International Journal of Organizational Innovation Final Issue Vol 5 Num 4 April 2013

8/18/2019 International Journal of Organizational Innovation Final Issue Vol 5 Num 4 April 2013

1/233

The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Vol 5 Num 4 April 2013 1

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OFORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION

VOLUME 5 NUMBER 4 APRIL 2013

Table of Contents

3 Information Regarding The International Journal of Organizational Innovation

4 Information Regarding The 2013 International Conference on OrganizationalInnovation

5 The 2013 Board Of Editors

Page: Title: Author(s):

7 Knowledge Management In Educational Organizations - A Perspective OfKnowledge Spiral: Wei-Li Wu, Yi-Chih Lee, Hui-Shing Shu

14 Re-Thinking The Future Of Learning - The Possibilities And Limitations OfTechnology In Education In The 21st Century: Raysa Leer, Sergey Ivanov

21 The Influence Of Leadership Behavior And Psychological Empowerment On JobSatisfaction: Li-Fen Lin, Chun-Chieh Tseng

30 A Case Study On The Model Of Strategic Entrepreneurship: Hung-Jung Chang,Hsien- Bin Wang

45 Organization Derobotized - Innovation And Productivity In A WorkplaceEnvironment: Sofia Stasishyn, Sergey Ivanov

52 A Multi-Cases Comparative Approach On Forming Elements Of Dynamic Capability:Hung-Jung Chang, Jia-Jeng Hou, Szu-Ju Lin

65 The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Job Satisfaction AndOrganizational Commitment: Ching-Sing You, Chun-Chen Huang, Hsien-BinWang, Kang-Ni Liu, Chien-Hsiung Lin, Ji-Shou Tseng

78 A Review And Critical Analysis Of The Principles Of Scientific Management:Kai-Ping Huang, Jane Tung, Sheng Chung Lo, Mei-Ju Chou


2/233


3/233


INFORMATION REGARDING

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION

The International Journal of Organizational Innovation (IJOI) (ISSN 1943-1813) is an inter-national, blind peer-reviewed journal, published quarterly. It may be viewed online for free.(There are no print versions of this journal; however, the journal .pdf file may be downloadedand printed.) It contains a wide variety of research, scholarship, educational and practitionerperspectives on organizational innovation-related themes and topics. It aims to provide aglobal perspective on organizational innovation of benefit to scholars, educators, students,practitioners, policy-makers and consultants. All past issues of the journal are available onthe journal website.

For information regarding submissions to the journal, go to the journal homepage:http://www.ijoi-online.org/

Submissions are welcome from the members of IAOI and other associations & all otherscholars and practitioners. Student papers are also welcome.

To Contact the IJOI Editor, email: [email protected]

Note: The format for this Journal has changed with the January, 2013 issue. The journal

is now published in a two-column format (instead of the single column format used in

prior issues). Please see the new author guidelines on the Journal’s website, as well as a

sample article showing how they will appear in the new format.

For more information on the International Association of Organizational Innovation, go to:

http://www.iaoiusa.org


4/233


JULY 2 – 4, 2013HUA HIN, THAILAND

The Seventh Annual (2013) International Conference on Organizational Innovation (ICOI) will be held July 2 -4, 2013. To obtain complete information on the conference and to registerfor the conference, hotel, tours and events, go to: http://www.iaoiusa.org/2013icoi/index.html The conference registration fee includes all conference materials, all refreshment breaks, 2lunches and the Annual Dinner on the first night of the conference (This will be held beach-side at the conference hotel!)

The conference will be held at the Hilton Hua Hin Resort & Spa, which is offering a specialrate for the 2013ICOI conference participators - $100USD/ per room per day, which alsoincludes breakfast. All rooms have sea view. However, in order to receive the specialconference rate for the hotel, you will need pay to Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University (ifyou pay Hilton will be charged USD: $170). For booking the conference hotel room - partici-pants have to inform Dr. Charles Shieh on the registration form and provide the followinginformation: (names of guests, passport numbers, dates and time of check in/out). On arrivalat the conference, participants will pay for their room accommodation in cash (Thai baht) tothe conference organizers at the co0nference registration desk in the hotel lobby. Participantscan stay as long as they want (at same room rate). The University will also arrange a tour ofSantorini Park on July 3 and a day Trip to Bangkok with a visitation of Suan Sunandha Ra-

jabhat University, and sightseeing on July 4. Conference participants need to register for

these tours when registering for the conference.

All conference events will be held at Hilton Hua Hin Resort and Spa3 Naresdamri Road, Hua Hin, 77110, ThailandTEL: 66-32-538-999Website:http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/thailand/hilton-hua-hin-resort-and-spa-HHQHIHI/index.html

Participants should arrange flights arriving into Bangkok anytime before July 1. The univer-sity wills arrange the minivan to pick the 2013ICOI conference participators from Bangkokto Hua Hin in July 1 - it is a 3 hours ride.

For complete conference details, go to the conference website:http://www.iaoiusa.org/2013icoi/index.html

or contact Dr. Charles Shieh, the Conference Coordinator: [email protected]


5/233


THE 2013 BOARD OF EDITORS

Position: Name - Affiliation:

Editor-In-Chief Frederick L. Dembowski - International Association of Org. Innovation, USA

Associate Editor Chich-Jen Shieh - International Association of Org. Innovation, Taiwan R.O.C.Associate Editor Kenneth E Lane - Southeastern Louisiana University, USA

Assistant Editor Ahmed M Kamaruddeen - Universiti Sains Malaysia, MalaysiaAssistant Editor Alan E Simon - Concordia University Chicago, USAAssistant Editor Aldrin Abdullah - Universiti Sains Malaysia, MalaysiaAssistant Editor Alex Maritz - Australian Grad. School of Entrepreneurship, AustraliaAssistant Editor Andries J Du Plessis - Unitec New ZealandAssistant Editor Anton de Waal - Swinburne University of Technology, AustraliaAssistant Editor Asma Salman - American University in the Emirates, DubaiAssistant Editor Barbara Cimatti - University of Bologna, ItalyAssistant Editor Ben Hendricks - Fontys University of Applied Sciences, The NetherlandsAssistant Editor Carl D Ekstrom - University Of Nebraska at Omaha, USAAssistant Editor Catherine C Chiang - Elon University, USAAssistant Editor Chandra Shekar - American University of Antigua College of Medicine, AntiguaAssistant Editor Davorin Kralj - Institute for Cretaive Management, Slovenia, EuropeAssistant Editor Denis Ushakov - Northern Caucasian Academy of Public ServicesAssistant Editor Donna S McCaw - Western Illinois University, USA

Assistant Editor Eloiza Matos - Federal Technological University of Paraná - BrazilAssistant Editor Earl F Newby - Virginia State University, USAAssistant Editor Fernando Cardoso de Sousa - Portuguese Association of Creativity

and Innovation (APIC)), PortugalAssistant Editor Fuhui Tong - Texas A&M University, USAAssistant Editor Gloria J Gresham - Stephen F. Austin State University, USAAssistant Editor Hassan B Basri - National University of Malaysia, MalaysiaAssistant Editor Henry T Burley - La Trobe University, AustraliaAssistant Editor Hong-Cheng Liu - I-Shou University, Taiwan R.O.C.Assistant Editor Ilias Said - Universiti Sains Malaysia, MalaysiaAssistant Editor Ileana Monteiro - Portuguese Association of Creativity

and Innovation (APIC)), Portugal

Assistant Editor Ismael Abu-Jarad - Universiti Utara MalaysiaAssistant Editor Janet Tareilo - Stephen F. Austin State University, USAAssistant Editor Jeffrey Oescher - Southeastern Louisiana University, USAAssistant Editor Jian Zhang - Dr. J. Consulting, USAAssistant Editor John W Hunt - Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USAAssistant Editor Julia N Ballenger - Texas A & M University - Commerce, USAAssistant Editor Julius Ndumbe Anyu - University of the District of Columbia, USAAssistant Editor Jun Dang - Xi'an International Studies University, P.R.C. ChinaAssistant Editor Jyh-Rong Chou - I-Shou University, Taiwan R.O.C.


6/233


7/233


KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: APERSPECTIVE OF KNOWLEDGE SPIRAL

Wei-Li WuDepartment of International Business

Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology, R. O. C. [email protected]

Yi-Chih Lee*Department of International Business

Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology, R. O. C. Taiwan*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Hui-Shing ShuDepartment of International Business

Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology, R. O. C. Taiwan

Abstract

In recent years, the issue of knowledge management has gained more and more attention inmanagement field. Organizations have desired the attainment of a faultless knowledge man-agement mechanism so as to promote knowledge transfer and creation within organizations,thereby achieving a competitive advantage. Although researchers have previously studied onthis topic, research regarding how educational organizations effectively utilize knowledgemanagement skills to strengthen their organizational capability and promote innovative teach-ing skills is far from enough. The main task of an educational organization is to pass onknowledge to learners. The tutors (front line teachers) are knowledge workers who need toabsorb large amounts of information in order to build up the basis for knowledge creation.This study applied the case-study method to interview and observation members of an educa-tional organization. And, this study also adopted the knowledge spiral of Nonaka and Takeu-chi (1995), using this theoretical perspective to explore the knowledge transfer and creation

process of an educational organization. The result of this study indicated that inner-organizational knowledge flow can be obtained through the members’ mutual interaction andsharing, thereby strengthening the organization and its individual teaching skills. Moreover,in this study, we also pointed out the role of different knowledge workers in the educationalorganizations.

Key Words: knowledge management, knowledge spiral, educational organizations


8/233


Introduction

In a knowledge-based society,knowledge workers are a major asset ofan organization (Nonaka and Takeuchi,1995; Wu, Yeh and Hung, 2012; Wang,

Chiang and Tung, 2012). In educationalorganizations, the tutors (knowledgeworkers) are mainly responsible for pass-ing on and transferring knowledge andthose who are learned are mainly stu-dents. This study argued that the sourceof knowledge in educational organiza-tions is developed from interactions be-tween tutors and those students, withteaching skills as the main product. Nev-ertheless, due to the extension and devel-opment of teaching skills, there is a need

to accumulate and integrate abundant andrelevant knowledge and teaching experi-ence. There is, however, little literatureon educational organizations from theaspect of how to facilitate the skills ofknowledge management to achieve theimprovement of teaching techniques.

Therefore, this study took the casestudy method, through interviewing theorganization’s members and undertakingin-depth observations, to analyze knowl-edge management practices in an educa-tional organization. Moreover, this studyapply the knowledge spiral theory ofNonaka and Takeuchi (1995) to furtherexplore organizational members’ rolesand positioning during the process ofknowledge transfer and creation, andhow organizations can strengthen themembers’ professional competenciesthrough knowledge transfer so as to buildtheir innovative teaching skills.

The discussion of knowledge trans-fer and creation in organizations ismainly based on the knowledge spiraltheory proposed by Nonaka and Takeu-chi (1995). This theory emphasized thefact that interaction between colleaguesis the main source of knowledge acquisi-tion for organizational members, indicat-

ing that organizational members’ indi-vidual tacit knowledge is enlarged withinorganizations through four knowledgetransformation modes, namely, externali-zation, socialization, internalization, andcombination, becoming higher-level

knowledge ontology.

The exploration of knowledge spi-rals places the emphasis on the exchangebetween explicit and tacit knowledge,which are the processes of knowledgetransfer and creation. According to thenature of nowledge, it can be dividedinto two aspects, tacit knowledge andexplicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966;Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

“Tacit knowledge” refers to the in-formation and related data belonging tothe knowledge workers’ personal experi-ence and techniques. It cannot be clearlyexpressed by words, language or figures,and only exists in the experience andskills of individuals. “Explicit knowl-edge” refers to the knowledge producedthrough codifying or digitizing in accor-dance with understood information orhighly repeated information. In otherwords, explicit knowledge is informationthat can be verbalized, textualized, andstructurally organized, and relates toclear conceptual knowledge that can beverbally passed on or printed in journals,magazines, and textbooks. Furthermore,the generation of organizational knowl-edge has to be through member interac-tion, thus intertwining explicit knowl-edge and tacit knowledge so as to de-velop a kind of understandable and us-able knowledge. The knowledge spiral

theory indicated four types of fundamen-tal modes for the intertwining and trans-formation of knowledge: externalization,socialization, internalization, and combi-nation.

(1) Socialization:This refers to knowledge that arousesresonance and the process of creating


9/233


tacit knowledge through experience shar-ing. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi(1995), socialization is achieved throughthree steps, namely, observation, mutualimitation and reflection. Davenport andPrusak (1998) emphasized that the best

mode for transferring tacit knowledge isthrough the interaction and communica-tion between people. Chen (2006) alsoindicated that the application of suchspiral theory in a teaching environment iswhen, through informal patterns, such asexperience sharing and the "open house"activities of schools, etc., an individual’stacit knowledge, which belongs toknowledge workers alone, can be sharedwith other knowledge workers, therebyexerting an unconscious influence.

(2) Externalization:This refers to the generation of conceptu-alized knowledge, and equates to theclear presentation of tacit knowledgewith linguistic or word forms. In the past,scholars emphasized that an organiza-tion’s members should be offered com-munication space at this stage, allowingorganizational members to express theirpersonal opinions or experience on aspecific theme in order to achieve thepurpose of knowledge creation (Nonaka& Konno, 1998). Also, the externaliza-tion of tacit knowledge is a means ofsubstantiating an individual’s tacitknowledge through group interaction andbrain storming so as to obtain new con-cepts as the source of innovative knowl-edge (Chen, 2006).

(3) Combination:This is the generation of systematic

knowledge, which means systemizingdeveloped conceptions and integratingthem into the knowledge system. Nonakaand Takeuchi (1995) pointed out thatexplicit knowledge can be acquired viadifferent channels, such as documents,conferences, Internet and emails. Afterbeing classified and organized, knowl-

edge will be preserved and combined toform new systematic knowledge.

(4) Internalization:Internalization refers to the transforma-tion of explicit knowledge, or concepts,

into substantial personal experience andpractices. This is the generation of opera-tional knowledge and normally takesplace in the process of work. These standfor the tacit knowledge and are generallyprocessed through learning by doing. Inother words, with learning by doing inthe practices, knowledge workers havean in-depth learning and understandingof external explicit knowledge. Follow-ing this, with the integration of their per-sonal practice experience, they will in-

ternalize the knowledge they havelearned into the individual mind.

According to the knowledge spiraltheory, the creation of organizationalknowledge is considered to be a set ofspirals which spreads from individuals,groups and to organizations, and to inter-organizations in which the scope ofknowledge is expanded through organ-izational interactions. Additionally, theoverlapped knowledge is regarded as thebasis for the further and common crea-tion of knowledge. Moreover, as the or-ganizational members' communicationgrows to be more frequent, it will bemore helpful for the passing on of highlytacit knowledge and for promoting thedevelopment of new knowledge in orderto develop the think tank for organiza-tional knowledge.

Case study

This study is mainly based on a quali-tative research and adopts the researchmethod of case study to explore theknowledge transfer and creation of aneducational organization. For the confi-dential reason and required by interview-ees, the case organization’s name is notrevealed to the public and is called KYC


10/233


instead. The major information with re-gard to the case organization is takenfrom the organization’s official website,publications and interview with the em-ployees. This study uses the purposivesampling method to proceed with a non-

structural interview in the case organiza-tion.

The initiator of KYC is a Japanesemath professor. Through individualteaching experiences, the initiator ofKYC continuously creates and modifieda series of teaching materials, finallycompleting a whole set of sequentialteaching materials. In 1973, an initiatorin Taiwan learned about this educationalmethod and went to Japan to receive pro-

fessional training. In 1979, he integratedthe learned educational method, ideas,and the concept of parental education toformally promote such an educationalsystem. The teaching materials for thismethod are a set of systematically se-quential materials suitable for learners ofdifferent levels. Today, over 4,100,000learners in more than 40 countries areinvolved and devoted to the promotion ofthis kind of educational method. In termsof the organizational scope in Taiwan,there are nine liaisons from the north tosouth part of Taiwan, which are, respec-tively, responsible for the tutors' researchand learning activities, administrativeworks, as well as the supply of teachingmaterials, in these areas.

The human resources in each area in-clude tutors, district administrators, sec-tion managers and the director, etc; thehuman resources in corporate headquar-

ter include CEOs, general managers andassociate managers, and top managementlevels. The tutors are located in differentcountries/cities and are organized andassisted by district administrators. On theother hand, the transmission of informa-tion regarding the status of the organiza-tions and tutors are taken care of by mid-

level managers, who are also the districtadministrators.

Therefore, the whole organization is atypical “middle-to-upper-to-lower” hier-archical management mode, with the

advantage that the communication frommid-level management can help to avoidthe direct conflict between high-levelmanagement and the lower-level person-nel. The main research objects of thisstudy are tutors who are mainly market-ers of parental education; and at anymoment, could readjust and lead thestudy of learners in the process by ob-serving the learners' study and assign-ments.

The major competitive advantages ofthe educational organization in this studyare that the tutors can cultivate the learn-ers' self-study and habitual independentthinking patterns through the teachingmode. This places the emphasis on learn-ers’ individual study and competenceaspects, thereby succeeding in excellingthe yearly study goals. This teachingmode is totally different from that whichexists after class tutoring patterns, whichare inclined to be passively educationallearning.

Depending on the classification ofDavenport and Prusak (1998), this studydivided the knowledge worker of KYCinto three types, namely: knowledgemanagement workers, managers ofknowledge projects and the chief knowl-edge officer according to their differentroles, such as the knowledge manage-ment workers responsible for fundamen-

tal works, the managers of knowledgeprojects responsible for middle-levelmanagement, and the chief knowledgeofficer in charge of whole managerialactivities. The knowledge managementworkers of educational organizations arethe tutors who are the professionalknowledge staff within the organizationand are responsible for the development


11/233


of teaching skills and knowledge accu-mulation. The district administrators arethe mid-level management team whoplay the role of managers of knowledgeprojects and who are responsible forknowledge exploration and being the

communicators within the organization.The top management team within theorganization is responsible for integrat-ing a higher level of strategic decisions.

Choosing Taiwan KYC as the casestudy, this research interviewed eighttutors whose job seniority was either lessthan five years or between 10 and 20years, and one district administrator. Theinterviewing content is mainly about thesetting up of the training course for the

organization and the focus of the inter-views are on how courses are set up andhow, after the set-up, the organizationprovides a related process and content forits employees. This explorative study isconducted via observation and field par-ticipation and further to analyze and de-script the roles and positions of knowl-edge workers through the case study.Additionally, we apply knowledge spiraltheory to illustrate knowledge transferand creation within the case organizationso as to discover a valid way of speedingup the development of knowledge.

The knowledge transfer and creation in

knowledge spiral process

According to Nonaka and Takeuchi(1995), the knowledge spiral process canbe divided into four stages; namely, so-cialization, externalization, combinationand internalization. Knowledge transfer

and creation happens in each of the stage.For academy research, we can somehowbe clearly to argue that knowledge trans-fer and creation are two different con-cepts; however, in practice, knowledgetransfer and creation usually happenssimultaneously in each of the above fourstages. Therefore, in the following caseanalysis, we do not be especially to dis-

tinguish the difference between knowl-edge transfer and knowledge creation.

Socialization (transform tacit knowledge

into tacit knowledge).

Socialization is the process of trans-forming individual tacit knowledge intogroup tacit knowledge. Using internshiptraining activities within the classrooms,regular study and learning activities, anddistrict conferences/workshops, KYCplaces the emphasis on interactive learn-ing, the higher degree of feedback oncommunications, the higher level ofknowledge sharing among colleagues.Through learning by doing, tutors canhave consensus and consonance via the

sharing of their experiences; it leads to agreat effectiveness of knowledge trans-fer. The work contracts of the tutors ofthe case organization are reviewed once ayear.

In order to guarantee the learners'privilege for study, the credit system isemployed by the organization and thetutors are required to periodically pursuefurther education in order to update theirknowledge system and extensively im-prove their teaching skills. The tutors arealso required to complete 36 creditswithin the first five years and 24 creditsafter five years. Moreover, KYC irregu-larly arranges a variety of professionallectures and each lecture accounts forone credit. The delivery of a lecture is aknowledge exchange field, in which tu-tors within the organization will work onthe knowledge transfer together.

The major content of the study of tu-tors include communication skills, work-shops run by professional, tutoring on thetopic of business operations, and guideson the editing of the teaching materials.With district conferences and workshops,annual knowledge sharing activities andannual meetings enhance interactions andthe sharing of experiences between peo-


12/233


ple. At the same time, the professionalworkshops also increase the informationflow from outside of the organization.

Externalization (transform tacit into ex-

plicit knowledge).

Although tacit knowledge is valuable,it tends to be concealed and is hard tofind and transfer. It is only when knowl-edge has been shared between membersand the managers of knowledge projectshave analyzed and organized highly re-petitive knowledge, can such tacitknowledge be transformed into writtenmaterials. The district administrators(managers of knowledge projects) ofKYC work to observe the operational

process in each tutor room in order toanalyze the advantages and disadvan-tages and, as a routine, put forward thesepoints for members to discuss, modify, orself-examine.

In this way, we can know that the major function of district administrator is todiscover and raise problems as the start-ing point for the tutors to externalizetheir tacit knowledge. In this stage, tu-tors are encouraged to externalize theirtacit knowledge. Some more concreteknowledge could then be generated, likechild tutoring handbook and special childtutoring.

Combination (transform explicit knowl-

edge into explicit knowledge).

In this stage, the explicit knowledge isconceptualized, textualized and struc-tured, so that the knowledge can be dis-

closed within the organization andtreated as the substance of importantknowledge for transfer. It can then befurther reorganized and applied so as toachieve a new depth or width of knowl-edge, or the creation of new knowledge.The educational organization of thisstudy produces a variety of explicitknowledge through socialization and

externalization and then the formed ex-plicit knowledge is transformed into ahandbook or instructional manuals. Themanuals are then delivered to the knowl-edge management team/managers bydistrict administrator. In this way, the

valid technological and experientialknowledge is edited into handbooks asthe basis for the development or modifi-cation of teaching materials in the future.Moreover, these handbooks are providedto the entrants as the most available tech-nological guide.

Internalization (transformation from

explicit into tacit knowledge).

In the process of training, to transfer

the existing organizational explicitknowledge to the entrants, allowing it tobecome the individual's tacit knowledge.As the explicit knowledge tends to be thefastest available experiential knowledgeafter combination, this case organization,when training newcomers, facilitates thegiven knowledge tank, using such ex-plicit knowledge as a handbook, tutorguidebook, and teaching manuals, totransfer the required knowledge to thenewcomers. In addition, the knowledgetransfer at this stage can become a newstarting point for the knowledge workers'personal development.

Conclusion

In different stages of the knowledgespiral, we can clearly discover that or-ganizations have different focuses, whichcan allow smoother knowledge transferand creation. In KYC, tutors are the main

knowledge management workers, andresponsible for the first-line’ teaching jobs. Therefore, how to help tutors effec-tively accumulate knowledge assetsthrough various human resources man-agement systems has become an impor-tant subject. With this case study, we cansee that excellent educational training,conference and workshop systems, and


13/233


formal or informal social interactions,can all have a positive influence onknowledge transfer between tutors.

Additionally, it can be clearly notedthat tutors are the major sources of

knowledge creation in the organizationso the organization can achieve a moreperfect teaching system by analyzing theteaching experience of their tutors indifferent areas. In such a knowledgecreation process, the district administra-tors play a significant, mediating role,whose key job is to effectively exploreand integrate the heterogeneous knowl-edge possessed by the tutors. Then, usingthis knowledge as a basis, we can pro-duce new items of knowledge.

Finally, this study also finds thatKYC failed to effectively utilize externalexpert knowledge in its process of inter-nal knowledge creation. In fact, the in-troduction of external expert knowledgehelps to supplement and reinforce theexisting internal knowledge, thereby en-hancing the production of new knowl-edge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Wuand Lee, 2012). Generally speaking, thetop management team of KYC shouldplay a more active role in introducingexternal expert knowledge.

References

Chen, M. (2006). Teacher Learning andProfessional Development the Per-spective of Tacit Knowledge. Cur-

riculum & Instruction Quarterly ,9(3), 1-13. (In Chinese)

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A.(1990). Absorptive capacity: A newperspective on learning and innova-tion. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 35, 128-152.

Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998).Working knowledge: How organiza-tions manage what they know. Bos-ton: Harvard Business School Press.

Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. (1998). The

concept of “Ba”: building a founda-tion for knowledge creation. Cali-fornia Management Review, 40(3),40-54.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). Theknowledge creating company. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Polanyi, M. 1966. The tacit dimension.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wang, K.L., Chiang, C. & Tung, C.M.(2012). Integrating Human ResourceManagement and Knowledge Man-agement: From the Viewpoint OfCore Employees and OrganizationalPerformance. The InternationalJournal of Organizational Innova-tion, 5(1), 109-137.

Wu, W.L. & Lee, Y.C. (2012). Enhanc-ing international knowledge transferthrough information technology:The intervention of communicationculture. International Journal of In-formation and CommunicationTechnology, 4(1), 1-12.

Wu, W.L., Yeh, R.S. & Hung, H.K.(2012). Knowledge sharing andwork performance: A network per-spective. Social Behavior and Per-sonality, 40(7), 1113 -1120.


14/233


15/233

The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Vol 5 Num 3 April 2013

Introduction

Many scholars agree that the way wecarry out the task of educating learnersneeds to change (Christensen, Johnson,& Horn, 2010; Kaku, 2012; Bach, 2012;

Facer & Sandford, 2010). As Facer &Sandford (2010) noted, “Around theworld, there are foundations, public-private partnerships, government initia-tives and commercial entities leadingcalls for a redesign of '21st century educa-tion'.” (p. 75). The “Why?” behind thiscall is becoming more obvious as theyears pass. Kaku (2012) has declared thatintellectual capital will be essential forthose seeking to meet the challenges ofthe twenty first century, allowing them to

fill jobs for skilled workers that, evenwith technological advancements, hu-mans will still be needed to do (pp. 366369). At the same time, Bach (2012)noted that there are many factors poisedto reshape the world of education. Hecites technology, global debt, demo-graphic change, rapid urbanization, natu-ral resource constraints and the geo-graphic shift of economic power aschange agents that will restructure educa-tion (p. 20). As he stated, “I believe thateach driver of change has the potential tocripple schools and programs – and theequal potential to bring about renewal,transformation, and new value creation”(p. 20).

Understanding that education needsto change is different from knowing howbest to help effect that change. Two con-tinuous themes seem to appear in discus-sions on reforming and rethinking educa-

tion. The first has to do with how stu-dents learn and the way education is pre-sented to them. Christensen, Johnson &Horn (2010) pointed out that “Every stu-dent learns in a different way … A keystep toward making school intrinsicallymotivating is to customize education tomatch the way each child best learns”

(pp. 10 11). They described this as stu-dent centric learning (p. 11).

The second theme has to do withtechnology, particularly the need to use itin specific ways to assist in effective

learning. The “edtech” (education tech-nology) field brings together experts ineducation and technology to examine themultiple ways technology can createmore efficient, effective, sustainablemodels of education. Technology in edu-cation includes everything from onlinelearning (also e learning or distancelearning) to virtual reality and all thefuture possibilities that have yet to arriveon the market.

This paper discusses these twothemes connected to educational reformand presents some possibilities related tohow the second point may have greatbearing on the first. It will posit potentialfuture technological innovations in edu-cation while being mindful of technol-ogy's limitations and the need for educa-tional systemic reform that will supportsuccessful technological instruction inthe 21st century.

Disruptive, Student Centric Learning and

How Students Learn

To fully understand disruptive, stu-dent centric learning as described byChristensen, Johnson & Horn (2012), onemust first understand the current struc-ture of education in the United States.They added, “Today’s system was de-signed at a time when standardizationwas seen as a virtue. It is an intricately

interdependent system” (p. 38). In such asystem, when someone makes changes toa portion of the interdependent system, itis necessary to make complementarychanges to the rest of the system. Thismakes customization within the system,such as customized student learning ineducation, costly. Therefore, in our inter-dependent school systems, it makes more


16/233


economic sense to standardize studentinstruction and assessment as much aspossible (pp. 31, 34).

What Christensen, Johnson & Horn(2012) have argued is that because stu-

dents learn in different ways, the mono-lithic, standardized approach to educationdoes not serve students well. The key to“every student learning in a differentway” has to do with learners having mul-tiple intelligences. It is not simply about“how” you learn but what things you“know”. As Deresiewicz (2008) ob-served, there are many forms of intelli-gence beyond the highly valued analyticintelligence, such as social intelligence,emotional intelligence and creative abil-

ity. Unfortunately, teaching to multipleintelligences can prove very problematic.

While a truly customized twentyfirst century educational experience maybe some ways off in the United States,technology is providing a path towardthat vision. Computer based learning isalready changing education, “emergingas a disruptive force and a promisingopportunity” (Christensen, Johnson &Horn, 2012, p. 38).

How Technology May Change Education

To understand where technologymay take us, it is crucial to have an un-derstanding of the current trends in edu-cation related to technology. Technology,in many institutions of higher education,has become a part of college life (Goode,2010). Students apply for college online,choose their courses online, read elec-

tronic text books, perform researchonline, complete homework assignmentselectronically and submit them via onlinelearning management system software,review grades online, manage their stu-dent accounts and receive all universityrelated communication through email. AsGoode (2010) reported, already universi-

ties expect students to have a certainlevel of comfort with and skill related totechnology in order to perform in thesedigital environments.

The field of educational technology

is expanding, and researchers now askquestions about where will technologytake us in the decades to come. Drivingthe belief that technology will play amajor role in human life in the future isthe belief that computing power willcontinue to become cheaper to produce.Kaku (2012) stated, “Moore's law simplysays that computer power doubles aboutevery eighteen months” (p. 22). Facerand Sandford (2010) saw this as one ofseveral scientific and technical trends

that will drive change. Other trendsinclude the likelihood of ubiquitouscomputing, engineering computers frombiological material (bioscience), psycho-pharmacology (cognitive enhancement orsmart drugs), and “invasive and noninvasive brain machine interfaces –enabling prosthetic enhancement andexternalizing cognitive functions toexternal devices” (p. 80). The last trend,said another way, speaks to the possi-bility of wiring hardware to your brain orconnecting to the hardware withoutsurgical grafting to allow enhancedlearning and thought – one small step shyof students' historic desire to learn thematerial in their textbooks by osmosiswhile napping on them.

Nevertheless, the authors cautionedthat “despite the continued demand forquick fixes, neuroscience, computing andbioscience are not expected to provide

easy solutions to educational issues overthe coming two decades” (p. 85). Theydid agree, however, that current trends(such as a looming scarcity of financialresources) point to it being unlikely thatthe process of education can continue tobe done in the same way for muchlonger. It becomes increasingly more


17/233


apparent that educational institutions aswe know them may morph into entirelydifferent entities or may disappear al-together. Technology, while not a silverbullet, will allow education to expandbeyond the formal classroom and into the

society that learners interact with everyday (pp. 86 87).

Along with scientific developmentsand technological innovations, educatorsmust also contend with increased societalconcern about environmentally sustain-able products and services. Bach (2012)suggested that constrained natural re-sources will require a “greening” of post-secondary institutional operations. Part ofthis effort to decrease schools' environ-

mental footprint will certainly includeconsideration for how student travel im-pacts the environment, which becomesan excellent driver for increased focus ononline education and distance learning.In the future, students may not only takeall their courses online but may do thiswhile engaging in other activities. Mo-bile devices will become obsolete as stu-dents connect to the internet via glasses(Kaku, 2012, pp. 27 30) or the walls (pp.34 35) or in virtual reality (pp. 37 39).

Already virtual reality is being em-ployed by educators to assist students inhaving a deeper understanding on howtheoretical problems are solved in realworld examples. Abulrub, Attridge andWilliams (2011) reminded us that virtualreality is already used in military train-ing, automotive and aerospace design,medical training and entertainment. It isnot hard to imagine a world where virtual

worlds are used to teach English con-cepts and general math problems. An-thropologists and sociologists could prac-tice ethnographic interviews in virtualsettings with people from anywhere elsein the world or via specially designedsoftware programs. Foreign languagestudents could immerse themselves

among speakers of Spanish, Chinese orFarsi for hours at a time. History studentscould step into elaborately created mod-els of ancient civilizations' cities, recon-structed to appear as they would havelooked during the height of their glory.

Speech class could be performed in frontof virtual audiences to help students calmtheir nerves and prepare them to speak tolive audiences. In the years ahead, artistsand musicians could create masterpiecesin virtual worlds by thought alone.

Brick and mortar facilities willgravitate from functioning as housing forclassrooms and offices to multi func-tional, collaboration spaces. Facultymembers will operate in swing spaces,

meeting with students face to face andworking closely with intra and interde-partmental colleagues while taking ad-vantage of additional time outside theclassroom to collaborate with other aca-demics on critical research, program de-velopment, curriculum creation, andother varied projects. Students willgather for group work and to interact livewhile at the same time perhaps connect-ing with absent group members via thewalls of their study cubes. Hallways willrelay key institutional messages that arealso pushed out the a student's glasses orstudy cube walls or even their virtualrealities, in the case of the latter causingstudents to recall and connect with thereal world again.

Implementing student centric educa-tion in conjunction with possible futureadvances in technology may help educa-tion institutions do away with rigid class

time requirements and allow students tohave more time for meaningful projectsand research with fellow classmates andprofessors.

These predictions may seem likeflights of fancy, yet scientific and techni-cal trends are showing that what was


18/233


once considered science fiction is evercloser to becoming reality. These techno-logical innovations have the potential tocompletely disrupt the educational ex-perience. Academics, however, mustremember that technology is a tool, not a

goal. Giving new knowledge to individu-als, which allows them to gain specificcompetencies and skills while complet-ing their personal educational goals, isthe primary purpose of education. Tech-nology can be an incredibly powerfultool in assisting students to learn in away that suits them best, but administra-tors must be careful not to give greaterpriority to having technology than tousing it effectively. Bennett and Oliver(2011) noted that while a great amount of

funding has been directed toward thepurchase of technology little research hasbeen done on the “patchy and inconsis-tent patterns of use that typically followsuch investment” (p. 180). It is clear thatmany administrators feel that “to have isto do”. Without careful consideration ofhow technology fits into the larger insti-tutional goals around education, technol-ogy will never reach the full potentialoutlined above.

The Limitations of Technology

in Education

"...Although people have spentbillions of dollars putting com-puters into U.S. schools, it hasresulted in little change in howstudents learn...

...A class does not look all thatdifferent from the way it did a

couple of decades earlier, withthe exception that banks of com-puters line the walls of manyclassrooms. Lecturing, groupdiscussions, small group as-signments and projects, and theoccasional video or over headare still the norms. Computers

have not increased student cen-tered learning and project basedteaching practices...Computershave made almost no dent in themost important challenge thatthey have the potential to crack:

allowing students to learn inways that correspond with howtheir brains are wired to learn,thereby migrating to a studentcentric learning environment."(Christensen, Johnson & Horn,20102, pp. 65, 83 84).

As the authors above lamented,adding technology to traditionaleducation models will not automaticallybring about the types of educational

reforms and advancements desired tohelp students successfully complete theireducational goals. Technology is only asgood as the humans that develop it, andwhile great scientific and technologicaladvances are being created all the time,the human brain is still better at criticalthinking and complex communicationthan any machine yet made (Christensen,Johnson & Horn, 2012, p. 68).

Furthermore, simply adoptingvarious technological education modelswithin traditional curriculum does notguarantee success.

Highlighting the theme of tech-nology only being useful when it helpsmeet students' learning needs, Bickerstaff& Monroe Ellis (2012) have stated that“no innovation can result in significantstudent gains without continuous atten-tion to the process of implementation”

and that in the course of examining thisprocess educators must link what ishappening in the classroom with studentneeds (p. 1). It does no good to installtechnology into systems and classeswithout first having a firm understandingof whether the chosen approach willproduce the desired results. Again,


19/233


having technology is not the goal; rather,understanding students' challenges andmeeting students' learning needs so thatthey can be successful must be the goalof all education faculty and admin-istrators. Technology may be a part of

the process, but it is not the processitself.

Technology can only improve aneducational system that is changingcomprehensively. Technology by itselfwill not make the difference placed inour current educational system. AsGarrison (2011) observed, “The greatestmistake is to try to integrate new com-munications technology into passiveeducational approaches . . . We must be

prepared to rethink current dominantapproaches and be clear about what typeof learning experiences we wish todesign” (p. 1).

At the same time educators focus onincorporating technology into their edu-cational strategies, they must be mindfulof students’ responses to new technologyin education. Not all students have exper-ience or are comfortable with usingtechnology in its various forms. Theyhave different attitudes towards andmotivations for using technology(Goode, 2010). Students who do not usetechnology regularly either because oflack of access, interest or pre-postsecondary digital curricular experiences– are potentially disadvantaged academ-ically and this can be especially true forlow income students, racial minoritiesand females (Goode, 2010, p. 584).Goode (2010) reported “students with the

lowest levels of technological profic-iency actually avoid courses with heavytechnology components, while thetechiest students reap the academic andsocial rewards, including time andmoney, of knowing about technology” (p.615). In order for students to fully reapthe benefits of digital learning, digital

literacy issues must be taken into accountearlier in education and addressed beforea student finds them selves at anacademic disadvantage during theirpostsecondary years.

Conclusion

It is clear that for the United Statesto remain competitive in the century go-ing forward, it will need to rethink itsstrategy for educating its citizens. Thecurrent standardized models of educationdo not serve our students well, allowingfew to have to true access to educationand comprehension of the subject matter.Education must be designed to match thereality that students learn in different

ways and have different learning needs.

To this end, technology is arguablyone of the best tools to use to reach thisgoal. Computer based learning can pro-vide students with the freedom to accessinformation in a flexible environmentand to connect with that information indifferent ways as best suits their learningstyle. It is a tool that allows for custom-ized instruction in a more cost effectiveand efficient manner than in class in-struction.

Technological and scientific trendspoint to great changes on the horizon,with technology becoming progressivelycheaper to produce. The impact of thesetrends on education could be significantas students find ways to use technologyoutside the traditional classroom. Whileeducational institutions will most likelyface financial challenges in the future,

technology presents a cost effective op-tion for colleges and universities looking toprovide students with access to educationin a flexible way that also fits their learn-ing style. Various innovative technologiesmay allow students to connect with theircourse work not only via computers but onthe go via accessories like glasses or on thesmart walls or even in virtual reality.


20/233


Technology is only a tool, however,and for education to truly change the entirestandardized structure must be rethought toallow students to not only gain educationthrough new computer based learningmethods but also to interact with education

on a personal level that translates into truelearning and retention. This can only beachieved by all college stakeholders exam-ining where student learning challenges lieand taking the appropriate steps to providereforms that specifically addresses thoseneeds. Technology has the potential todrastically change education, but systemicreform is required for technology to beused in a meaningful way, which will al-low students to truly be prepared for therequirements of a twenty first centuryknowledge driven global society.

References

Adulrub, A. G., Attridge, A. A., &Williams, M. A. (2011). Virtual realityin engineering education: the future ofcreative learning. International Journalof Emerging Technologies in Learning,

6 (4), 71 78.

Bach, D. (2012, September/October). Weneed to rethink...everything. BizEd , 1824.

Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talkingback to theory: the missed opportunityin learning technology research. Research in Technology Learning, 19 (3), 179 189.

Bickerstaff, S., & Monroe Ellis, M. (2012,April). Adoption and Adaptation: A

Framework for Instructional Reform. Retrieved December 3, 2012, fromScaling Innovation:http://www.scalinginnovation.org/adoption and adaptation/

Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., &Horn, M. B. (2010). Disrupting class:

how disruptive innovation will change

the way the world learns (2nd ed.).McGraw Hill.

Deresiewicz, W. (2008, Summer). Thedisadvantages of an elite education.

Retrieved November 4, 2012, from TheAmerican Scholar:http://theamericanscholar.org/thedisadvantages of an elite education/

Facer, K. K., & Sandford, R. R. (2010).The next 25 years?: future scenariosand future directions for education andtechnology. Journal of Computer As-sisted Learning, 26 (1), 74 93.doi:10.1111/j.1365 2729.2009.00337.x

Garrison, D. R. (2011). E learning in the21st century: a framework for research

and practice (2nd ed.). New York:Routledge.

Goode, J. (2010, September/October).Mind the gap: the digital dimension ofcollege access. The Journal of Higher Education, 81 (5), 583 618.

Kaku, M. (2012). Physics of the future:how science will shape human destiny

and our daily lives by the year 2100

(1st ed.). New York: Anchor Books.


21/233


THE INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR ANDPSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT ON JOB SATISFACTION

Li-Fen LinInstitute of Business Administration

National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan, R. O. C.g9322806@yuntech. edu.tw

Chun-Chieh Tseng

Southern Taiwan University of Technology, Taiwan, R. O. C.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand the current conditions of campus security workexecutives at Taiwan’s private universities. The study also explores the relationships betweenvarious related factors, including personal background, school background, leadership behav-ior, psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. Through the administration of a ques-tionnaire survey to a random sample of campus security executives, the study determined thatthere is a positive correlation among the three variables of leadership behavior, psychological

empowerment, and job satisfaction. Regression analysis shows that leadership behavior andpsychological empowerment have a significant positive impact on job satisfaction, with psy-chological empowerment showing a stronger impact than leadership behavior.

Key Words: Leadership Behavior, Psychological Empowerment, Job Satisfaction


22/233


Introduction

A university campus belongs to thepublic domain. Every school has a dif-ferent environment, set of demands, qual-ity of staff and funding. The creation of a

good learning environment for students isthe primary focus of school safety issuesnowadays. Therefore, the management ofsecurity on campus and the leadership be-havior associated with it may affect theattitude and cognition of campus safetytask execution staff. This behavior has ahuge impact on the success or failure ofthe work and is one of the motivations ofthe present study. On the other hand, dueto the joining of campus security and crisismanagement personnel, the features of the

campus security organizations in Taiwanhave undergone significant changes.

These changes can lead to the varia-tions in the characteristics of a work envi-ronment, such as uncertainty about, con-flicts in the work, the positioning of rolesand vague communication as well as thepressure placed on employees to avoidlosing their jobs. These are common situ-ations for campus safety task executionstaff, and also produce all kinds of physi-cal and psychological pressure. For thisreason, this research undertakes to explorethe impact of psychological empowermentand job satisfactions on university campussafety task execution staff.

It explores the influence of the cam-pus security executives on leadership be-havior, psychological empowerment and

job satisfaction variables under the diffi-cult situation of maintaining campus secu-

rity. This paper provides the conclusionsand recommendations drawn from thisstudy in the pursuit of maintaining campussafely.

The main purposes of this research areas follows: (i). to understand the perceivedleadership behavior, psychological

empowerment and job satisfaction statusof the campus safety work executives atprivate universities in southern Taiwan (ii)to integrate the findings of the researchand give recommendations to the campussafety task executives and references to

researchers.

Literature Review

Psychological Empowerment

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) de-scribed empowerment using the constructof intrinsic task motivation. They definedpsychological empowerment as a set offour cognitions reflecting an employee’sorientation to his/her role in terms of

meaning, competence, self-determination,and impact. Spreitzer (1995, 1996) subse-quently developed a scale to assess thesefour dimensions. Psychological empow-erment is also defined as a motivationalconstruct that focuses on the cognitions ofthe individual being empowered (Spreit-zer, 1995; Menon, 2001) and has beenshows to play an important role in em-ployees’ attitudes and performance (Tho-mas and Velthouse, 1990; Thomas andTymon, 1994; Fulford and Enz, 1995;Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer, Kizilos andNason, 1997; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999;Koberg, Boss, Senjem and Goodman,1999; Menon, 2001). In sum, psychologi-cal empowerment is defined as a motiva-tional construct manifested in four cogni-tions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact.

Employees can derive significantbenefits from experiences that enhance

their personal awareness of the value oftheir work. These experiences will in-crease employees’ job satisfaction andupgrade their work performance (Koberg,Boss, Senjem & Goodman, 1999). Re-search related to this topic has shown thatemployees' psychological empowermentor feelings of self efficacy will exert posi-tive effects on their job satisfaction


23/233


(Spence-Laschinger et al, 2004; Luthans etal, 2007). Fulford and Enz (1995) exploredthe impact of psychological empowermentactivities on staff members of a club. Theydiscovered that staff members’ awarenessof psychological empowerment exerted a

positive effect on their degree of job satis-faction.

Kirkman and Rosen (1999) studiedthe impact of factors that may affect teampsychological empowerment and psycho-logical empowerment. The results of theirresearch revealed that psychological em-powerment of a team of private employeesincreased job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment and team commitment.Dewettinck et al. (2003) studied the impact

of psychological empowerment on per-formance, organizational commitment, and

job satisfaction. They found that the im-pact of psychological empowerment on jobsatisfaction is most apparent in low-levelemployees. Other scholars have studies theimpact of psychological empowerment on

job satisfaction research (see Bowen et al,1992; Thomas & Tymon, 1994; Fulford &Enz and, 1995; Menom, 1995; Kirkman &Rosen, 1999; Eylon & Bamberger, 2000).These academic studies have shown thatpsychological empowerment can be posi-tively correlated with job satisfaction.Thus, we have devised the first hypothesis:

H1: Psychological empowerment will

positively affect job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction was defined by Locke(1976) as “a pleasure or positive emotional

state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience”. In addition to beingsatisfied or dissatisfied with various spe-cific aspects of a particular job (such aspay, coworkers, leadership, and so on),employees can also have a general affec-tive response to their jobs (Lucas, Babakusand Ingram, 1990; McFarlin and Rice,1992).

Numerous researchers have concurredthat job satisfaction is a consequence ofpsychological empowerment (Thomas andTymon, 1994; Fulford and Enz, 1995;Menon, 1995; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999;

Bishop, 2000; Eylon and Bamberger,2000) and various components of psycho-logical empowerment have been shown tobe particularly associated with job satisfac-tion. These included (i) self efficacy(Liden, Wayne and Sparrowe, 2000;Walumbwa et al., 2003; Carless, 2004);(ii) meaning (Gorn and Kanungo, 1980;Spreitzer et al., 1997; Liden et al., 2000;Sparks and Schenk, 2001; Carless, 2004);(iii) goal internalization (Menon, 1995);and (iv) choice (Spector, 1986).

Leadership Behavior

Leadership behavior has a direct andmatchless impact on the work environ-ment, work outcomes and the success oforganizations (Kritsonis, 2004). Manyprevious studies show that consideration ofleadership behavior is positively related toemployee job satisfaction, while a negativerelationship has been reported between jobsatisfaction and initiation of structure lead-ership behavior (Greene & Schriesheim,1977; House & Filley, 1971). However,other studies have found a negative rela-tionship between consideration of leader-ship behavior of and job satisfaction(Hodge, 1976; Patchen, 1962).

Some studies indicate that both con-sideration and initiation of structure lead-ership behavior are positively related to

job satisfaction (Bartolo & Furlonger,

2000; Katerberg & Horne, 1981; Cristinaet al., 2012). The results of previous stud-ies from different countries show that dif-ferent styles of leadership have differentimpacts on job satisfaction (Stogdill, 1970;Walder, 1995). The importance of leaders’role in influencing employees’ behaviorhave been shown by previous studies (As-gari, Silong, Ahmad and Samah, 2008;


24/233


Bhal, Gulati and Ansari, 2009). Leadershipstyle has been investigated for its relation-ship with various organizational variablessuch as innovative work behavior (Lee,2008) and many more.

A great deal of research has been con-ducted to examine the relationships thatexist between leadership behavior and jobsatisfaction. Many studies have shown thatthe relationship between leadership behav-ior and job satisfaction can be positivelycorrelated (House, Filley & Kerr, 1971;Szilagyi & Keller, 1976; Petty & Bruning,1980; Yousef, 2000). Holdnak, Harsh andBusharadt (1993) found a significant posi-tive correlation between compassionateleadership and job satisfaction. Based on

the results of these previous studies, wedevised the second hypothesis:

H2: Leadership behavior will positively

affect job satisfaction.

Methods

Scope and Object of Study

This study is aimed at campus safetytask executives at private universities inthe southern part of Taiwan, specificallymilitary training instructors and the cam-pus security crisis management staffs. Itincludes eight private universities, atwhich military training instructors andcampus security crisis management per-sonnel are used as sampling.

The sample size of the study issued atotal of 120 questionnaires. The majorsampling subjects contain two levels of the

military training instructors and schoolsafety and crisis management personnel.And 88 questionnaires were received. Af-ter discounting invalid questionnaires,there were 84 valid questionnaires. Theeffective recovery rate was 70%.

In this study, using the analysis toolstatistical software SPSS (Statistical Pack-

age for the Social Science). Analysismethods include reliability and validityanalyses, Pearson correlation analysis,hierarchical regression analysis and so on.

Operational Definition Of The

Study Variables

Leadership Behavior.

As to the operational definition ofleadership behavior, this study adoptsBass’s (1990) term “transformational lead-ership”, which is defined as the uniquerelationship between leaders and subordi-nates and which explains why the individ-ual, team or large organization has an un-expected performance (Burn, 1978; House,

1977). Therefore, this study measures pri-vate university campus safety task execu-tives’ degree of the consent to the leader-ship behavior of theirs supervisor, includ-ing Dean of Student Affairs or Directors ofMilitary Education Office.

The leadership behavior scale in thisstudy is applied using the research toolsfrom Cheng Yen-Mei’s (2003) empiricalstudy, which is based on the MLQ Scalecreated by Bass and Avolio (1994). Thescale was partially revised by the research-ers for research purposes, includingchanges to campus security features andmeasurements of certain characteristics. Italso extracts factors dimensions throughthe principal component factor analyticapproach. After analysis, the data is di-vided into the three dimensions: stimula-tion pattern leadership, charismatic patternleadership, and consideration pattern lead-ership.

Psychological Empowerment .

Spreitzer (1995) asserts that psycho-logical empowerment is a task motivationthat can increase the intrinsic part of theindividual. Through personal evaluationand cognition of task significance, it en-ables individuals to take the initiative to


25/233


complete the organization's objectives. Itaims to stimulate the intrinsic motivationof personnel, prompting the use of one’sabilities and elevating one’s willingness toserve the unit. Psychological empower-ment is a concept that can give members

of the unit power, freedom and informa-tion for decision making and participationin organizational affairs.

This study refers to the concept ofpsychological empowerment proposed bySpreitzer (1995) who adopted the theory ofThomas and Velthouse (1990). From thepoint of view of management psychology,the present research sums up the view ofthe literature by conducting a psychologi-cal empowerment questionnaire with cam-

pus security work execution staff. Thestudy is divided into four dimensions: im-pact, self-determination, competence, andmeaning. The significance of its opera-tional definition is as follows:

（ i） Impact: The degree of influence thatan individual has on the direct work envi-ronment.

（ ii ） Self-determination: The degree of

influence that an individual has on how the job can be performed.

(iii) Competence: The extent to which anindividual feels confident about his/hercapability of performing the task.

(iv) Meaning: The extent to which anindividual experiences a task to be person-ally meaningful.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction refers to workers whocan balance satisfaction and dissatisfactionto from collective satisfaction. This studyrefers to the concept introduced by WuChing-Chi and Liao Suhua (1978), whoadopted the notion of the Minnesota Satis-faction Questionnaire (MSQ), a 20questionscale compiled by Weiss, Davis, English

and Lofgurist (1967). The questionnaireencompasses five satisfaction factors:spirit, material, ability, service and leader-ship. The operational definition of eachdimension is as follows:

(1.) Spirit satisfaction refers to the devel-opment of the work and the satisfactiongained from appreciation won by workperformance.

(2.) Material satisfaction refers to salary,income and material rewards.

(3.) Ability satisfaction refers to the degreeof control and expertise that employeeshave in their work, including the moralvalue of the work itself.

(4.) Service satisfaction refers to the satis-faction in customer service, including theopportunities present by the work itself,and the satisfaction of being evaluated.

(5.) Leadership satisfaction refers to theability to be a leader in one’s work and thestrength of one’s guiding ability. Afterdesigning and measuring the characteris-tics of the campus security organization,the researchers consolidated these factorsinto three dimensions: (i) opportunity andmaterial satisfaction (ii) service and spiritsatisfaction and (iii) leadership satisfac-tion.

Results and Discussion

Reliability and Validity Analyses

After a factor analysis was conducted,a reliability analysis was carried out in

order to understand the reliability and va-lidity of the research questionnaire. Reli-ability refers to the consistency and stabil-ity of the test results. A high reliabilitycoefficient represents the high stability andreliability of the test, and anticipates moreconsistent results. Yang Shiying (2007)points out that in the practice of the SPSSstatistical analysis, if Cronbach’s alpha


26/233


coefficient is higher than 0. 7, the reliabil-ity has a fairly good consistency. In thisstudy, the reliability analysis results of thequestionnaire are as follows: Cronbach’salpha for the research variables leadershipbehavior, psychological empowerment,

and job satisfaction and relevant dimen-sions were higher than 0. 721, which indi-cates that the scale has good reliability,and convergent validity dimensions weregreater than 50% showing that the attrib-utes of this research questionnaire arewithin a reasonable range.

Pearson Correlation Analysis

In order to further test the degree ofcorrelation between the research variables

and the validity dimensions, this researchexamines leadership behavior, psychologi-cal empowerment, and job satisfactionthrough person correlation coefficient sta-tistical methods, in order to observewhether or not there is a significant posi-tive correlation existing between the threevariables. The correlation coefficient ofleadership behavior and psychologicalempowerment is 0. 246; the correlationcoefficient of leadership behavior and jobsatisfaction is 0. 522; and the correlationcoefficient of psychological empowermentand job satisfaction is 0. 739. There is avisible positive correlation between thethree variables. The intensity of the corre-lation of psychological empowerment and

job satisfaction is the strongest with aPearson correlation coefficient of 0. 739.Hence the higher the identity to psycho-logical empowerment of the campus secu-rity work executive, the higher the inten-sity of his/her job satisfaction.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

This study investigates the impact ofthe aforementioned research variables on

job satisfaction through a hierarchical re-gression analysis using the following mod-els.

Model 1. posits leader ship behavior asthe independent variables and job satisfac-tion as the dependent variable, and findsthat leadership behavior has a very signifi-cant impact on job satisfaction. (B = 0.170, p


27/233


work executives due to the differences incurrent position school history, maritalstatus, age, education, years of service,main business, monthly salary, number ofstaff, and number of student. Third, thereare significant differences in the cognition

of job satisfaction among campus securitywork executives due to the difference incurrent positions school history and yearsof service. There are also no significantdifferences in the cognition of job satisfac-tion among campus security work execu-tives due to the differences in gender,marital status, age, education, main busi-ness, monthly salary, number of staff, andnumber of student, In addition, leadershipbehavior and psychological empowermentappear to have a significant positive im-

pact on job satisfaction of the campus se-curity executives examined in this re-search.

Regarding psychological empower-ment, the study reveals that there is a sig-nificant negative impact of the two dimen-sions of competence and meaning and thatthere is a difference between perceptionand reality of campus security work execu-tives, specially regarding the conditions ofthe operation of mechanical organizationand militarized management behavior.

Finally, there are significant differ-ences in the cognition of leadership behav-ior, psychological empowerment and jobsatisfaction in different leadership behav-ior cluster. There are more significant dif-ferences between the high recognition ofleadership behavior and diverse variablesthan between middle and the low recogni-tion. On campus security managerial im-

plications, the higher recognition of aleadership behavior cluster yields has ahigher cognition in the factors of leader-ship behavior, psychological empower-ment and job satisfaction.

There can be a number of possibleimplications for Taiwan school campussecurity work executives from this study.

School managers need to realize the im-pact of leadership behavior and psychol-ogy empowerment can influence theirschool campus security work executives '

job satisfaction in the workplace. In otherbusiness organization managers, may be

through their leadership behavior actions,help to create psychology empowermentfor their employees to be motivated, thereby would result in high job satisfactionwhich, in turn, can contribute to higherproductivity, gain competitive advantage.

The results of this study suggest thatschool campus security work executivesand managers can increase the level ofemployees’ job satisfaction through aleadership behavior and strong psychology

empowerment.

References

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A. &Samah, B. A. (2008). The Relation-ship Between Leader-Member Ex-change, Organizational Inflexibility,Perceived Organizational Support, In-teractional Justice and OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior, African Journalof Business Management, 2(8), 138 –145.

Bartolo, K. and Furlonger B. (2000).Leadership and job satisfactionamong aviation fire fighters in Aus-tralia. Journal of Managerial Psychol-ogy, 15:8797.

Bhal, K. T., Gulati, N. & Ansari, M. A.(2009). Leader-Member Exchange

and Subordinate Outcomes: Test of aMediation Model, Leadership & Or-ganizational Development Journal,30(2), 106 – 125.

Bishop, K. (2000). Understanding Em-ployee Empowerment in the Work-place: Exploring the Relationship Be-tween Transformational Leadership,


28/233


Employee Perceptions of Empower-ment, and Key Work Outcomes, un-published PhD Thesis, University ofClaremont, California, UMI number:9984244.

Bowen, D. E. ＆ Lawler, E. E. 1992. Theempowerment of service workers:What, why, how, and when, SloanManagement Review, 33（ 3） , 31 –39.

Carless, S. A. (2004). Does PsychologicalEmpowerment Mediate the Relation-ship Between Psychological Climateand Job Satisfaction? Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 18, 4, 405–425.

Cristina G. G., Safiah R., Ruswiati, S., Ari,W., Kristy, A. G. R. and Haim H. A.（ 2012 ） . Fostering Niches amongSMEs in Malaysia through Organiza-tional Commitment, Leadership, Or-ganizational Culture and Job Satisfac-tion. Journal of Innovation Manage-ment in Small & Medium Enterprises,2012, 112. doi: 10. 5171/2012.511352

Eylon, D.＆

Bamberger, P. 2000. Em-powerment Cognitions and Empow-erment Acts ： Recognizing The Im-portance of Gender, Group ＆ Or-ganization Management, 25 （ 4） ,354372.

Fulford, M. D. & Enz, C. A. 1995. Theimpact of empowerment on serviceEmployees, Journal of Managerial Is-

sues, 7（

2), 161175.Gorn, G. J., and Kanungo, R. N. (1980),

‘Job Involvement and Motivation:Are Intrinsically Motivated ManagersMore Job Involved?’ OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance,26, 265–277.

House, R. J., and Filley, A. C. (1971) Re-lation of leader consideration and ini-tiating structure to R&D subordi-nates’ satisfaction. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 16:1930.

Kirkman, B., and Rosen, B. (1999), ‘Be-yond Self management: Antecedentsand Consequences of Team Empow-erment,’ Academy of ManagementJournal, 24, 1, 58–74.

Kritsonis, A. (2004). Leadership in organi-zations: National implications. Inter-national Journal of Scholarly Aca-demic Intellectual Diversity, 8:18.

Koberg, C., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C.,

and Goodman, E. (1999), ‘Antece-dents and Outcomes of Empower-ment,’ Group & Organization Man-agement, 24, 1, 71–91.

Lee, J. (2008). Effects of Leadership andLeader-Member Exchange on Innova-tiveness Journal of Managerial Psy-chology, 23(6), 670 – 687.

Liden, R., Wayne, S., and Sparrowe, R. T.(2000). An Examination of the Medi-ating Role of Psychological Empow-erment on the Relations Between theJob, Interpersonal Relationships andWork Outcomes. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85, 3, 407–416.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature andCauses of Job Satisfaction, in Hand-book of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, ed. M. D. Dunnette, Chi-cago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 1297–

1350.Lucas, G. H., Babakus, E., and Ingram, T.

N. (1990). An Empirical Test of theJob Satisfaction turnover Relation-ship. Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science, 18, 199–209.


29/233


McFarlin, D. B., and Rice, R. W. (1992).The Role of Facet Importance as aModerator in Job Satisfaction Proc-esses. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 13, 41–54.

Menom, S. T. 1995. Employee Empower-ment Definition, Measurement andConstruct validation, unpublishedPhD Dissertation, McGill University.

Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee Empow-erment: An Integrative PsychologicalApproach. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 50, 1, 153–180.

Sparks, J. R., and Schenk, A. (2001). Ex-plaining the Effects of Transforma-

tional Leadership: An Investigation ofthe Effects of Higher order Motivesin Multilevel Marketing Organiza-tions. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 22, 849–869.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived Controlby Employees: A Meta-analysis ofStudies Concerning Autonomy andParticipation at Work. Human Rela-tions, 39, 11, 119–127.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). PsychologicalEmpowerment in the Workplace:Dimensions, Measurement and Vali-dation. Academy of ManagementJournal, 38(5): 14421465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996), Social StructuralLevers for Workplace Empowerment.Academy of Management Journal,32(2): 483504.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., and Na-son, S. W. (1997). A DimensionalAnalysis of the Relations BetweenPsychological Empowerment and Ef-fectiveness, Satisfaction and Strain.Journal of Management, 23, 679–704.

Thomas, K. W. and Velthouse, B. A.(1990). Cognitive Elements of Em-

powerment. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 15: 666681.

Thomas, K. W., and Tymon, W. G. (1994).Does Empowerment Always Work:Understanding the Role of Intrinsic

Motivation and Personal Interpreta-tion. Journal of Management Sys-tems, 6, 3, 1–13.

Walder, S. (1995). China's transitionaleconomy, interpreting its signifi-cance, The China Quarterly, 144,96380. doi:10.1017/S0305741000004689.

Walumbwa FO, Lawler J. J. (2003). Build-ing effective organizations: transfor-

mational leadership, collectivist ori-entation, work related attitudes andwithdrawal behavior in three emerg-ing economies. International Journalof Human. Resource Management.14:1083–101.


30/233


A CASE STUDY ON THE MODEL OF STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Hung-Jung ChangDepartment of Electronic Commerce

TransWorld University, Taiwan [email protected]

Hsien-Bin Wang*Department of Business Administration,TransWorld University, Taiwan R.O.C.

*(Corresponding Author) [email protected]

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the contents of strategic entrepreneurship with a case study on GiantManufacturing Co., Ltd, a leader in the Taiwanese bicycle industry. The research structure wasbased on the framework developed by Ireland et al. (2003). The researching findings suggestedfive key issues of strategic entrepreneurship: (1) an entrepreneurial mindset consisted of entre-preneurship opportunity recognition, entrepreneur awareness and actual decisions; (2) an entre-preneur culture and leadership involved three stages of global deployments and group leadership;(3) decision-making resources management included the establishment of barriers to imitationsand the construction of value chains, sports marketing, and A-Team success factors with maxi-mum differentiation; (4) creativity, development, and innovations encompassed three spirits of“globalocalization” management: five convictions, four branding personalities, fault toleranceand learning; (5) competitive advantages comprised of strong branding, comprehensive productlines, global marketing networks, branding advantages, and the building of the “GIANT way”.

Key Words: Strategic Entrepreneurship, Corporate Entrepreneurship, EntrepreneurialOrientation


31/233


Introduction

Recent studies suggest that strategicmanagement and entrepreneurship should be

studied together and hence the research onstrategic entrepreneurship emerged (Choi &Shepherd, 2004; Companys & McMullen,2007; Covin & Miles, 2007; Hitt, 2005;Luke, 2008). This is also due to the effectsof discussions of corporate entrepreneurship,corporate ventures, entrepreneurial postureand entrepreneurial orientation (Luke, 2008).

Entrepreneur models are a new topic.Some scholars think it is the coordination,balanced development, and workings of in-dividual factors (Hitt and Ireland (2000),Ireland et al. (2001), Luke and Verreynne(2006), Wickham (2006)). Others have ar-gued that it is the existence and influence ofsome primary factors, and interactions withsecondary factors, and, ultimately, they af-fect entrepreneur outcomes (Eisenhardt et al. (2000), Ireland et al. (2003), Ireland andWebb (2007), Zahra and George et al. (2002)). However, these studies on strategicentrepreneurship only present the discus-sions of conceptual frameworks withoutempirical evidence. Such an academic gap isthe motivation of this study.

Giant Manufacturing, since inception in1972, has been operating with the philoso-phy of “Branding globally, marketing lo-cally”. It is now a synonym of internationalfashion and state-of-the-art technology. Gi-ant Manufacturing is one of the largest pro-ducer and marketer of bicycles in the world.Its marketing channels extend throughoutover 50 countries on five continents, withthe number of distributors exceeding 10,000.Its entrepreneur history and strategies overthe past four decades are a topic worthy ofattention.

The main purpose of this study was toanalyse Manufacturing in Taiwan in a casestudy, aiming to gain an understanding ofthe processes and details of its strategic en-

trepreneurship.Literature Review

Background of Strategy and

Entrepreneurship

The fusion or cross-over of entrepre-neurship and strategic management (Luke,2008) can be generalized into three points,i.e. interface, integration, and contents. Interms of the interface, there is a cross-overand interaction between entrepreneurshipand strategic management as two independ-ent research domains. As far as the integra-tion is concerned, entrepreneurship and stra-tegic management share certain elements,research contents, and management goals.Regarding the contents, strategic manage-ment contains entrepreneurial managementand administrative management, and entre-preneurial management is the future focus ofstrategic management studies.

Definition of Strategic Entrepreneurship

Strategic entrepreneurship is a strategicperspective of entrepreneurial activities. It isalso a strategic activity with an entrepreneu-rial mindset. Entrepreneurship managementemphasizes innovations, creativity, and op-portunity seeking. Strategic managementfocuses on the establishment of competitiveadvantages for an organization. Entrepreneu-rial activities are the identification and pur-suit of the opportunities competitors fail tospot or capture. They are explorative in na-ture and aiming to establish future competi-tive advantages. Strategic activities are thedevelopment and exploitation of existingcompetitive advantages for entrepreneurialactivities. Hence, strategic entrepreneurshipis the combination of entrepreneurial oppor-


32/233


tunity seeking and strategic advantage seek-ing to pursue competitive advantage andwealth creation. In other words, strategicentrepreneurship is the process of explora-tory and development activities in growth

seeking and wealth creation (Choi & Shep-herd, 2004; Ireland & Wedd, 2007; Luke,2008; Steffens, Davidsson, & Fitzsimmons,2009).

Strategic Entrepreneurship Models

Entrepreneurship models can be classi-fied into two categories, i.e. the contentmodel for strategic entrepreneurship and theprocess model for strategic entrepreneurship.The content model for strategic entrepre-neurship mainly deals with coordination,balanced development, and workings of in-dividual factors (Hitt and Ireland (2000),Ireland et al. (2001), Luke and Verreynne(2006), Wickham (2006)). In contrast, dif-ferent factors in the process model for stra-tegic entrepreneurship are no longer aboutbalance and coordination. Rather, this modelargues that a certain factor is domineering inthe relationship about other factors. In otherwords, this major element affects the pres-ence and interactions of other factors andultimately affects entrep

International Journal of Organizational Innovation Final Issue Vol 5 Num 4 April 2013

Documents

Transcript of International Journal of Organizational Innovation Final Issue Vol 5 Num 4 April 2013