Page 169 - Crossing Cultural Boundaries - Cees den Teuling

was low (1.790) suggesting higher probability that the observed varieties were incidental.
The specifics of an organisational environment did not determine the change in way of “doing things” by respondents’ introduction and convincing power in statistically significant ways either. The significance levels for related predictor variables are as follows: “Progressive” p = .874, “Supportive” p = .306, “Stable” p = .811, “Disruptive” p = .124, “Laisser-faire” p = .129, “Chaotic” p = .052.
The specifics of an organisational environment did not affect the ability of respondents to spread the acquired knowledge among their colleagues in statistically significant way either. The studied types of organisational environment were “Progressive” (p = .886), “Supportive” (p = .853), “Stable” (p = .965), “Disruptive (p = .258), “Laisser-faire” (p = .662) and “Chaotic” (p = .081).
Level of trust either among employees in the respondents’ own department or among employees belonging to different departments did not have a statistically significant determining effect on the ability of the respondents to spread the acquired knowledge among their colleagues (p = .143 and p = .082), on the opportunities of respondents to inform the management of their organisation about their experiences in the Presidential Programme (p = .451 and p = .125) and on changes in organisational way of “doing things” by respondents’ introduction and convincing power (p = .662 and p = .173).
The ability of respondents to spread the acquired knowledge among their colleagues was not determined in statistically significant manner by dominant style of management and communication in the organisation (p = .762 and 0.243 respectively), as well as state of being totally open for new ideas and innovation from outside sources and constantly implementing new ideas and innovations, developed internally (p = .130), being partly open in terms of innovations to other employees and other departments (p = .105), sharing innovations with suppliers and distributors (p = .191), sharing innovations with the business sector and through media (p = .178), preferring the way the respondents use to do the business (p = .639) and not sharing innovations with the outside world (p = .781).
The influence of Russian culture on organisational culture was also considered to be an influential factor with respect to sharing innovations with the business sector and through the media. The ANOVA provided a proof for that assumption (p = .028). The impact was negative (b = - .244) meaning that greater impact of Russian culture on organisational culture brings about decrease in the level of readiness to share
12619