Table1shows the descriptive statistics and correlations for the main variables.
As shown in Table1, the following hypotheses are confirmed based on correla- tion analysis: H1a, H2a, H2b, H3a, and H4a. H4b receives partial support, as knowledge leaking is diminished in relation to HRK practices. Hypotheses H1b and H3b were not confirmed. Knowledge sharing is therefore a central tenet for the design of HR practices (especially those for personal development and recruit- ment), but at the same time, these very same practices do not take into account the need to protect knowledge. Yet, on the other hand, when HR-related measures are directly considered from an information protection point of view, then knowledge leaking can be affected.
These results were complemented by a set of multiple regressions. Four multiple regression analyses were run (one for each dependent variable), after checking for regression assumptions and outliers (co-linearity diagnoses, normality check, out- liers identification and elimination, and homoscedasticity). Several regression models were tested until all the assumptions were met. Table 2 shows the final regression results obtained for all the hypotheses.
The regression analyses suggest that personnel development and recruitment can explain knowledge sharing when all studied HRM practices are accounted for, whereas others do not have such a great power. Knowledge leaving and leaking are not affected by HRM practices. The HRM function is traditionally a system which is designed to manage people’s perceptions and their interpretations and behaviors, within a more-or-less established philosophical basis, in which knowledge should circulate amongst employees. Conversely, it is not designed to promote secrecy,
Table1Descriptivestatisticsandcorrelations NMeanSD
H1H2H3H4 LeaveLeakPD&RC&AC&IHRK PD&R1454.300.98 C&A1454.390.900.63** C&I1395.251.020.70**0.64** HRK1295.281.150.150.120.10 H1-4bLeaving1432.060.870.210.100.030.02 Leaking1422.111.160.050.040.020.20*0.24** H1-4aSharing1274.081.390.50**0.36**0.049**0.160.060.14 Note:Thosehighlightedshowthehypothesizedrelationshipswithsupport *p<0.01;**p<0.001
neither to strategically manage inside and competitive-related knowledge. Without doubt, these generic HR orientations are reflected in these results.
5 Discussion and Conclusions
The aim of this study was to explore how different HRM practices relate to knowledge sharing on one hand, and to knowledge leaking and leaving tendencies as challenges to knowledge protection, on the other hand.
Our results show, quite expectedly, that, in general, HR mechanisms tend to be related to knowledge sharing, rather than to knowledge protection (Camelo-Ordaz et al.2011; Olander et al.2012). Personnel development and the recruitment of new employees seems to contribute to this activity to a notable degree—as new employees contribute with their specific skills and those that are harnessed through knowledge sharing. An efficient orientation and introduction of new employees also means that knowledge about the firm’s practices is provided, and also about specific products and processes, and once again, knowledge sharing is inherently present.
Training and other such practices also increase the knowledge base of personnel, and allow for a higher degree of knowledge sharing to be reached and, amongst other factors, a common jargon which results in an efficient transfer of knowledge may well result from these activities. On closer observation, compensation and appraisal were not related to knowledge sharing, which is in line with other studies, which suggests that, without intrinsic motivation, it is hard to force employees to share their knowledge (e.g., Cabrera et al.2006). Finally, those HR practices that were targeted for knowledge protection, had no effect on knowledge sharing. This is not surprising, considering the essentially contradicting connotations that are Table 2 Regression analyses
Dep. variable Indep. variables Β(t-value, p) R2a Z (p) Hs
Knowledge sharing PD&R 3.17 (t¼2.54*) 0.24 9.39** H1a
C&A 0.15 (t¼ 0.12 ns) H2a
C&I 0.17 (t¼0.54 ns) H3a
HRK 0.11 (t¼0.74 ns) H4a
Knowledge leaking PD&R 0.96 (t¼0.75 ns) 0.001 1.25 ns H1b
C&A 0.37 (t¼ 0.29 ns) H2b
C&I 0.41 (t¼ 0.32 ns) H3b
HRK 0.09 (t¼ 0.99 ns) H4b
Knowledge leaving PD&R 0.56 (t¼0.42 ns) 0.01 0.58 ns H1b
C&A 0.15 (t¼ 1.18 ns) H2b
C&I 0.27 (t¼ 0.20 ns) H3b
HRK 0.44 (t¼0.47 ns) H4b
nsnon-significant
* p<0.01; ** p<0.001
related to knowledge protection and sharing. The absence of a negative relationship could be interpreted as a positive sign, an example being that training on IPR issues, even when carried out for protection purposes, should also provide guidelines for knowledge sharing, rather than eradicate it completely.
Knowledge protection seems to be associated with more traditionally-oriented practices (although not necessarily with control-based ones), and it seems to be mostly outside the reach of HRM practices and processes in the general sense, as, according to our findings (see the correlation matrix), only knowledge leaking can be mitigated by HRM practices, and even then, these practices should be specifi- cally geared for knowledge protection. Nonetheless, should personnel be unaware of the importance of knowledge protection or the practices used to achieve this, then knowledge leakages are more likely to occur. Mechanisms such as compen- sation and appraisal, or commitment and involving practices, do not seem to be sufficient to diminish knowledge leaving, although such aspects could be expected in theory. Nevertheless, the absence of a positive relationship between compensa- tion and appraisal, and knowledge protection and sharing, may not come as a complete surprise, as Bulgurcu et al. (2010) state that although rewards (to encourage desired behavior) and punishments (to discourage undesirable behav- ior) provide external motivation, an employee’s intrinsic desires provide the inter- nal motivation to follow (or not to follow) rules and regulations (see also Tyler and Blader2005). Furthermore, even if employee job satisfaction surveys demonstrate a tendency of a desire for better compensation and more appraisal and acknowledge- ment, these mechanisms do not, however, seem to make a difference if the employee has already decided to leave (O’Donoghue and Croasdell 2009). On another note, as suggested in the above discussion, knowledge leaving is a compli- cated issue, as it occurs for a variety of reasons, and it is always bound to happen, to some extent (Olander et al.2013). Leaving is not invariably related to choosing to change jobs, but can also be related to retirement, illness, or a change in the family situation, all of which are situations where the employer has little, or no influence.
These findings contribute to existing knowledge, by incorporating ideas from intellectual property and knowledge management streams of literature into discus- sions on HRM (Mills and Smith2011; Ahmad et al.2014; Liebeskind1997; Zhang and Kochhar2014). In particular, it has been challenging to find a balance between knowledge sharing and protection in innovative activities (Kale et al.2000; Yang et al.2014). According to our findings, these seemingly contradicting aims can be achieved with similar HR tools, but then it should be borne in mind that both the reasons behind, and the aims of, the particular practices need to be clearly commu- nicated. Furthermore, employees need to be provided with tools for confronting such collision situations.
For managers, this means that HR practices and processes that facilitate both knowledge sharing and protection need to be employed from the very start of the contractual relationship with each and every employee. Intrinsic motivation needs to be nurtured and maintained for knowledge sharing, and clear systems need to be provided for knowledge protection. Although our empirical data did not cover this aspect directly, it would be notably useful to implement a firm policy for situations
where information security rules collide with instructions and rules for accomplishing daily tasks, as it is very risky to make assumptions about employees’ capabilities to deal with such situations (see Bulgurcu et al.2010).
Our study has its limitations, yet it can be seen to be a starting point for further research. Firstly, our study was only carried out in one country, and secondly, the sample of data collected is relatively small. Therefore, more research is needed to gain more widely generalised results. Content-wise, the study did not analyse in depth the sources of knowledge leaving and leaking, but as both of these issues can also be considered as multidimensional constructs (with leaking being unintentional and intentional, and leaving being a result of a number of things;
see, e.g., Bulgurcu et al.2010; Agrawal et al.2006; Almeida and Kogut1999), the different dimensions could be scrutinised in greater detail. Likewise, the effects of HR processes and practices on the interplay of knowledge protection and sharing could be addressed. Even though it may have limitations and findings, this study provides a starting point for such research.
References
Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., & McHale, J. (2006). Gone but not forgotten: Labor flows, knowledge spillovers and enduring social capital.Journal of Economic Geography, 6(5), 571–591.
Ahmad, A., Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2014). Protecting organizational competitive advantage:
A knowledge leakage perspective.Computers and Security, 42, 27–39.
Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. (2012).‘Cui Bono’? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity.Academy of Management Review, 38, 270–291.
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks.Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover.Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–687.
Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy.Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 502–517.
Bamberger, P. A., & Meshoulam, I. (2000).Human resource strategy: Formulation, implementa- tion and impact. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169–175.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research.Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 67–94.
Brattstr€om, A., L€ofsten, H., & Richtne´r, A. (2012). Creativity, trust and systematic processes in product development.Research Policy, 41, 743–755.
Bulgurcu, B., Cavusoglu, H., & Benbasat, I. (2010). Information security policy compliance: An empirical study of rationality-based beliefs and information security awareness.MIS Quar- terly, 34(3), 523–548.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245–264.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011). The influence of human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: The mediating role of affective commitment.The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22 (7), 1442–1463.
Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: A field study.MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 855–870.
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1982). Turnover: A lucrative hard dollar phenomenon.Academy of Management Review, 7, 212–218.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance.Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–969.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:
Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions.Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802–835.
Federation of Finnish Technology Industries. (2014). Available from http://www2.
teknologiateollisuus.fi/en/
Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrel-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D.
(1998). Toward a social context theory of the human resource management-organization effectiveness relationship.Human Resource Management Review, 8, 235–264.
Fiorito, J., Bozeman, D., Young, A., & Meurs, J. (2007). Organizational commitment, human resource practices, and organizational characteristics.Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(2), 186–207.
Gagne´, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation.Human Resource Management, 48 (4), 571–589.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective.Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.
Gomes, J. F. S., & Sanders, K. (2012, August 3–7). Formal and informal HRM: Implications for the HRM process perspective. InCaucus at the Academy of Management, Annual Meeting.
Boston, MA.
Guest, D. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers.Human Resource Management Journal, 21, 3–13.
Hannah, D. R. (2005). Should I keep a secret? The effects of trade secret protection procedures on employees’obligations to protect trade secrets.Organization Science, 16(1), 71–84.
Hannah, D. R., & Robertson, K. (2014). Why and how do employees break and bend confidential information protection rules?Journal of Management Studies, 52(3), 381–413.
Heiman, B. A., & Nickerson, J. A. (2004). Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations.Managerial and Decision Economics, 25(6/7), 401–420.
Herath, T., & Rao, H. R. (2009). Encouraging information security behaviors in organizations:
Role of penalties, pressures and perceived effectiveness.Decision Support Systems, 47(2), 154–165.
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2012). HRM system strength—HRM harnessed for innovation, appropriability and firm performance. Economics and Business Letters, 1(4), 43–53.
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Puumalainen, K. (2007). The nature and dynamics of appropriability: Strategies for appropriating returns on innovation.R&D Management, 37, 95–112.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–670.
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the human resource-firm performance link.Industrial Relations, 35, 400–423.
Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2010). Dual allegiance and knowledge sharing in inter-firm R&D collaborations.Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 37–47.
Husted, K., Michailova, S., & Olander, H. (2013). Dual allegiance, knowledge sharing, and knowledge protection: An empirical examination.International Journal of Innovation Man- agement, 17(6), 1–33.
Jiang, X., Li, M., Gao, S., Bao, Y., & Jiang, F. (2013). Managing knowledge leakage in strategic alliances: The effects of trust and formal contracts.Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 983–991.
Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital.Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217–237.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology.Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Kultti, K., Takalo, T., & Tanayama, T. (2015). R&D spillovers and information exchange: A case study.Eurasian Economic Review, 5(1), 63–76.
Kumar, N., Stern, L., & Anderson, J. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants.Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1633–1651.
Kwon, V. A. P. K., Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2010). High commitment HR practices and top performers.Management International Review, 50(1), 57–80.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration.Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878.
Li, D., Eden, L., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2008). Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances.Academy of Management Journal, 51, 315–334.
Li, J. J., Poppo, L., & Zhou, Z. K. (2010). Relational mechanism, formal contracts, and local knowledge acquisition by international subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 349–370.
Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 17, 93–107.
Liebeskind, J. P. (1997). Keeping organizational secrets: Protective institutional mechanisms and their costs.Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(3), 623–663.
Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1978).Organizational strategy, structure and process. London: McGraw Hill.
Mills, A. M., & Smith, T. A. (2011). Knowledge management and organizational performance: A decomposed view.Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 156–171.
Mir, A., Mir, R., & Mosca, J. B. (2002). The new age employee: An exploration of changing employee-organization relations.Public Personnel Management, 31, 187–200.
Mohr, J. J., & Sengupta, S. (2002). Managing the paradox of inter-firm learning: The role of governance mechanisms.Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(4), 282–301.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 223–247.
O’Donoghue, N., & Croasdell, D. T. (2009). Protecting knowledge assets in multinational enter- prises: A comparative case approach.VINE, 39(4), 298–318.
Olander, H., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2014, December 7–10). Maintaining creativity—
Whats and whys of HRM-risk perceptions and management. InISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum.Singapore.
Olander, H., Kosonen, M., Heilmann, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2012). Human resources—Invaluable inventors or weakest links? In23rd ISPIM Conference. Barcelona, Spain.
Olander, H., Vanhala, M., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Blomqvist, K. (2013, June 16–19).
Relationships of protecting prerequisites of innovation, HRM, and organizational trust. In ISPIM Conference. Helsinki.
Pahnila, S., Siponen, M., & Mahmood, A. (2007). Employees’behavior towards IS security policy compliance. InProceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 156–166). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, K., & Husted, K. (2015). Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study.Technovation, 35, 22–31.
Saha, M., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Social capital and information sharing: Impact on form perfor- mance. In M. H. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & C. K. M. Lau (Eds.),Innovation, finance and the
economy: Proceedings of the 13th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference (pp. 193–211). Cham: Springer.
Sanders, K., Shipton, H., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2014). Guest editors’introduction: Is the HRM process important? Past, current, and future challenges.Human Resource Management, 53(4), 489–503.
Shipton, H., West, M. A., Dawson, J., Birdi, K., & Patterson, M. (2006). HRM as a predictor of innovation.Human Resource Management Journal, 16(1), 3–27.
Straub, D. W., & Nance, W. D. (1990). Discovering and disciplining computer abuse in organi- zations: A field study.MIS Quarterly, 14(1), 45–60.
Su, Z. X., & Wright, P. M. (2012). The effective human resource management system in transitional China: A hybrid of commitment and control practices.The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(10), 2065–2086.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1143–1158.
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade.Research Policy, 43(5), 805–811.
Yang, S. M., Fang, S. C., Fang, S. R., & Chou, C. H. (2014). Knowledge exchange and knowledge protection in interorganizational learning: The ambidexterity perspective.Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 346–358.
Zhang, Y., & Kochhar, A. K. (2014). A value optimising structure in virtual enterprises for manufacturing systems. In M. K. Nandakumar, S. Jharkharia, & A. S. Nair (Eds.),Organiza- tional flexibility and competitiveness(pp. 53–71). Cham: Springer.
Business and Tourism Students ’ Considerations on Future Career
Iorgulescu Maria-Cristina and T¸ a˘pescu Alina Ioana
Abstract Studies in the field of tourism employment are continuously developing, as this domain is one of the most important industries in the world, 1 in 11 jobs being in this sector. Considering the poor reputation of the tourism industry, as an employer, it is important to study business and tourism students’perception of the industry. The paper presents an exploratory research, conducted using a questionnaire-based study on senior undergraduate students at the Faculty of Business and Tourism (Bucharest University of Economic Studies). One of the main objectives of the survey was to identify students’perception on the nature of an ideal job, compared to how they perceive a career in tourism. The study also reveals students’perception on the abilities and competencies needed for a suc- cessful career in tourism, highlighting the extent to which they consider their undergraduate studies help them to develop the considered competencies. The findings of this study reveal students’perception on the relevance of their academic education for a career in tourism, as well as important differences between an ideal career and what a career in tourism has to offer. Considering the limitations of the study, the theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.
Keywords Tourism • Career • Student • Education • Competencies
1 Introduction
It is well known that the tourism industry is largely labour intensive, which is why it has become one of the top-job creating and one of the fastest growing sectors in the global economy (ILO 2014b). In most countries, tourism activities are now accounting for a growing share of economic activities, and the trend appears likely to be continued in the future as well (UNWTO and ILO 2014). Figures provided by the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) show that despite the challenging
I. Maria-Cristina (*) • T¸ .A. Ioana
Department of Tourism and Geography, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania
e-mail:cristina.iorgulescu@com.ase.ro;alina.tapescu@yahoo.com
©Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
M.H. Bilgin, H. Danis (eds.),Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics - Vol. 1, Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics 3/1,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27570-3_16
183
global economic environment, international tourism results in 2013 were well above expectations, showing a 5 % increase in international tourist arrivals, which reached a record of 1.087 million arrivals (UNWTO2014b).
Infrastructure development, export revenues and the creation of jobs and enter- prises are the main indicators that prove tourism to be one of the key drivers of socio-economic progress, both in advanced and emerging economies (UNWTO 2014b). The World Tourism Organisation highlights the importance of the contin- ued expansion of the tourism industry by key figures that prove its contribution to the global economy. Thus, tourism accounts for 9 % of GDP (direct, indirect and induced impact) and 6 % of the world’s exports; it provides 1 in 11 jobs and has generated US$1.4 trillion in exports and US$1.159 billion in international tourism receipts worldwide in 2013 (UNWTO2014b).
Statistics are just as good when it comes to evaluating tourism’s growth and importance in the European Union, showing that in 2010, more than 1 in 7 enter- prises in Europe’s non-financial business economy belonged to the tourism indus- tries. Moreover, the estimated number of people employed by these 3.4 million enterprises is 15.2 million persons (Eurostat 2013). Also, 11 % of the persons employed in the whole non-financial business economy and 29 % of the persons employed in the non-financial services sector in the European Union work in enterprises from industries with tourism related activities (Eurostat2013).
Being a fragmented industry with a majority of small and medium enterprises as employers, the tourism sector has developed a reputation of poor working condi- tions, with work being characterized by low wages, low level of skill requirements, seasonality and shift and night work (ILO2014b). These factors constitute motives for people working in tourism to frequently look for better jobs elsewhere and, eventually, leave to take up more decent work, which leads to one of the major problems human resources management in tourism is facing: personnel fluctuation.
The ones that do stay may also include well trained professionals, but mainly they are large numbers of workers with difficulties to find other jobs, women who can only work part-time due to their family responsibilities or low qualified workers in general, which is why the tourism sector suffers from shortage of skilled or minimally qualified personnel (UNWTO2014a).
Focusing on Romania’s recent figures in tourism employment, Eurostat’s data- bases show that the accommodation and food service activities account for only 2.1 % of the total number of employed persons (194,000 people out of a total 9,247,000 work in these activities), compared to an average percent for the European Union which is 4.5 %, meaning that 9,741,000 people out of a total 217,292,000 work in accommodation and food service activities (Eurostat2014b).
The difference is preserved also when it comes to measuring the account of the services sector in total employment: in the European Union services account for 72.5 % of total employment, while in Romania they only account for 41.3 % of total employment, which shows that industry and agriculture are still strong employers (Eurostat2014a).
An interesting comparison can also be drawn between Romania and the European Union’s tourism employees by level of education attained. Thus, in Romania 7.7 % of the persons employed in accommodation and food service