PROFIL PENULIS Nama : Dr. Joseph Philip Kambey MBA Alamat : Airmadidi, Minahasa Utara Pekerjaan : Dosen Alamat pekerjaan : Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Negeri Manado Telp/HP : 0811436750 Nama : Nikolas F. Wuryaningrat SE., M.Sc. Alamat : Walian I, Tomohon Pekerjaan : Dosen Alamat Pekerjaan : Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Negeri Manado Telp/HP : 085299844243 1
36
Embed
icebuss.orgicebuss.org/paper/199.docx · Web viewFirm inovation capability is depend on knowledge resources. Knowledge sharing is an important part in knowledge management to optimize
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
PROFIL PENULIS
Nama : Dr. Joseph Philip Kambey MBAAlamat : Airmadidi, Minahasa UtaraPekerjaan : DosenAlamat pekerjaan : Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Negeri ManadoTelp/HP : 0811436750
Nama : Nikolas F. Wuryaningrat SE., M.Sc.Alamat : Walian I, TomohonPekerjaan : DosenAlamat Pekerjaan : Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Negeri ManadoTelp/HP : 085299844243
EXAMINING LEADERSHIP AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING ROLE ON SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES INNOVATION CAPABILITIES
1
Joseph P. KambeyNikolas F. Wuryaningrat
Faculty of Economics, Manado State University (UNIMA)
Abstract:Firm inovation capability is depend on knowledge resources. Knowledge sharing is an
important part in knowledge management to optimize firm knowledge resources. However knowledge sharing can not happen automatically. Leadership factor is an important factor to encourage knowledge sharing.
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of transformational and transactional leadership of the owner SMEs to encourage knowledge sharing activity which in turn this activity could enhance innovation capability. The survey was conducted in the SME production sector in Province of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. 176 samples were succeed to collect. Data were analyzed with Structural Equation Model based on variants which is PLS-SEM.
The result showed that only transformational leadership had a positive effect to encourage knowledge sharing. Then result showed that knowledge donating had the positive effect to enhanced innovation capability, surprisingly knowledge collecting found had a negative effect to innovation capability.
Table 3. show all research contruct posses discriminat validity because AVE square root
score bigger than corelation laten variable. It mean every construct distinct than other construct.
Before testing hypothesis this study also conduct R-square (R²) score as can seen at table 4.
Table 4. Model Prediction
Variabel Nilai R SquareInnovation capabilities (INOV)Knowledge collecting (KC)Knowledge donating (KD)
0,0460,1750,358
Sumber: Data primer diolah (2011)
At table 5 can be seen that inovation capabilities of SME production sector at Province
of North Sulawesi response by knowledge donating and collecting only 4,6% whereas others
explain by other variable or factor. It mean even knowledge sharing important to increase
14
innovation capabilites, but at SMEs at Province of North Sulawesi it’s may not main concern yet.
Whole variable knowledge sharing (KC+KD) influenced by leadership style the owner of SME
by 53.3% others explain by other factor. It means leadership styles are important factor to
influencing knowledge sharing.
Critical ratio (CR) 1.960 two tailed score used to seen hypothesis significant or not (for
level of confidence 95%). If CR score above 1,960 two tailed and it’s positive than can conclude
hypothesis supported and otherwise. The result can be seen at table 6.
Table 6. Hypothesis esting
Hipotesis Hubungan Koefisien S.E C.R KeteranganH1aH1bH2aH2bH3H4aH4b
TRF KCTRF KDTRX KCTRX KDKC KD
KD INOVKC INOV
0,4230,223-0,0060,0280,4550,238-0,217
0,0850,0780,0980,0880,0580,1130,116
4,9412,8620,0660,3217,7412,1041,766
SupportedSupported
UnsupportedUnsupported
SupportedSupported
Unsupported Ket : * sig. Pada 5%
TRF:kepemimpinan transformasional TRX: kepemimpinan transaksional, KC:mengumpulkan pengetahuan, KD:mendonasikan pengetahuanSumber: Data primer diolah (2011)
According to table above this study conclude that hypothesis one (1a dan 1b) accepted.
Whereas hypothesis two (2a and 2b) not accepted. Than hypothesis three accepted. Last
hypothesis four (4a) accepted but hypothesis 4b couldn’t accepted because there is no significant
negative influence knowledge collecting on inovation capabilities.
DISCUSSION
The research result showed that transformational leadership made positive influence to
encourage knowledge sharing. These result same as previous study. Bass (2003), and Yukl
(2006) reveal that transformational leadership more effective than transactional leadership.
15
According to Gorelick et al. (2004) leader who had charismatic, strong vision, powerfull, role
model or simbolic, passion and had strong faith is a good leader to develop and manage
organization knowledge resources. That characteristics were suitable with transformational
leadership.
The result also confirmed Bryant (2003) study. Bryant (2003) revealed that
transformational leadership have positive effect to influence knowledge sharing activity. Not
only that the result also confirmed that leadership especially transformational leadership can
influencing organization life and human from every aspect and organization behavior (Tepper
2000; Northouse, 1997).
Leadership transformational is a form of emotional relationship between supervisor and
subordinate (Deluga, 1990). Hence the connection between the owner of SME and the
employees may build from emotional relationship. Emotional relationships could be good for
willingness to open employee attitude and behavior to share knowledge (see Xue et al., 2011).
Other wise transactional leadership could not made real impact to knowledge sharing.
Predominantly SMEs production sector at Province of North Sulawesi located at village and they
hired most their employee from their village too (see table 1.). That found made posible to build
emotional relationship between employee and their boss. Research found made posible to form a
strong emotional bond between employer and employee because usually familyhood and
friendshipties (silahturahmi) at rural areas is relative still strong. Hence reward and punishment
approach apparently not the right approach to applied in SMEs production sector at Province of
North Sulawesi.
Kohn (1993) reveal that there is corelation between reward and punishment. Kohn (1993)
said that reward hope made by management could be the other form of punishment, because it
16
may difficult to distinguish itself for employee to realize being punish or not if they fail to obtain
working target. Kohn (1993) also reveal that reward could be damage the relationship that has
been built by creating unhealthy competition among employees. Hence transactional leadership
style that emphasizes reward and punishment could be disconnected the relationship between
superior and subordinate who also villager.
Hypothesis three was support it mean this study gave empirical evidence that proof the
owner or manager of SMEs can feel with knowledge collecting his employees willing to donate
knowledge. To have a new knowledge manager need to build intensive and understanding
communication between manager and subordinate and other individuals involved in
organization. Through this closeness can make employees or other individuals involved in
the organization to open itself and become more willing to share knowledge. This founding
accordance to Hoof dan Ridder (2004) that reveals knowledge collecting can encourage people
willingness to knowledge donating.
Next we discuss about hypothesis four (4a and 4b). The research founding gave empirical
evidence that knowledge donating make positive influence to SMEs innovation capabilities.
Vries et al. (2006) revealed that individuals who are willing to donate their knowledge are the
individuals who had desire to recognize by another person. This research indicated that the actor
of SMEs production sector could be had enough attitude, behavior and passion to open about
their knowledge. Which in turn from their attitude, behavior and passion indicated new
knowledge could be easier to transform on innovation capabilities. (Liao et al., 2007).
Surprising and unexpected result occur when research result showed knowledge
collecting gives a negative effect on the innovation capabilities (even there is no empirical
evidence). The reason based on the concept of innovation funnel (Clark dan Wheelright, 1992)
17
that might explained these findings, The concept assume that the amount of knowledge,
information and ideas will make a person confused and difficult to determine where the relevant
knowledge to deliver as innovation. With knowledge collecting the owner/manager of SMEs
could collected knowledge from many source including their employees, supplier and consumen.
However the knowledge gained could cause its own difficulties. Form of these difficulties are
confusion or difficulty in choosing or absorp relevant knowledge that can be used to make
innovation.
SMEs are the business sector which has many shortage such as lack education level, lack
of capital and lack of technology used. That shortage probably be cause of knowledge were
created could not absorb well. Liao et al. (2007) said that lack of education level will cause lack
of knowledge absorptive capacity too. Beside that SMEs production sector usually work based
on order. This matter perhaps gave conseqences plan to innovate weakened because of many
diferent suggestion were made by consumen.
CONCLUSION
This study proved the transformational leadership style has a positive effect on
knowledge sharing activities. From the results of this study can be summarized in the SME
production sector at Province of North Sulawesi transformational leadership style plays an
important role as compared to transactional leadership in developing knowledge sharing
activities. Through transformational leadership style of SME owner or manager of the production
sector at Province of North Sulawesi were able to encourage the involvement of employees to
work together to make SMEs more innovative. Nurture, educate and guide, motivator and as a
18
role model is characteristic of transformational leadership which can be used owners or
managers of SMEs to encourage attitudes and behaviors and motivation to share knowledge.
Based on this research can be concluded that knowledge-sharing activities require good
communication and intense. Fabric of this communication is intended to rate the closeness
between the owner and employees better. Through this closeness than originally expected are
covered individuals may be more open to knowledge. Knowledge sharing is an important
element in knowledge management (Srivastava, 2006). The results of this study provide
empirical evidence that the dimensions of knowledge sharing that is donating a positive effect on
the innovation capabilities, while the dimensions knowledge collecting gives a negative impact
on innovation capability. From these results it can be concluded that the activity donated an
important role in increasing innovation capability. While the gathering of knowledge can be used
as a booster to increase the knowledge donating activity
Negative influence the activity of collecting knowledge on the ability of innovation may
be caused by the difficulty of the SME to absorb knowledge. This is probably due to a lack of
qualified human resources factor, the less capital, and technology used are lacking. This is to
advise the various parties such as government to enhance its role to enhance the innovation
capabilities of SMEs.
This research has succeed to answer research goals. From the results of this study can be
known leadership owners or managers of SMEs play important role to encourage the creation of
knowledge-sharing activities. Then an outline of knowledge sharing activities can also generate
new knowledge that can be used by SMEs to increasing innovation capabilities.
Based on the results of this study are expected development of the SME business world,
may be a reflection of the owner or manager to further strengthen its leadership role. It is
19
intended to make efforts to develop SMEs through the fabric of better cooperation with
employees and all elements of the business. From that cooperation are expected to share
knowledge can be maintained in order to keep popping up information, new ideas, new skills,
which in turn makes SMEs more innovative.
This study if compare to Wuryaningrat (2012) study; we can conclude there is no
different result between this study. The possible reason to explain why both research had same
result because of SMEs characteristic is general same, even there were different culture. The
other word, culture perhaps not the important issued based on research context.
LIMITATION AND SUGGESTION
Cross sectional survey method could justifable as a research limitation. Leadership is
changeable through time, next research can consider longitudinal survey research method.
This research use subjective perspective from the owner of SME which could make
potencial bias. Objectivity can consider in next research. For example to measure innovation
based by patent can consider.
Next research can consider to include absorbtive capacity, personality, and person
organization fit to find a better understanding about how innovation can be increase through
knowledge sharing. That variables can be justified as moderating variables or mediating
variables.
REFERENCE
Acs, Z.J., R. Morck, J.M. Shaver and B. Yeung, (1997)’ The Internationalization of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Policy Perspective’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 7–20.
Appleyard, M.M. (1996) ’How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the semiconductor industry’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 17, winter: 137-154
20
Argote, L., B. McEvily, and R. Reagans, (2003), ‘Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes’, Management Science, Vol.49 No.4, pp: 571-82.
Ayyagari, M., (2006), ‘Micro and small enterprises: unexplored pathways to growth’. USAID working paper. The Iris Center, University of Maryland,
Bagozzi, R.P., and U.M. Dholakia, (2002), ‘Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16, No.2, pp:2–21.
Barney, J., (1991),’Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of ManagementI’. Vol.17, No.1, pp:99-120.
Bartol, K.M. and A. Srivastava, (2002), ‘Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward system’, Journal of Leadership and Organizations Studies, Vol. 9, No.1, pp:64-76.
Bass, B.M., B.J., Avolio, D.I., Jung, and Y. Berson, (2003), Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No.2, pp:207-218.
Bock, G.W. and Y. Kim, (2002), ‘Breaking the myth of reward: an exploratory study of attitude about knowledge sharing’, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp:14-21.
Bryant, S.E., (2003), ‘The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing, and exploiting knowledge’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp:32-44.
Clark, K.B.& Wheelwright, S.C, (1992), Managing New Product and Process Development. New York: Free Press.
Cooper, D.R., and P.S. Schindler, (2010), Business Research Methods, 10th Edition. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Covin, J.G., and M.P. Miles, (1999), ‘Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Competitive Advantage’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 23: pp:105-120.
Crawford, C.B., (2005), ‘Effects of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Position on Knowledge Management’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9: No.6 pp:6-16.
Dalkir, K., (2005), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Oxford, UK: Burlington, MA.
Damanpour, F., (1996), ‘Organizational complexicity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models’, Management science., Vol. 42, No.5 1422-1433
Darroch, J., (2005), Knowledge Management, innovation, and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, No.3, pp:101-115.
Davenport, T.H. and L. Prusak, (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Deluga, R.J., (1990), ‘The effect of transformational, transactional and laissez faire leadership on subordinate influencing behavior’. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 11, No.2, pp.191-203.
Du Plessis, M., (2007), ‘The role of knowledge management in innovation’, Journal of Knowledge Management’, Vol. 11 No.4, pp:20-29.
Dyer, J.H, and K. Nobeoka, (2000), ‘Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge sharing network: The Toyota case’, Strategic Management Journal Vol. 21 No. 3, pp:345–368.
21
Gorelick, C., N. Milton, and K. Apri, (2004), Performance Through Learning: Knowledge Management in Practice. USA: Elesevier
Grant, R.M., (1996), ‘Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal , Vol.17, winter, pp:109-122.
Hair, J.F, M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, and J.A. Mena, (2011), ‘An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research’, Journal of Academic of Marketing Science, Vol. 10, pp: 1-20.
Hair, J.F., A.R.L., Tatham, and W.C., Black, (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: Global Perspective, 7th edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Harrison, N., and D. Samson, (2002), Technology Management, New York, McGraw Hill. Indarti, N, (2010), The Effect of Knowledge Stickiness and Interaction on Absorptive Capacity:
Evidence from furniture and software Small and Medium Enterprises in Indonesia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherland.
Johannessen, J.A., B. Olsen, and G.T. Lumpkin, (2001), Innovation as newness: What is new, how new, and new to whom?, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No1, pp. 20-31.
Kamasak, R., and F. Bulutlar, (2010), The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation, European Business Review, Vol.22 No. 3, pp.306-317.
Kluge, J., Stein, W. and Licht, T. (2001), ‘Knowledge Unplugged’, Bath Press, Bath.Koh, W.L., R.M. Steers and J.R. Terborg, (1995), ‘The Effect of transformational leadership on
teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.16 No. 4, pp.319-333.
Kohn, A., (1993), ‘Why Incentives Plans Cannot Work’, Harvard Bussiness Review, Sept-Oct, pp. 54-63.
Lam, A., and J.P., Lambermont-Ford, (2010), ‘Knowledge sharing in organizational contexts: a motivation-based perspective’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14, No. 1 pp. 51-66.
Liao, S., W.C. Fei, and C.C. Chen, (2007), ‘Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability: an empirical study of Taiwan’s knowledge intensive industries’, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.340-359.
Lin, H., (2007), ‘Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study’, Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 315-332.
March, J.G., (1991), ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science Vol. 2 No. 1, pp.71-87.
Mintzberg, H, (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row. Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi, (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.Nonaka, I., G. Von Krogh and S. Voelpel, (2006), ‘Organizational knowledge creation theory:
evolutionary paths and future advances’, Organization Studies, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp.179-208.Northouse, P.G., (1997), Leadership: Theory and Practices. Sage Publication, USA.Pelham, A.M., (2000), ‘Marketing orientation and other potential influences on performance in
small and medium-sized manufacturing firms’ Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 48-67.
Pirich, A., S. Knuckey, and J. Campbell, (2001), An interface between entrepreneurship and innovation: New Zealand SMEs perspective, DRUID Nelson and Winter Conference.
22
Politis, J.D., (2004), ‘Transformational and transactional leadership predictors of the ‘Stimulant’ determinants to creativity in organisational work environments’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.23-34.
Robbins, S.P., (2001), Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall International, Inc.Rogers, E.M, (2003), Diffusion of innovations, New York: Free Press.Singh, S.K., (2008), ‘Role of leadership in knowledge management’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 12, No.4, pp. 3-15Srivastava, A., K.M. Bartol, and E.A. Locke, (2006), Empowering leadership in management
teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. pp. 1239–1251
Sveiby, K., (2001), ‘A knowledge based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation’, Journal of Intelectual Capital, Vol. 2, Iss. 4, pp. 344-358.
Szulanski, G., (1996), ‘Exploring internal stickness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17, winter, pp. 27-43.
Szulanski, G, (2000), ‘The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp.9-27.
Tepper, B., (2000), ‘Consequences of abusive supervision’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp.178−190.
Tidd, J. and J. Bessant, K.. (2005), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Tsai, W., (2001), ‘Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational network: Effect of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp.996-1004.
Van den Hooff, B. and J.A. de Ridder., (2004), ‘Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.8 No. 6, pp 117-30.
Vries, R.E., B. Van de Hooff, and J.A. de Ridder, (2006), ‘Explaining Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Communiction Styles, Job Satisfaction, and Performance Belief’, Communication Research, Vol. 33 No.2, pp.115-135.
Wiklund, J. and D. Shepherd., (2003), Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 13, pp. 1307-1314.
Xue, Y., J. Bradley and H. Liang., (2011), ‘Team Climate, Empowering leadership, and Knowledge Sharing’. Journal Of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 299-312.
Yeh, C.M., H.N. Hu and S.H. Tsai, (2010), ‘A Conceptual Model of Knowledge Sharing and Market Orientation in the Tourism Sector’, American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol.8 No. 2, pp. 343-347.
Yukl, G., (2006), ‘Leadership in Organizations, 6th edition. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.