IRMA-International.org: Creator of Knowledge
Information Resources Management Association
Advancing the Concepts & Practices of Information Resources Management in Modern Organizations

The Relation of Knowledge Intensity to Productivity Assessment Preferences and Cultural Differences

The Relation of Knowledge Intensity to Productivity Assessment Preferences and Cultural Differences
View Sample PDF
Author(s): David Nembhard (Oregon State University, USA)and Min Xiao (Shanghai Dianji University, China)
Copyright: 2017
Pages: 19
Source title: Organizational Culture and Behavior: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): Information Resources Management Association (USA)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1913-3.ch074

Purchase

View The Relation of Knowledge Intensity to Productivity Assessment Preferences and Cultural Differences on the publisher's website for pricing and purchasing information.

Abstract

The authors investigate commonalities and differences in productivity assessment preferences among managers from two different cultural settings, one in the US and the other in China. They also investigate these differences for two knowledge intensity levels to inform how the type of work being assessed affects these preferences. The results illustrate significant differences among the two organizations, among the knowledge intensity levels, and that these results are generally dependent on the specific measures of performance being evaluated. The US organization's managers tended to view quality as the most important metric for the high knowledge intensity work, and customer satisfaction as the most important metric for the low knowledge intensity work. The Chinese managers viewed innovation as the most important metric for the high knowledge intensity level jobs, and quality as the most important metric for the low knowledge intensity level jobs. These results indicate that utility-based work productivity model can be used as an evaluation tool to measure knowledge work productivity.

Related Content

. © 2023. 12 pages.
. © 2023. 24 pages.
. © 2023. 16 pages.
. © 2023. 17 pages.
. © 2023. 15 pages.
. © 2023. 12 pages.
. © 2023. 19 pages.
Body Bottom