The Academy of Management Review, 21 (2): 402-433.
Newell, S., David, G. & Chand, D. (2007). An Analysis of Trust Among Globally Distributed Work Teams in an
Organizational Setting. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3): 158-168.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company, how Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
Schinkel, W. (2007). Denken in een Tijd van Sociale Hypochondrie: Aanzet tot een Theorie voorbij de
Maatschappij. Kampen: Klement.
56 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Siebers, H. (2009a). (Post)bureaucratic organizational practices and the production of racioethnic inequality at work.
Journal of Management & Organization, 15: 62-81.
Siebers, H. (2009b). Struggles for recognition: The politics of racioethnic identity among Dutch national tax
administrators. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25: 73-84.
Siebers, H. (2012). CDMlectureA2012 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://edubb.uvt.nl/webapps/portal
Strauss A. L. & Corbin, J. (eds) (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice, London: Sage Publications.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on
knowledge sharing, efficacy and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1239–1251.
Swanborn, P. G. (2008). Case-study’s. Wat wanneer en hoe? Amsterdam: Boom Onderwijs.
Ravn, J. E. (2004). Cross-system knowledge chains- The team dynamics of knowledge development. Systemic
research and action practice, 17(3): 161-175.
Reskin, B. F. (2003). Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality. American Sociological Review,
68: 1-21.
Rosendaal, B. W., (2009). Sharing knowledge, being different and working as a team. Knowledge management
research & practice, 7: 4-14.
van den Hooff, B. & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational
commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge
Management. 8(6): 117-130.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. Hove and New York: Psychology Press
Vertovec, S. (2011). The Cultural Politics of Nation and Migration. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40: 241-256.
Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., Kumar K. (1998). International journal of intercultural relations, 22(4): 409-430.
Williams, K. P. (2007). Ostracism: The Kiss of Social Death. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1):
236-247.
Williams, K. Y. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Group demography and innovation: Does diversity help?
Wimmer, A. (2009). Herder’s Heritage and the Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant
Societies. Sociological Theory, 27(3): 244-270.
Zanoni, P., Benschop, Y., Janssens M. & Nkomo, S. (2010). Unpacking Diversity, Grasping Inequality: Rethinking
Difference Through Critical Perspectives. Organization, 17(1): 9-29.
Chapter 9. Appendices
9.1 Extended list of subquestions
KSB
Donating:
SQ 1: How does the dominant ethnic group behave when donating knowledge?
SQ 2: How do the subordinated ethnic groups behave when donating knowledge?
SQ 3: What is the difference in behavior between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in donating knowledge?
Collecting:
SQ 4: How does the dominant ethnic group behave when collecting knowledge?
SQ 5: How do the subordinated ethnic groups behave when collecting knowledge?
SQ 6: What is the difference in behavior between the dominant ethnic group and the
subordinated ethnic groups in collecting knowledge?
Summarized:
What
is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in their knowledge sharing behavior?
Culture
57 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Donating:
SQ 7: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their way of interacting from their cultural background?
SQ 8: When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups relate their
behavior to their way of interacting from their cultural background?
SQ 9: When donating knowledge, what is the difference in the way of interacting
stemming from ones cultural background, between the dominant ethnic group and
the subordinated ethnic groups?
SQ 10: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their values and meanings stemming from their cultural background?
SQ 11: When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups relate their
behavior to their values and meanings stemming from their cultural background?
SQ 12: When donating knowledge, what is the difference in behavior to values and
meanings stemming from ones cultural background, between the dominant ethnic
group and the subordinated ethnic groups?
SQ 13: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their artifacts stemming from their cultural background?
SQ 14: When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups relate their
behavior to their artifacts stemming from their cultural background?
SQ 15: When donating knowledge, what is the difference in behavior between the
dominant ethnic group and the subordinated ethnic groups to artifacts stemming
from ones cultural background?
Collecting:
SQ 16: When collecting knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their way of interacting from their cultural background?
SQ 17: When collecting knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups relate their
behavior to their way of interacting from their cultural background?
SQ 18: When collecting knowledge, what is the difference in the way of interacting
stemming from ones cultural background, between the dominant ethnic group and
the subordinated ethnic groups?
SQ 19: When collecting knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their values and meanings stemming from their cultural background?
SQ 20: When collecting knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups relate their
behavior to their values and meanings stemming from their cultural background?
SQ 21: When collecting knowledge, what is the difference in behavior to values and
meanings stemming from ones cultural background, between the dominant ethnic
group and the subordinated ethnic groups?
SQ 22: When collecting knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their artifacts stemming from their cultural background?
SQ 23: When collecting knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups relate their
behavior to their artifacts stemming from their cultural background?
SQ 24: When collecting knowledge, what is the difference in behavior between the
dominant ethnic group and the subordinated ethnic groups to artifacts stemming
from ones cultural background?
Summarized:
- What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in their way of interacting when sharing knowledge, stemming from
ones cultural background?
- What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
58 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
ethnic groups in their knowledge sharing behavior related to values and meanings
stemming from ones cultural background?
- What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in their knowledge sharing behavior related to artifacts
stemming from ones cultural background?
Structural position
Donating:
SQ 25: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their position in the labor market?
SQ 26: When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups relate their
behavior to their position in the labor market?
SQ 27: What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge donating behavior to their
position in the labor market?
SQ 28: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their position in the organization?
SQ 29: When donating knowledge, do the subordinated groups relate their behavior to
their position in the organization?
SQ 30: What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge donating behavior to their
position in the organization?
SQ 31: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to institutional uncertainty?
SQ 32: When donating knowledge, do subordinated ethnic groups relate their behavior to
institutional uncertainty?
SQ 33: What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge donating behavior to
institutional uncertainty?
Collecting:
SQ 34: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their position in the labor market?
SQ 35: When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups relate their
behavior to their position in the labor market?
SQ 36: What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge donating behavior to their
position in the labor market?
SQ 37: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to their position in the organization?
SQ 38: When donating knowledge, do the subordinated groups relate their behavior to
their position in the organization?
SQ 39: What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge donating behavior to their
position in the organization?
SQ 40: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group relate their behavior
to institutional uncertainty?
SQ 41: When donating knowledge, do subordinated ethnic groups relate their behavior to
institutional uncertainty?
SQ 42: What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge donating behavior to
59 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
institutional uncertainty?
Summarized:
- What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge sharing behavior to their
position in the labor market?
- What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge sharing behavior to their
position in the organization?
- What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups in how they relate their knowledge sharing behavior to institutional
uncertainty?
Recognition
Donating:
SQ 43:
When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group feel recognized by
their colleagues?
SQ 44:
When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups feel recognized by
their colleagues?
SQ 45:
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups when donating knowledge, in their feeling of recognition by
colleagues?
SQ 46: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group feel recognized in the
organizational policies?
SQ 47:
When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups feel recognized in
the organizational policies?
SQ 48:
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups when donating knowledge, in their feeling of recognition in the
organizational policies?
Collecting:
SQ 49:
When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group feel recognized by
their colleagues?
SQ 50:
When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups feel recognized by
their colleagues?
SQ 51:
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups when donating knowledge, in their feeling of recognition by
colleagues?
SQ 52: When donating knowledge, does the dominant ethnic group feel recognized in the
organizational policies?
SQ 53:
When donating knowledge, do the subordinated ethnic groups feel recognized in
the organizational policies?
SQ 54:
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups when donating knowledge, in their feeling of recognition in the
organizational policies?
Summarized:
What
is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups when sharing knowledge, in their feeling of recognition by
colleagues?
-
What is the difference between the dominant ethnic group and the subordinated
ethnic groups when sharing knowledge, in their feeling of recognition in the
organizational policies?
60 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
9.2 Diary interview script
The link of this online form is to be found here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/
1aUTEiBnTw9uSkOycj2hLP5Xz3fjvwu_2_VXUFPOjbAo/viewform
9.3 Semi-structured interview script
Introduction to the interview
- Thank you very much for your time and participance, this interview will take
about half an hr.
- I would like to record the interview, to be able to make a transcript of it.
- All the information I collect is confidential, your privacy will be respected.
Your name will not be mentioned and results will only be used on group basis.
Do you still agree to participate?
- I am independent, outside Multinational X, but also my cultural background
will not be taken into account.
- If you have any questions do not hesitate to ask them. Do you have any before
we start?
- I will ask you questions first about the questionnaire, after about your KSB and
about influencing factors. Your culture, recognition and your position in the
company and society.
Background
3. Please introduce yourself a little bit
4. What is your position at Multinational X? How long do you work here?
Questionnaire
5. To recap your behavior from the questionnaire, I would say that:.....
6. Is this general and correct for you, or is this coincidental behavior?
7. In the questionnaire you say that.... why so?
8. You say that English (Chinese) is your preferred language, no Hindi (Mandarin)
or another language?
9. Are there different dialects between you and your colleagues? - does this cause
problems?
10. Does this influence your sharing behavior when talking to overseas colleagues?
11. In the questionnaire you asked me a question, you could have also asked me in
the conference call, why did you choose to ask me the question in the
questionnaire?
KSB
12. Do you share a lot of knowledge? - Why do you think so?
13. Why do you share knowledge? Is it important to you?
14. Has it ever happened that you did not wanted to share knowledge? - Explain
why
15. Did you missed knowledge last week, because others did not share it with you?
- Why do you think so?
- Does this have consequences for your behavior?
16. how do you share most knowledge, online or face-to-face?
17. What do you prefer?
Culture
18. Do you think that your cultural background influences your behavior in general?
19. And when sharing knowledge?
61 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
20. What is your cultural background?
21. Do you care about norms and values? - Why?
22. Does it influence your KSB when someone does not share the same norms and
values as you do?
23. If someone interacts in a different way than you are used to do, does this make
you consider keeping knowledge for yourself, or not ask for knowledge?
- other form of humor, different lifestyle, different opinions, standards?
24. What is the overall culture at your work?
25. What is the overall culture between all the international team members. You
speak English, is it a cosmopolitan culture? More Western, more Asian?
26. Do you share knowledge in a different way between your colleagues overseas
than in your home country?
27. Structural position
28. How do you position yourself at Multinational X in relation to your age, gender,
ethnicity etc?
29. Do you see this as low, middle, high? and explain
30. Does this position influence your way of behaving when sharing knowlegde, do
you share more with others or do you not share with certain groups because of
this position?
31. Do you ever feel uncertain at work? - When?
32. Do you feel a lot of competitiveness at work? Between colleagues? Between
cultures?
33. Do you feel that you have the same responsibilities as others in the team?
34. Do you need your job? Why so?
35. How important is your job to you?
36. How do you position yourself in the labor market in relation to your age,
gender, ethnicity etc?
- Do you see this as strong or weak?
Recognition
37. Do you feel recognized by your colleagues? Also the ones in other countries? Why?
- for being a good colleague?
- for being you?
38. Do you feel unsure about being recognized by your colleagues? (not sure about
the social norms and how to behave and to be recognized as a good colleague?
39. Do you feel that the way that colleagues recognize you influences your way of
behaving when sharing knowledge?
40. Do you think you are recognized in the right way at Multinational X? (policies)
- if not, what do you wanna see different?
41. Do you think that recognition of the other is important to be able to share
knowledge?
Social relations
42. Do you share free time with your colleagues?
43. Do you share more with the colleagues that you have a better personal relation
with?
44. Do you trust your colleagues? Do you think they trust you?
45. Do you feel that you get the trust from Multinational X that you deserve?
46. Do you share more with your colleagues that you trust more?
Ethnicity
62 of 64
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
47. What is your country of origin?
48. Does your country have any meaning to you?
49. Does your ethnicity has any meaning to you?
- Why so?
50. How would you define your ethnicity?
51. Do you feel treated at Multinational X in relation to your ethnic background?
52. Are there consequences at work?
Ending
- This was the end of the interview. Do you have anything additional to say?
- How do you feel about this interview? Is there anything I forgot?
- You can always e-mail me if something pops-up later. Thank you very much for
your time, you have been of great help. The results will be shared with everyone
who is interested, this will be around September/October.
9.4 Codes
Clusters
Categories
Subcategories
Labels
Communication
Means of communication
online communication
e-mail, words
Labels
f2f
calling
collaboration tool
forms of communication
helping methods
problems
pressure
language
portal
summarizing, confirming
examples
asking questions
presentation
simple communication
peer review
assertive
repetition
point by point
informal culture
clarity
learning from others
structuration of work
slow communication
fast communication
indirect
point by point
direct
express praise
listening
learn from family friends
getting feedback
appreciation, noticing good work
clear communication
Blue Face
getting support
proper communication
63 of 64
Clusters
Categories
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Subcategories
Labels
Labels
misunderstandings
pronunciation
accents
different terms
expression style
different ways of thinking
non-adaptation
excluding others
language
priority
relations
feelings
trust
force
confidence
appreciation
be yourself
expectations
respect
unique identification
freedom
teamwork
relationships
family bond
family ties
friends
knowing people,
understanding people
hierarchy
position
medium position company
position society
PM
culture
labor division
teamwork
organizational culture
mixed culture
open, flat culture
american culture
background
society
Job
independency
artifacts
hometown
values
equality
background
food, habits
low experience
gender
caste system
rewarding
profit making
salary
organized
responsibilities
job importance
competition
client satisfaction measurement
work way
diversity
working on your own
flexibility
64 of 64
Clusters
Categories
mutual benefit
open attitude
satisfaction
confirmation
helpfull
comparison
Anna Slump Thesis 10/09/2013
Subcategories
Labels
Labels
KS
sharing information
arranged KS sessions