T HESIS 2

T2: The competences found important for knowledge sharing by middle managers who work at medium- and large-sized enterprises in Hungary is characterized by the following competence groups: methodological competences needed for thinking, methodological competences used for work method and style, social competences connected with communication skills, social competences connected with co-operational skills, professional competences, personal competences and intercultural competences.

Figure 28. Revealed Elements of Competences Found Important for Knowledge Sharing

3.6.5 Interpretation of the Results

The index of each competence group shows the level of importance the competences within the given competence groups for knowledge sharing found by the investigated middle managers. The higher the index is, the more the given competences are found important for knowledge sharing and the lower the index is, the less the given competences are found important for knowledge sharing.

105

Middle managers often found themselves in situations where they share their knowledge with others. That is why the system analysis capability and the systematizing ability are important. Having these abilities the middle managers can put the knowledge into the system of their organizations. By receiving first hand information or knowledge from top management, the middle managers are able to integrate it into the level of their departments/groups/areas, and as a result of this they will know how to put the received information/knowledge into practice. The ability of analysis makes it possible to process and utilize it. By thinking logically the middle managers can take the necessary knowledge out of the knowledge set and process and share it alongside some kind of logic in order to effectively fulfil the organizational goals assigned to that given level.

If the managers have the ability to comprehend the tasks practically, they are able to understand, identify themselves with the goals of the organization, interpret it to the appropriate level where they work and finally transpose it to the level of fulfilment. The results can be achieved more easily with less effort or cost if knowledge is shared.

The middle managers, having the ability of summarizing, share only the most necessary knowledge with others which is the result of a prior selection of knowledge. Thus the knowledge sharing process materializes within a much shorter time. If the middle managers have the ability of explaining and can share anything in plain language then the managers are able to communicate knowledge in a manner that is understandable and perceivable at the receivers’ level.

The capability of initiation, maintaining relationship, objectivity, empathy and the ability of feedback are all competences indispensable for succeeding in the knowledge sharing process.

Gaining experiences by individual interest, in other special fields, at similar or other types of organizations help and shorten the integration of any employee or middle manager into the organization, the probation time, and the time for acquiring the jargon for communication in that given organization. By experiencing the above, the middle managers may have a wide range of knowledge and experience in different fields of work, and may be aware of common law of the special work fields.

Stamina, ability of managing stress, and the capability of undertaking tasks are personal competences that can significantly affect the manner of the middle managers who are able to share their knowledge.

Employing employees or middle managers who have studied and had jobs abroad and also had jobs in international surroundings is useful when the organization installs new methods, or methods that are popular abroad but unknown or not used in the given country. Furthermore these features are indispensable in organizations that have relationships with multinational organizations or organizations working abroad.

The research of Forgács et al. (2002) can be mentioned as earlier research regarding competences. However they investigated 11 people’s professional, methodological, social, and personal competences with the use of a psychology test and graphology.

These competences in their labels are equal to my competence groups but in their content and other features they are different. Forgács et al. (2002) aimed to compare the psychology test and graphology and aimed to reveal whether there were differences

106

between the two methods. Thus if the differences between the results were under 2 decimal points they considered the results true (Forgács et al. 2002). During the usage of the psychology test a factor analysis was conducted and these results were compared with the evaluation of the graphology results. In most cases the results were the same, in a few cases however very small differences occurred. Thus Forgács et al. (2002) considered both cases reliable in controlling each other and in completing each other.

Comparing the research results of Forgács et al. (2002) with the results of this research is difficult, because they (Forgács et al. 2002) aimed to compare two methods regarding competences while this research aimed to reveal competence groups and competences that middle managers find important for sharing knowledge. On the other hand as another difference between the two studies is that during their research Forgács et al.

(2002) determine competence from the employer’s and the employee’s point of view, while I only investigate competences from the middle managers’ point of view.

Research was also conducted using the same competences which were partly based on Forgács et al.’s (2002) competence classification. This research was conducted by Mocsáriné (2010) and its purpose was to get acquainted with the human resource demands of the labour market and thus to analyse the expected competencies of graduates in order to enable them to find better jobs and to facilitate their career. The graduates of the bachelor programs of agri-environmental engineering and nature protection engineering were investigated by Mocsáriné (2010). Employers of agri-environmental engineers, and nature protection engineers were asked to fill in the questionnaire. 89 employers who can be considered as potential employers of the above mentioned bachelor programs filled in the questionnaire. Samples of documentation of working activities were also gathered by Mocsáriné (2010), who also evaluated them. In addition the work task profiles were also valued by experts of the labour market. The structure of these task profiles was based on the work of Forgács et al. (2002) and Henczi et al. (2007) and contained professional, personal, social, and methodological competences. Thus it can be seen that Mocsáriné (2010) and I used the same competences in our research. As a result of Mocsáriné’s (2010) research the synthesis of modules of agri-environmental engineering and nature protection engineering bachelor programs were determined.

3.7 Individual Characteristics Influencing the Maturity of Knowledge Sharing

To answer research question 3 regarding the individual characteristics influencing the maturity of knowledge sharing the following hypothesis has been stated.

H3: Difference can be found in the elements of middle managers’ maturity of knowledge sharing who work at medium- and large-sized enterprises in Hungary on the basis of individual characteristics.

Figure 29 represents the relations between individual characteristics and the elements of maturity of knowledge sharing that are examined regarding the hypothesis.

107

Figure 29. Relations between Individual Characteristics and Maturity of Knowledge Sharing under Investigation