The Impact of Organizational Culture on the Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Commercial Banks: A Case Study in Vietnam

Abstract

A bank's competitive advantage helps in enhancing its ability to maintain a competitive advantage in product consumption, expand the consumption market, and effectively use business factors to maximize economic growth. The research aims to investigate the impact of organizational culture on the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam. The study adopts a quantitative research method, through structural equation modeling analysis (SEM). A survey was conducted on 608 participants who are staff at commercial banks in Vietnam. Research results show that organizational culture has both a direct and indirect impact on sustainable competitive advantage through factors of social responsibility and knowledge sharing. Based on these findings, the study gives some recommendations to contribute to the creation, maintenance, and development of sustainable competitive advantages of commercial banks. The findings of this study have shown the importance and impact of organizational culture on many aspects of a bank's sustainable competitive advantage. These are meaningful contributions in both theory and practice to help banks gain more insight into human resources management. The study also raises an issue on the need to care about and develop an organizational culture to bring professionalism, initiative, and fairness in all activities of commercial banks.

1. Introduction

Establishing a competitive advantage is understood as the ability to create, develop and exploit a competitive advantage to help an organization achieve superior success over its competitors. Competitive advantage is an organization’s ability to sell products and services and to earn more profit compared to its competitors. According to Olsen (1993), sustainable competitive advantages are company assets, attributes, or abilities that are difficult to duplicate or exceed; and provide a superior or favorable long-term position over competitors. The bank’s competitive advantage helps enhance its ability to maintain a competitive advantage in product consumption, expand the consumption market, effectively use business factors to maximize economic growth, and ensure sustainable economic development.

According to Paais and Pattiruhu (2020), the leadership and organizational culture of employees need to be improved to increase job satisfaction. If employee job satisfaction increases, employee performance will also increase. Organizational culture is the collection of values, expectations, and practices that guide and inform the actions of all team members. An organization’s culture defines the proper way to behave within the organization. This culture consists of shared beliefs and values established by leaders and then communicated and reinforced through various methods, ultimately shaping employee perceptions, behaviors, and understanding (Hashim & Tan, 2015).

Buzzell and Gale (1987) stated that performance is the extent to which an organization’s business objectives are achieved in relation to revenue, sales, profitability, growth, market share, as well as the extent to which strategic goals are accomplished. Sharing this opinion, Keegan et al. (1989) proposed a business performance measurement matrix by classifying measurement results based on costs and noncosts. Improving business performance is considered a key goal for organizations operating in the market. Sustainable competitive advantage is a business strategy based on a firm’s resources that support firms to sustain their competitive advantage by outperforming others in a competitive market (Aida et al. 2015).

In reality, many firms have focused their attention and knowledge on sustainable competitive advantage through a variety of activities aimed at improving the quality of life of employees and their families. Organizations that perform well on social responsibility show that the benefits increase significantly, and employees have a positive attitude to work. Cooperation and dedication in work are promoted. However, a majority of Vietnamese organizations are small and medium-sized, they still have short-term visions and fragmented ways of working. Just to gain immediate profit, these organizations have not really taken effective measures to create favorable working conditions for their employees to increase their efficiency. Employee interests are ignored. Many firms are avoiding implementing social responsibility for employees, which has a substantial impact on individual employees’ interests, attitudes toward and efforts at work, as well as job productivity. All of this has an impact on the organization’s long-term growth and development momentum.

In this study, the authors mention the relationship between organizational culture and sustainable competitive advantage. In the context of commercial banks in Vietnam, the research results show that organizational culture has a direct and positive impact on the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam. At the same time, the findings in this study also show the contribution of research when demonstrating the role of social responsibility and knowledge sharing in the relationship between organizational culture and sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks. Finally, the study gives a number of recommendations to contribute to the creation, maintenance, and development of sustainable competitive advantages of commercial banks in Vietnam.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Literature Review

The success of any organization depends on the motivation of staff and the organization’s culture (Taslim, 2011). Research by Jaques (2012) argued that organizational culture is the practices, traditional ways of thinking, and working in an organization that is shared by all members of the organization. It can be said that with the characteristics of organizational culture such as humanity, value, or stability, organizational culture has a significant influence on leadership styles, management methods, and motivation of staff in the process of performing their tasks in the organization. Organizational culture is seen as a core value and a driving force for progress throughout a company’s lifespan. There is a group of four factors of organizational culture including behavioral rules, organizational values, rituals and etiquettes, history of the organization’s establishment, and development affecting employee motivation. These factors highlight employees’ role in participating in the organization’s rules, values, practices, and operations.

Sustainable competitive advantages are company assets, attributes, or abilities that are difficult to duplicate or exceed; and provide a superior or favorable long-term position over competitors. Barney et al. (2008) said that sustainable competitive advantage is a business strategy based on a firm’s resources that support firms to sustain their competitive advantage by outperforming others in a competitive market. Moreover, sustainable competitive advantage is a concept of achieving financial and market benefits, and distinctive dynamic capabilities, which has emerged as a vital research field. Core competencies must ensure four standards of sustainable competitive advantage, which include value, rare, difficult to imitate, and irreplaceable. Potential capabilities that do not satisfy the four criteria of sustainable competitive advantage are not core competencies. Thus, each core competency is the ability, but not every ability becomes a core competency. From a business standpoint, the ability is a core competency; it must be valuable and irreplaceable from the customer’s point of view and unique and inimitable from the competitors’ point of view.

In addition to the two direct impact factors mentioned in the research content, namely organizational culture and sustainable competitive advantage, the study also mentions the mediating factors including social responsibility, knowledge sharing, and opportunistic behaviors of employees.

Maignan and Ferrell (2004) argued that an organization has a social responsibility when its decisions and activities aim to create and balance the different interests of the individuals and organizations involved. The organization’s social responsibility towards employees is closely related to the employee’s job-related requirements and the organization’s ability to meet those requirements. Employees will most likely feel satisfied and motivated to work if they feel that their own expectations, as well as the organization’s commitment to labor, are being met to a reasonable extent. In addition, Carroll (1979) defined that social responsibility also includes the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic expectations of society towards organizations at a given time. Brammer et al. (2007) proposed the components of social responsibility include: social responsibility for society, social responsibility for the natural environment, social responsibility towards customers, social responsibility towards other external stakeholders, social responsibility towards the law, social responsibility for fairness in policy, and social responsibility for staff training.

Knowledge sharing is defined as a subjective act that intentionally causes knowledge to be reused by others through knowledge transfer (Lee & Al-Hawamdeh, 2002). It is the process of giving and receiving knowledge, in which the creation and sharing of knowledge depend on the conscious effort of the individual to make the knowledge shared (Nonaka & Tekeuchi 1995). According to Hari et al. (2005), knowledge sharing is the process or activity whereby existing knowledge in an organization is transferred from those who hold it to those who do not have it. The process of transmission may include implicit and explicit knowledge. According to Tsui et al. (2006), knowledge sharing is an activity that allows employees to share their expertise and experience to complete projects and plans more quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, knowledge sharing entails individuals sharing information, ideas, suggestions, and expertise with the organization. Research by Maponya (2004) also showed that knowledge sharing is based on experiences gained during working inside and outside the organization. If knowledge is available among members, the organization will minimize overlapped decisions and solve problems faster. Effective knowledge-sharing activities will help reuse individual knowledge and raise knowledge to a new height. Krough et al. (2000) argued that knowledge sharing is also important in creating new knowledge and leveraging them to improve organizational performance. Knowledge sharing is an important means by which employees can contribute to the application of knowledge, innovation, and, ultimately, an organization’s competitive advantage.

Olsen (1993) defined job satisfaction as the positive emotional responses of individuals to work when the value from the job is as expected. Meanwhile, according to Williamson (1975), opportunistic behavior is the act of seeking personal benefits by fraud, breaking commitments, violating obligations and responsibilities that need to be taken (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Opportunistic behavior is considered as a negative behavior of employees in the organization, governed and determined by the awareness, attitude, and capacity of the employees themselves.

2.2. Hypotheses

2.2.1. Organizational Culture and Sustainable Competitive Advantage

Organizational culture is a key aspect of a company’s competitive advantage, as it stems from its cultural uniqueness, which gives it unparalleled and guaranteed dynamic characteristics that ensure the company’s long-term sustainability. When resources and potential firm capability are valuable, rare, and expensive to imitate, they form a competitive advantage (Barney & Hesterly, 2008). Thus, we offer the following hypothesis (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Proposed Research Model

H1: Organizational culture positively affects the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam.

2.2.2. Organizational Culture and Social Responsibility

One of the characteristics thought to be at the heart of a company’s ability to innovate is its organizational culture (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Organizational culture involves an empowering and helpful orientation toward members of the organization and provides a “warm” place of work, where employees are trusted for who they are, and it is, therefore, friendly, fair, and cooperative (Balliet & Lange, 2013). According to Pasricha et al. (2018), ethical leadership both directly and indirectly influences social responsibility practices. The indirect influence of ethical leadership involves nurturing clan and adhocracy cultures, which in turn influence social responsibility. Therefore, we suggest:

H2: Organizational culture positively affects the social responsibility of commercial banks in Vietnam.

2.2.3. Social responsibility and Competitive Advantage

Research by Thorne et al. (1993) has demonstrated that, if an enterprise does not fulfill its social responsibility, its performance will be significantly reduced. Competitiveness exists to ensure convergence between long-term maximization of the firm’s value and maximization of social welfare (Jensen, 2001). On that basis, we mentioned the following hypothesis in the study:

H3: Social responsibility positively affects the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam.

2.2.4. Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing represents a form of business ethics, so an employee’s willingness to share knowledge with others is a proxy of certain moral standards or values (Wang, 2004). Tseng and Fan (2011) found that individual perceptions of an organizational ethical climate significantly influence both engagement in and attitude toward knowledge management. A culture characterized by organizational justice—which is part of ethics—can offer support for sharing and using knowledge among employees (Ibragimova, 2006). Thus, we offer the following hypothesis:

H4: Organizational culture positively affects knowledge sharing in commercial banks in Vietnam.

2.2.5. Knowledge Sharing and Competitive Advantage

The intellectual capital-based view of Reed et al. (2006) said that an organization’s innovative capabilities depend on the competencies and knowledge its members possess. By developing capabilities to create, share and utilize knowledge, organizations gain a better position from which to innovate, grow and build sustainable competitive advantages (Chen & Huang, 2009). Research by Srikalimah et al. (2020) showed that intellectual capital positively affects both competitive advantage and sustainability, and competitive advantage successfully mediated the influence of creativity and intellectual capital on enterprises’ sustainability. We, therefore, hypothesize that:

H5: Knowledge sharing positively affects the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam.

2.2.6. Organizational Culture and Opportunistic Behavior

Li (2004) studied the relationship between organizational culture and transformational leadership styles and job outcomes (satisfaction and performance) in bureaucratic, innovative, and supportive cultures. Organizational culture can motivate managers to link social responsibility to their opportunistic behavior (Prior et al., 2008). To test the relationship between these two factors, we suggest the following hypothesis:

H6: Organizational culture has a negative effect on the opportunistic behavior of employees at commercial banks in Vietnam.

2.2.7. Opportunistic Behavior and Competitive Advantage

Opportunistic behavior often stems from the demand and interests of individuals. According to Ang and Cheng (2016), the effectiveness of a self-certification requirement in reducing opportunistic behavior is limited by its timing and the presence of other controls; it is potentially useful when managers make the first decision and only in the absence of a formal monitoring system. According to Katsikeas et al. (2009), there is a negative impact of opportunistic behavior on trust, thereby affecting businesses’ performance. Thus, this study establishes the following hypothesis:

H7: The opportunistic behavior of employees has a negative impact on the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam.

2.2.8. Social Responsibility and Knowledge Sharing

In the research by Tran et al. (2020), corporate social responsibility for workers has both a direct and indirect impact on the effectiveness of employee management through intermediary factors such as organizational identity, organizational commitment, and knowledge sharing. Social Responsibility increases a sense of meaning and purpose in employees’ work life, keeping them motivated since people often demand meaningful work (Holbeche & Springett, 2004). Cognitive meaningfulness is defined as the relationship between an employee›s self-concept and the organization for which they work, hence enhancing knowledge sharing and job commitment (Glavas & Kelley, 2014). Therefore, we suggest:

H8: Social responsibility positively affects knowledge sharing in commercial banks in Vietnam.

2.2.9. Opportunistic Behavior and Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing exerts a significant impact on a wide range of organizational performances is a well-accepted reality (Youndt et al., 2004). Opportunistic behavior is considered as a negative behavior of employees in the organization, governed and determined by the awareness, attitude, and capacity of the employees themselves. The following hypothesis is proposed:

H9: Employee opportunistic behavior has a negative impact on knowledge sharing in commercial banks in Vietnam.

The conceptual framework of this study is depicted in Figure 1.

3. Research Method

3.1. Research Scale

Based on the review of theories and related studies, the article proposes a research model with organizational

culture as the independent variable. The intermediate variables are social responsibility, knowledge sharing, and opportunistic behavior. The target variable is the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks. The study uses a Likert scale with 5 levels (Strongly agree; Agree; Normal; Disagree; Strongly disagree) to collect data from the participants. Indicators measuring variables are applied with adjustments in accordance with the characteristics of the research sample from previous studies (see Table 1).

Table 1: Origin of the Scale of Variables

3.2. Research Sample

The research samples were selected by the non-probability sampling method, which is convenient sampling. Data was collected through stratified sampling at Vietnamese commercial banks. The participants in the investigation are individual customers of commercial banks. The sample size in the collection was 608 samples. The data collection process is conducted in two ways: face-to-face and online voting. The number of online votes collected is 351, the number of usable votes is 337. In-person, the number of issued votes is 500, the number of collected votes is 324, and the number of usable votes is 271. The total number of valid votes used for analysis is 608. According to the study of Hair et al. (1998) for the reference of expected sample size, the minimum sample size is 5 times the total number of observed variables. The number of observations in the article is 29, the research scale includes 608 samples to meet the analysis requirements. The time for data is from February 2021 to May 2021.

3.3. Data Processing

The current research uses a quantitative method for analyzing the data. After data is collected, it is processed through SPSS and AMOS programs. First, it is evaluated with the reliability of the scale with the required Cronbach’s Alpha value >0.7. Next, we perform exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine “converging value” and “distinguishing value of the scale” and with the requirement of Factor loading >0.5, KMO coefficient 0.5, 1; Sig value. <0.05, and the percentage of variance extracted >50%. After that, AMOS software is used to evaluate the suitability of the research model through the CFA test and finally, we test the research hypotheses by analyzing the SEM linear structure model with the requirements of χ²/df index < 3 (Hair et al., 1998); GFI, TLI, CFI > 0.9 (Segar & Grover, 1993); RMSEA < 0.08 (Taylor et al., 1993).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Testing the Reliability of the Scale

The analysis of Cronbach’s alpha test shows the reliability of the scale used when the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of all variables are >0.7. If the item that is deleted has a coefficient of 0.937, which is greater than the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of the OC variable, the OC₆ indicator has a Cronbach’s alpha (0.933). Therefore, to increase the relevance of the scale, the study removed this indicator (see Table 2).

Table 2: Evaluation of the Reliability of the Scale Through Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient

4.2. EFA

After testing the appropriateness of the scale, the study conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for both the independent, intermediate and dependent variables. The results show that the data is eligible for analysis because it has factor loading coefficients of >0.5 and satisfies two conditions: “Convergence value” (observed variables converge on the same factor) and “differentiation value” (observed variables belonging to one factor are distinguished from another) (see Table 3).

Table 3: EFA Factor Analysis Results

4.3. CFA

The results show the fit of the measurement model. χ2 index = 880, 539, df = 340, χ²/df = 2, 590 (<3), P = 0.000, GFI = 0.906 (>0.9), TLI = 0.949 (>0.9), CFI = 0.954 (>0.9), RMSEA = 0.051 (<0.08).

4.4. SEM Analysis

By analyzing the SEM model for the research model (see Figure 2), we found that the composite indexes were satisfactory. Specifically, χ² = 890.985, df = 341, χ²/df = 2.613 (<3), P = 0.000, GFI = 0.905 (>0.9), TLI = 0.948 (>0.9), CFI = 0.953 (>0.9), RMSEA = 0.052 (<0.08).

Figure 2: SEM Model Analysis

The results of the estimation of the relationships in the model show that the research model is appropriate. Except for hypothesis H7, all the remaining hypotheses are accepted with a significance level of P < 0.05.

Specifically, hypothesis H1 is accepted with the significance level p < 0.05 and the regression weight is 0.298 (>0). Therefore, it can be concluded that organizational culture positively affects the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam. This result corresponds to the studies of Barney and Hesterly (2008), Olsen (1993), and Jaques (2012).

Hypotheses H2 and H3 are accepted with significance level p < 0.05 and regression weights of 0.598 and 0.214, respectively (>0). The research results show that organizational culture positively affects social responsibility, and thereby positively affects the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam. These results are similar to the studies of Tushman and O’Reilly (1996), Balliet and Lange (2013), Pasricha et al. (2018), Thorne et al. (1993), and Jensen (2001).

Hypotheses H4 and H5 test the impact of organizational culture on knowledge sharing and the impact of knowledge sharing on the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam. Research results show that, with a significance level of p < 0.05 and regression weights of 0.103 and 0.329 (>0), respectively, hypotheses H4 and H5 are accepted. Therefore, it can be concluded that organizational culture has a positive impact on knowledge sharing and knowledge sharing also has a positive impact on sustainable competitive advantages of commercial banks. These results similarly reflect the studies of Wang (2004), Tseng and Fan (2011), Ibragimova (2006), Reed et al. (2006), and Chen and Huang (2009).

Hypotheses H6 and H7 test the impact of organizational culture on opportunistic behavior and the impact of opportunistic behavior on the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam. Research results show that, with a significance level of p < 0.05 and regression weight of −0.550 (<0), hypothesis H6 is accepted. Therefore, organizational culture has a negative impact on the opportunistic behavior of employees at commercial banks. This result also corresponds to the studies of Li (2004) and Prior et al. (2008). Meanwhile, with the significance level of 0.359 (p > 0.05), the study rejects hypothesis H₇. That is, there is no impact of opportunistic behavior of employees on the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam.

Therefore, by rejecting hypothesis H7 while accepting all the remaining hypotheses, the research results have shown that organizational culture has a direct and positive impact on the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam. At the same time, the findings have shown the contribution of this study when demonstrating the mediating role of social responsibility and knowledge sharing in the relationship between organizational culture and sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks (see Table 4).

Table 4: SEM Analysis Results for Relationships in the Model

In addition, hypotheses H8 and H9 test the impact of social responsibility factors and opportunistic behavior on knowledge sharing in commercial banks in Vietnam. The research results show that the hypotheses are all accepted with p < 0.05 significance level and the regression weights are 0.186 (>0) and −0.363 (<0), respectively. This shows that, while social responsibility has a positive effect, opportunistic behavior has a negative effect on knowledge sharing in commercial banks. These results also correspond to the studies of Holbeche and Springett (2004), Glavas and Kelley (2014), and Youndt et al. (2004).

4.5. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

The research has shown the importance of organizational culture to the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam, as well as the mediating role of social responsibility factors and knowledge sharing. To compare these results with reality, the study carried out descriptive statistical analysis and determined the mean values of the factors.

The findings of the research suggest that the sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks is determined at a reasonably high level, with the highest mean value of 3, 9010 among all the factors included in the model. This is a positive signal for banks, indicating that they are making the right decisions in terms of developing and maintaining products, building customer trust, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of commercial banks in Vietnam.

Also, the mean value of opportunistic behavior is 2.5243. Compared to other factors in the model, this factor is rated at the lowest level, reflecting the positive side in business management activities. However, this is still a relatively high number compared to a factor that reflects the negative side of management activities. Commercial banks need to pay more attention to the opportunistic behaviors of individuals in the organization. It is necessary to establish specific targets for managers and employees in each unit. Organizations should encourage employees to do their jobs well with fair evaluation, recognition, and motivation policies. Strengthening management activities in the bank is also recommended to limit self-seeking behaviors and reliant attitudes at work (see Table 5).

Table 5: The Results of Statistical Analysis Describing the Variables

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on reviewing research works, the article builds a model and tests the organizational culture relationship and sustainable competitive advantage of commercial banks in Vietnam. Research results show that organizational culture has both a direct and indirect impact on sustainable competitive advantage through the mediating factors of social responsibility and knowledge sharing. In addition, the study also proves that, while social responsibility has a positive effect, opportunistic behavior has a negative effect on knowledge sharing in commercial banks. Based on these research results, the authors make some recommendations to contribute to the creation, maintenance, and development of sustainable competitive advantages of commercial banks in Vietnam.

First, as a part of their organizational culture, banks must have appropriate business policies that adapt to the changing environment. Banks need to take care of and build a close relationship with and focus on customers. In all activities, banks need to strengthen effective teamwork, clearly assign responsibilities and tasks along with benefits in group activities.

Second, as part of their social responsibility, commercial banks need to create a safe, caring working environment to take care of the spiritual life and health of their employees. Managers need to encourage employees to develop skills and long-term careers through reasonable job evaluation activities, creating opportunities for employees to be trained so that they can develop their professional skills.

Third, as a part of knowledge sharing, it is necessary to encourage open and frank knowledge sharing at work among employees and colleagues and promote the role of group work in all activities. . The banks’ managers should also regularly care, share difficulties in work and life with employees, and work with employees to find optimal solutions to improve the efficiency of their work.

In addition, to minimize opportunistic behaviors of individuals, banks need to develop specific targets for managers and employees in each unit. They should encourage employees to do their jobs well with fair evaluation, recognition, and motivation policies. It is advisable that banks should strengthen their management to limit self-seeking behaviors and reliant attitudes at work.