The Mediating Effect of Knowledge

RESULTS

The current study aimed at analyzing the relationship between organizational climate (OC) and individual innovative behavior (IIB) in UAE Organisations. It was critical to identify the determinants of OC that affect IIB and illustrate the significance of knowledge sharing (KS) as a mediator between OC and IIB. To attain these goals, the research recruited 140 respondents.

On IIB, participants admitted a low level of innovativeness, as neither of the Mean results exceeded the measurement, indicating a positive evaluation of IIB. Participants were either unsure or did not consider that they obtained innovativeness. The highest scores were obtained by items indicating cooperativeness (M = 2.96; SD = 1.33) and availability of resources in the organization (M = 2.95; SD = 1.26). This means that the organization obtains the necessary resources for innovativeness. The items with the lowest scores were related to support of new ideas by management (M = 2.15; SD = 1.26) and respect by leadership of creativity (M = 2.18; SD = 1.31).

On OC, participants showed a low level of organizational climate. The highest scores were obtained by items related to the access to resources in case of high workload (M = 2.72; SD = 1.27) and opportunities for training (M = 2.67; SD = 1.39). Such results refer to the possibility that organizations have some resources for their employees on-demand. The items with the lowest scores were related to relationships with superiors (M = 1.96; SD = 1.27) and the ability of superiors to listen to the employees (M = 2.15; SD = 1.28).

Participants also showed a low level of knowledge sharing (KS). Items that scored the highest related to rewards for knowledge sharing (M = 2.76; SD = 1.24) and opinions of colleagues regarding knowledge sharing (M = 2.53; SD = 1.19). These results could indicate that knowledge sharing exists as a topic for conversation in the organization. Items scored the lowest referred to the evaluation of personal knowledge sharing (M = 2.09; SD = 1.25), effort to share knowledge in future (M = 2.11; SD = 1.24), and possibility to share knowledge to solve problems (M = 2.12; SD = 1.13).

Regression Analysis

Table 1: Regression: OC and IIB

Regression Statistics
Multiple R	0,288647
R Square	0,083317
Adjusted R Square	-0,00835
Standard Error	0,225087
Observations	12
ANOVA
	df	SS	MS	F	Significance F
Regression	1	0,046049	0,046049	0,908899	0,362883
Residual	10	0,506643	0,050664
Total	11	0,552692
	Coefficients	Standard Error	t Stat	P-value	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Lower 95,0%	Upper 95,0%
Intercept	2,978366	0,60057	4,959234	0,000571	1,640213	4,316519	1,640213	4,316519
IIB	-0,22055	0,231338	-0,95336	0,362883	-0,736	0,294904	-0,736	0,294904

As the analysis shows, OC and IIB are significantly correlated (p = 0.00; p ≤ 0.05), which means that the level of OC in the organization corresponds with the level of IIB in it (Table 1). Factor Analysis

Table 2: Factor Analysis (KS vs. OC and IIB)

ANOVA: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups	Count	Sum	Average	Variance
KS	12	28,3	2,358	0,043
OC	12	28,91	2,409	0,05
IIB	12	30,97	2,581	0,086
ANOVA
Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F crit
Between Groups	0,326	2	0,163	2,735	0,079589	3,284918
Within Groups	1,968	33	0,06
Total	2,294	35

As Table 2 shows, KS does not serve as a mediator in the relationship between OC and IIB (p = 0.07; p ≥ 0.05).

Table 3: Factor Analysis (OC and IIB)

SUMMARY
Groups	Count	Sum	Average	Variance
OC	12	28,91	2,409167	0,050245
IIB	12	30,97	2,580833	0,086063
ANOVA
Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F crit
Between Groups	0,176817	1	0,176817	2,594378	0,121499	4,30095
Within Groups	1,499383	22	0,068154
Total	1,6762	23

Table 3 shows no correlation between OC and IIB (p = 0.12; p ≥ 0.05). This means that H1 is rejected, as OC and IIB are not correlated.

Table 4: Factor Analysis (KS and OC)

ANOVA: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups	Count	Sum	Average	Variance
KS	12	28,3	2,358333	0,042597
OC	12	28,91	2,409167	0,050245
ANOVA
Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F crit
Between Groups	0,015504	1	0,015504	0,333992	0,569187	4,30095
Within Groups	1,021258	22	0,046421
Total	1,036763	23

No correlation was found in relationship between KS and OC (p = 0.56; p ≥ 0.05) (Table 9). As this result shows, H2 is rejected, as KS and OC are not correlated.

Table 5: Factor Analysis (KS and IIB)

ANOVA: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups	Count	Sum	Average	Variance
KS	12	28,3	2,358333	0,042597
IIB	12	30,97	2,580833	0,086063
ANOVA
Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F crit
Between Groups	0,297038	1	0,297038	4,617408	0,042912	4,30095
Within Groups	1,415258	22	0,06433
Total	1,712296	23

According to Table 5, correlation between KS and IIB is observed (p = 0.04; p ≤ 0.05). H3 is supported, as KS and IIB are correlated.

4.7 Hypotheses Testing

Table 6: T-Tests

	OC	IIB	KS	OC	KS	IIB
Mean	2,409167	2,580833	2,358333	2,409167	2,358333	2,580833333
Variance	0,050245	0,086063	0,042597	0,050245	0,042597	0,086062879
Observations	12	12	12	12	12	12
Pearson Correlation	-0,28865		-0,45946		0,325989
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0		0		0
df	11		11		11
t Stat	-1,42451		-0,47863		-2,58093
P(T<=t) one-tail	0,091023		0,320785		0,012774
t Critical one-tail	1,795885		1,795885		1,795885
P(T<=t) two-tail	0,182046		0,641571		0,025548
t Critical two-tail	2,200985		2,200985		2,200985

According to Table 6, t-test shows a significant correlation between KS and IIB in one-tail analysis (p = 0.01; p ≤ 0.05) and two-tail analysis (p = 0.02; p ≤ 0.05).

DISCUSSION

According to the study results, the UAE companies failed to support individual innovative behavior (IIB) among their employees. They also do not provide adequate organizational culture (OC) for the employees to feel safe, grow, and develop professionally. Knowledge sharing (KS) is not encouraged in the companies as well, according to the current findings. The current study did not find a significant interrelation between OC and IIB, KS, and OC. However, KS and IIB were associated with each other. The current results did not support many of the earlier scholarly studies from the scholarly literature perspective. Many previous studies recognized the associations among IIB, OC, and KS by implying that these variables are interdependent. Some of them claimed that KS mediates the relationship between OC and IIB.

However, the study did not produce the same results. Odoardi et al. (2010) claim that innovative behavior is the set of actions carried out by people to embrace the picked development. It is also impressive that cutting-edge habits apply to the generation of concepts and the growth of key developments. Development climate is a particular innovation-friendly atmosphere, in which all entities of the companies make collective or individual efforts to take on the developments (Odoardi et al., 2010). Akram et al. (2018) insurance claim that the success of KS within the organization is directly associated with the influence of KS on IIB.

Nonetheless, the effect is present only when KS is considered a bilateral process. To be extra specific, the collection of knowledge is as crucial as its distribution. What is more, Cook et al. (2017) affirm that according to the Theory of Social Exchange, individuals are more likely to understand if they can collect knowledge from various other resources within the company. If the expertise is given away profitably, KS is most likely to be efficient. However, the interconnection between KS and IIB proved that innovations and knowledge sharing are interrelated. The findings of previous studies were mostly not supported by the current research.

Conclusion

The results showed no connection between IIB and OC, KS and OC, while KS and IIB are linked. UAE companies failed to support individual innovative behavior (IIB) among their employees and provide adequate organizational culture (OC) for the employees to feel safe, grow, and develop professionally. However, the findings showed that the UAE companies have poor KS, IIB, and OC, which do not support their employees or executives.

References

Akhavan, P., Hosseini, S. M., Abbasi, M., & Manteghi, M. (2015). Knowledge-sharing determinants, behaviors, and innovative work behaviors: An integrated theoretical view and empirical examination. Aslib journal of information management.