Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
Purpose Organizational culture is a critical factor in building and reinforcing knowledge management
in organizations. However, there is no theoretical framework that comprehensively explains the effect of
organizational culture on knowledge management in organizations. This paper endeavors to develop a
theoretical integrative framework for organizational knowledge management and organizational culture.
Successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely
throughout the organization and quickly embody it in new technologies and products (p. 162).
DOI 10.1108/13673271111174320
VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011, pp. 779-801, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
PAGE 779
knowledge management in organizations (Bock, 1999; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Knapp
and Yu, 1999; Rastogi, 2000; Ribere and Sitar, 2003). But very little is known about how
organizational culture enables or obstructs knowledge creation and its management in
organizations.
It is evident from the extant literature that the primary focus of the earlier studies has been on
developing frameworks/models and typologies to define and outline the characteristics of
organizational culture, for, e.g. the competing values framework (Quinn and Rohrbaugh,
1983a, b) and the organizational culture profile (OReilly et al., 1991). The recent works in
knowledge management also have unambiguously emphasized the close relationship
between knowledge management and organizational culture (Davenport and Prusak, 2000;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), along with an appreciation of social context of learning
(Easterby-Smith et al., 1998), and augmenting individual participation in communities of
practice (Easterby-Smith et al., 1998). Hence, organizations need to foster cultures where
their members are promoted to share knowledge in order to gain competitive advantage, but
unfortunately they have little understanding of how to create and leverage it in practice
(Wenger, 1998). There are, however, a few studies in this area but they focus on limited
aspects of organizational culture and organizational knowledge management. For, e.g. see
Lemken et al. (2000); Noordina and Hassanb (n.d.); Ruppel and Harringtons (2001). Gray
and Densten (2005) attempted to develop an integrative framework but they have also
ignored the important aspect of ethical and trusting culture in their proposed model.
Therefore, further research is needed to understand the relationship between organizational
culture and knowledge creation and its management.
This paper endeavors to extend previous theories by examining the interrelationships
between organizational culture and knowledge creation and knowledge management, and
to develop a theoretical integrative framework for organizational culture and knowledge
management in organizations by identifying conceptual parallels between theories of
organizational culture and knowledge creation and conversion frameworks. The study is
significant as integrative framework of organizational culture and knowledge management in
organizations would facilitate organizational learning, which would in turn lead to the
improvement in knowledge management practices. It should also facilitate creation of
processes to put that knowledge in action.
The rest of the paper is organized into six sections. The first section briefly explains the
framework for knowledge creation and conversion (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka
et al., 2000). The next section briefly describes the competing values framework (Quinn
and Rohrbaugh, 1983a, b). This section also explains the need for conceptual modifications
of the competing values framework, and modifies it by incorporating a new dimension
representing ethical and trusting culture. The third section examines the linkages and
interrelationships between the modified competing values framework and knowledge
creation and conversion framework, and then develops an integrative theoretical
framework to understand the relationship between creation and management of
knowledge in organizations and its culture. The penultimate section briefly discusses the
theoretical and managerial implications of the proposed integrative framework. This section
also discusses the limitations and presents directions for future research. The concluding
section highlights the importance of the proposed integrative framework by suggesting that
the proposed framework could be used by business leaders not only to facilitate
organizational learning and improvement in knowledge management practices but could
also be used to facilitate creation of processes to put that knowledge in action.
insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information (p. 5). Davenport and Prusak (2000) further explained that in organizations,
knowledge often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories, but also in
organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms (p. 5). According to Malhotra
(1997), knowledge that is contained in the minds of organizational members is the greatest
organizational resource. In a 1998 study, Malhotra (1998) defined knowledge management
as a synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information
technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings. Rastogi (2000)
defined knowledge management as a systematic and integrative process of coordinating
organization-wide activities of acquiring, creating, storing, sharing, diffusing, developing,
and deploying knowledge by individuals and groups in pursuit of major organizational
goals (p. 40). However, despite the subtle differences between various definitions, scholars
agree that effective and efficient knowledge management is central to organizational
performance and success (Martin, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). For the purpose of
this study, knowledge is defined as justified true beliefs derived from accumulated
information (Nonaka, 1994), and knowledge creation as the generation of new knowledge
(Argote et al., 2003).
Knowledge, its creation and conversion
Nonakas research (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka
and Toyama, 2003) represents the main theoretical underpinning for understanding how
organizational knowledge is created, shared, converted and transferred in present-day
organizations. Although some scholars disapprove of Nonakas work for emphasizing the
need to convert tacit knowledge (Tsoukas, 2003) and assuming cultural universality (Glisby
and Holden, 2003), his research provides an internationally agreed terminology that is used
to describe a generalized theory of knowledge creation and conversion to which important
divergences can be drawn (Walsh et al., 2009). Therefore, Nonakas framework (Nonaka,
1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003) has
been used in this paper to describe the process of knowledge creation and conversion in
organizations.
Scholars generally categorize knowledge into two types tacit and explicit knowledge
(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003; Nonaka et al.,
2000). Nonakas research (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000;
Nonaka and Toyama, 2003) builds on the difference between explicit and tacit knowledge
(Polanyi, 1966). Tacit knowledge, also known as embedded and sticky knowledge, is
subjective and experience based knowledge, which cannot be expressed in works,
sentences, number or formulas, etc. (Polanyi, 1966). This also includes cognitive skills such
as beliefs, images, intuition, and mental models as well as technical skills such as craft and
know-how (Polanyi, 1966). Tacit knowledge is deeply embedded in an individuals actions
and experience as well as in his/her ideals, values, or emotions (Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Explicit knowledge, also sometimes called leaky knowledge, is objective and rational, which
can be documented and distributed to others, which includes guidelines, procedures, white
papers, reports, strategies and others (Kakabadse et al., 2001; Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Although both types of knowledge have distinguishing features between them, they
complement each other so far as knowledge creation and conversion in organizations is
concerned. Explicit knowledge without the tacit insight quickly loses its meaning (Nonaka
et al., 2000). However, according to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p. 247) tacitness may be
considered as a variable, with a degree of tacitness being a function of extent to which the
knowledge is or can be codified or abstracted. Knowledge may dynamically shift between
tacit and explicit over time (Nonaka et al., 2000), but some knowledge will always remain
tacit (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
Knowledge is created through a process in which various contradictions are synthesized
through dynamic interactions among individuals, the organization, and the environment
(Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). Besides, the process of knowledge
creation is through a spiral that integrates two seemingly opposing concepts such as tacit
and explicit, chaos and order, micro (individual) and macro (environment), self and other, mind
and body, part and whole, deduction and induction, creativity and control, top-down and
bottom-up, bureaucracy and task force, and so forth (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2004, p. 9).
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) identified four distinct processes socialization,
externalization, combination and internalization (SECI) by which new knowledge is
created through conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge. Nonaka et al. (2000)
further extended the SECI process and proposed a more detailed framework consisting of
two more elements, which explains how organizations create knowledge dynamically. These
two elements are ba, the shared context for knowledge creation; and knowledge assets
the inputs, outputs, and moderator of the knowledge-creating process (Nonaka et al., 2000).
The SECI process: four modes of knowledge conversion
According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), an organization creates knowledge through
interactions between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge, and the interaction between
the two types of knowledge is known as knowledge conversion. The basic concept
underlying the SECI process is that knowledge is first created within the individuals, which is
then transmitted to the organization. The approach underlying Nonaka and Takeuchis
(1995) model is that knowledge conversion is a social interaction between individuals, and it
is not confined within an individual. Figure 1 provides a conceptual diagram of the four
modes of knowledge conversion.
Socialization is a process where individuals share experiences with each other, which also
includes creation and sharing of mental models, world views, and mutual trust (Nonaka and
Konno, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Firms often acquire and take advantage of the
tacit knowledge embedded in customers or suppliers by interacting with them (Bojnord and
Afrazeh, 2006). Externalization characterizes the conversion of tacitly held knowledge,
Tacit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Externalizaon
Socializaon
G
I
I
I
Tacit
Knowledge
Internalizaon
Environment
Combinaon
Environment
G
I
Org
Org
G
Explicit
Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
Environment
Explicit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Environment
manuals or simulation programs (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Thus, exercising ba primarily
offers a context for internalization (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000). The SECI
process of knowledge creation and conversion and characteristics of ba can be mapped
together (Figure 2).
Knowledge assets
According to Nonaka et al. (2000), knowledge assets, which are the inputs, outputs, and
moderating factors of the knowledge-creating process, are extremely critical to the
knowledge-creating processes. For proper understanding of how knowledge assets are
created, acquired, and exploited, Nonaka et al.(2000) categorized knowledge assets into
four types: experiential knowledge assets, conceptual knowledge assets, systemic
knowledge assets, and routine knowledge assets.
Experiential knowledge assets consist of the shared tacit knowledge, which is built through
shared hands-on experience amongst the members of the organization, and between the
members of the organization and other stakeholders (Nonaka et al., 2000). Conceptual
knowledge assets consist of explicit knowledge expressed through images, symbols and
language (Magnier-Watanabe, 2009). Since conceptual knowledge assets are tangible, they
are easier to comprehend as compared to experiential knowledge assets (Nonaka et al.,
2000). Systemic knowledge assets consist of systematized and packaged explicit
knowledge, such as explicitly stated technologies, product specifications, manuals, and
documented information about customers and suppliers (Magnier-Watanabe, 2009). Other
examples of systemic knowledge are legally protected intellectual property rights such as
patents, geographic indications, trademarks, etc. Since these assets are tangible, visible
and easily comprehensible, they can be transferred relatively easily (Nonaka et al., 2000).
Routine knowledge assets consist of tacit knowledge that is routinized and embedded in the
actions and practices of the organization, for, e.g. know-how, organizational culture,
organizational routines for carrying out the day-to-day business of the organization, etc.
(Nonaka et al., 2000). Through continuous exercises, certain patterns of thinking and action
are reinforced and shared amongst organizational members (Nonaka et al., 2000). These
Figure 2 The SECI process of knowledge creation and conversion and types of interaction
of ba
Type of Interacon
Collecve
Socializaon
Externalizaon
(Tacit Tacit)
(Tacit Explicit)
Originang ba
Dialoguing ba
Exercising ba
Systemizing ba
(Explicit Tacit)
(Explicit Explicit)
Internalizaon
Combinaon
Individual
Collecve
Virtual
Virtual
Media
Face to Face
Arculang tacit
knowledge through
dialogue & reecon
Face to Face
Individual
Creang tacit
knowledge through
sharing experience
four types of knowledge assets form the basis of the knowledge-creating process, and since
knowledge assets are dynamic, new knowledge assets can be created from existing
knowledge assets (Nonaka et al., 2000). The four categories of knowledge assets
correspond with the four modes of SECI knowledge creation and conversion processes
(Figure 3).
Experienal Knowledge
Assets
Conceptual Knowledge
Assets
(explicit knowledge
arculated through images,
symbols)
Roune Knowledge
Assets
Systemic Knowledge
Assets
Explicit
Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
The adhocracy culture (upper right quadrant), referred to as the open systems perspective,
is characterized by values that highlight external, organic focus and flexibility (Cameron
et al., n.d.). The emphasis is on innovation, creativity, articulating future vision, adaptation,
transformation change, growth, entrepreneurship, external support, and resource
acquisition (Cameron, n.d.). Members are part of adjusting adhocracies and are bonded
together through being motivated, enthused and challenged (Cameron et al., n.d.; Cameron
and Quinn, 1999). The adhocracy culture is like a temporary institution, which is dissolved or
which ceases to exist whenever the organizational tasks are ended, and reemerges quickly
whenever new tasks arise (Yu and Wu, 2009).
The market culture (lower right quadrant), denoted as the rational goal perspective, is
characterized by values that highlight predictability, external focus, and control (Cameron
et al., n.d.). The emphasis is on competitiveness, fast response, decisiveness, productivity,
goal clarity, driving through barriers, efficiency, and goal achievement (Cameron, n.d.).
Members are part of market type organizations and are united together through goal
orientation and competition (Cameron et al., n.d.; Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Instead of
focusing on the internal management, the emphasis of market culture is on the
businesses/dealings/communications with the environment outside the organization
(Ouchi, 1979, 1984; Yu and Wu, 2009). The organizational goal is to earn profits through
market competition (Ouchi, 1979, 1984).
The hierarchy culture (lower left quadrant), referred to as the internal process perspective or
hierarchy culture, is characterized by values that highlight predictability, control, and internal
focus (Cameron et al., n.d.). The focus is on routine and predictable work processes,
structuring, documentation, assessment and measurement, centralization, controlling
processes, stability, efficiency improvement, and continuity (Cameron, n.d.). In
organizations typified by hierarchical culture, members are united together through
internal controls mechanisms such as rules, guidelines, policies, and procedures (Cameron
et al., n.d.; Cameron and Quinn, 1999). These organizations have clear organizational
structure, standardized rules and procedures, strict control, and well defined responsibilities
(Weber, 1947; as cited in Yu and Wu, 2009).
In the real world, organizations are rarely typified by a single culture type; an effective
organization may need to perform well on all four sets of criteria, and organizations having all
the four quadrants adequately represented are considered to be balanced and perform
well (Yu and Wu, 2009). Leaders in such organizations are able to balance inconsistent and
competing demands, suggesting that high performance requires concurrent mastery of
seemingly contradictory or paradoxical abilities (Yu and Wu, 2009). In contrast, cultures
considered imbalanced tend to underline values linked with rational goals (market) and
internal process (hierarchy) cultures at the expense of values that characterize other
cultures, thereby resulting in comparatively poor organizational performance (Denison and
Spreitzer, 1991). Though organizations have propensity to develop an overriding
organizational culture over time as the organization adapts and responds to the
challenges and changes in the environment (Cameron and Quinn, 1999), at any given
time there are likely to be tradeoffs between the criteria (Yu and Wu, 2009). Quinn and
Cameron (1983) suggested that organizations are often confronted with contradictory
functional requirements that are linked with the formation of mutually antagonistic
arrangement that function to meet these requirements. Furthering this contention, they
also suggested that at certain thresholds, these conflicts might become particularly
overstated; often resulting in major reconfigurations of the coalitional structure (Quinn and
Cameron, 1983). Nevertheless, ignoring the criteria in any of the models would tantamount to
having incomplete view of organizational performance (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983a, b).
Modifying the competing value framework
Although the competing values framework provides a comprehensive model for
organizational culture analysis, of late some researchers are of the view that the two
dimensions envisaged in the competing values framework do not encompass all the
possible dimensions of organizational culture, for example, ethical and trusting culture
dimension (Brown and Woodland, 1999; Curry and Stancich, 2000; Rastogi, 2000). The
origin of the concept of ethics can be traced back to Aristotles (1952) Nicomachean Ethics
according to which collective ideals of engagement such as friendship are possible only
when the fundamental conditions of trust and ethical conduct towards each other are met.
Jones (2003, p. 237) read the implications of Immanuel Kants work for business ethics
the ethical business exceeds expectations and demonstrates that it is worthy of trust.
Wortuba et al. (2001) called for such ethics based trust to be translated into a formal code of
ethics which ensures that members know what is expected of them. For the purpsoe of this
paper, trusting and ethical culture in the context of business is defined as the prevalence of
social relationships in the form of formal codes and informal expectations that people hold
from each other in an organization (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2008).
Thus, management commitment to ethics is an important determinant of corporate social
performance (Muller and Kolk, 2010) indicating that the nature of the organization is
dependent on the cultural commitments prevailing in the organization. When organizations
establish processes that support collective moral agency, then they can gain benefits in the
form of increased effectiveness (Heugens et al., 2008). Managerial decision making draws
more from ethical values embedded in peer dynamics than from the clarity of corporate
policy (Jackson, 2000). This indicates that the nature of ethics that is practiced in the
organization is an important determinant of the ways in which decisions are made and has
implications for effectiveness. Decision making methods are embedded in the knowledge
management systems prevailing in an organization, and issues of trust, collective moral
agency and peer dynamics are thus important constituents of effective knowledge
management systems.
Thus, ethical and trusting culture is an important and critical dimension for sharing created
and converted knowledge and knowledge management in organizations (Brown and
Woodland, 1999; Curry and Stancich, 2000; Rastogi, 2000). Sincerity, honesty and high
degree of mutual trusting culture are basic cultural values for knowledge management in any
organization (McDermott and ODell, 2001). Since sharing of knowledge is an unnatural
act, in an absence of climate of munificence and mutual trust among the members of the
organization, knowledge sharing will be diminished (Brown and Woodland, 1999; Curry and
Stancich, 2000; Rastogi, 2000). Members of an organization, who have the fear of unjust or
disrespectful treatment, or who do not have other means of power and authority, often use
knowledge as a control and defense mechanism to maintain their relevance and importance
in the organization (Brown and Woodland, 1999). Thus, climate of mutual trust, compassion
and concern for others in an organization is essential prerequisite for sharing of knowledge
(Brown and Woodland, 1999; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Rastogi, 2000; VonKrogh, 1998).
Hence, while the competing values framework effectively captures internal versus external
focus or flexibility versus order, none of its four quadrants specifically addresses and
captures the important values of ethics and trust. The author, therefore, asserts that so far as
knowledge creation and conversion through sharing mechanism is concerned, regardless
of the internal/external focus or flexibility/order values, ethical and trusting culture is a
predominant concern for all members of an organization. Therefore, in addition to the
dimensions of the competing values framework, i.e. internal versus external focus or
flexibility versus order, the author uses the dimension of ethics and trust in this paper as this
study would be less comprehensive without the third dimension highlighting the
significance of the culture for ethics and trust for knowledge creation and conversion in
organizations. The conceptual illustration of the modified competing values framework
with the dimension of ethics and trust is illustrated in Figure 4.
Ethical culture
Open systems
Adhocracy
Clan
Internal focus
and
integraon
External focus
and
dierenaon
Hierarchy
Market
Internal process
Raonal goals
(Nonaka et al., 2000, p. 14). The integration of Nonaka et al.s (2000) knowledge creation
and conversion framework with the modified Quinn and Rohrbaughs (1983a, b)
competing values framework gives an opportunity to expound the effect of
organizational culture in the knowledge creation and conversion process.
It is important to appreciate that several conceptual similarities underpin the two
frameworks: both present analytical models, which endeavor to explain organizational
effectiveness. While the competing values framework attempts to explain organizational
effectiveness in terms of the deep structure of organizational culture (Quinn and Rohrbaugh,
1983a, b), the knowledge creation and conversion framework endeavors to explain that
the creation, conversion and transfer of knowledge is fundamental to organizational
effectiveness (Nonaka et al., 2000). In addition, both the frameworks endeavor to capture the
dynamic processes linked with internal operations and the organizational interactions with
the external environment. The comparison between the characteristics of the four quadrants
of the competing values framework and the various components (modes of knowledge
creation, ba, and knowledge assets) of the knowledge creation and conversion framework
represented in Figure 5 clearly shows that both frameworks have conceptual similarities.
Figure 5 Mapping the CVF (culture) with knowledge creation and conversion framework
Numbers correspond to the proposions in the text
P6
Internal Process
P4
Conguring
work rounes
Internalizaon
Explicit to
Tacit
Combinaon
Explicit to
Explicit
ETHICAL CULTURE
Raonal Goal
P3
Relaonships &
formal exchanges
Open System
P2
Openings for
intuion & ingenuity
Externalizaon
Tacit to
Explicit
Socializaon
Tacit to
Tacit
ETHICAL CULTURE
Human Relaons
P1
Organizational Culture
Relaonship &
informal exchanges
Ba
Knowledge Process
P5
Conversion
because half-life of most of the technology in the twenty-first century is not more than six
months.
The competitive values framework and the knowledge creation and conversion
framework both recognize that informal interactions among individuals facilitate shared
experiences to influence organizational effectiveness and knowledge generation,
conversion and transfer. As such, it is expected that the creation and conversion of
knowledge in organizations characterized by human relation culture will be mostly through
socialization processes:
P1.
In this case also, equivalent concepts are apparent as proposed in the open systems culture
and the externalization processes, which acknowledge the importance of providing
opportunities for innovative manifestation by individuals. Thus, it is expected that the
creation and conversion of knowledge in organizations characterized by open system
relation culture will be mostly through externalization processes:
P2.
In addition, both the frameworks also recognize that for effective organizational
performance, members of the organization are required to balance conflicting and
competing demands. For instance, the competing values framework proposes that high
performance requires concurrent adeptness of seemingly opposing or inconsistent
capabilities (Yu and Wu, 2009). Similarly, the knowledge creation and conversion
framework suggests that knowledge is created in a spiral that integrates seemingly
opposing concepts such as order and chaos, micro and macro, part and whole, mind
and body, tacit and explicit, etc. (Nonaka et al., 2000). The competing values
framework also entails that improvement and development of capabilities to successfully
fulfill the competing roles required in all the four quadrants is a must for an effective
managerial leadership (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991). Similarly, though the knowledge
creation and conversion framework suggests a sub-sequential process of knowledge
conversion, all four modes envisioned in the framework are envisaged to function
concurrently in a spiral of knowledge conversion (Byosiere and Luethge, 2004; Nonaka
et al., 2000).
There are some firms that have pursued a multi-pronged approach to create value and
remain competitive. On the one hand these firms have created value by focusing on external
opportunities such as acquisitions, identifying future trends, pursuing innovative ideas, and
competing for market share and growth. On the other hand, they have also created value
through an emphasis on internal capability, or on systems, culture, cost reduction,
continuous quality improvement, and human development. General Electric is a good
example of such an organization it has remained one of the worlds most successful firms
by constantly engaging, acquiring, and competing with entities outside its traditional market
niches (Tichy and Sherman, 1994). It has also created enormous value by adopting an
internal six sigma quality initiative and a wholesale adoption of the internet as a way of doing
business:
P5.
Ethical and trusting culture (e.g. integrity, competence, honesty, commitment, trust,
concern for others, etc.) will facilitate effective and efficient knowledge
management in organizations.
Discussion
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Nonaka et al. (2000) offered a guiding framework in
knowledge management research. Similarly, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983a, b) provided a
framework for organizational effectiveness, which can also be used to understand
organizational culture because of its ability to tap into the aspects of organizational
effectiveness via different values, assumptions, and interpretations that define an
organizations culture. While Quinn and Rohrbaughs (1983a, b) competing value
framework described values often used for decision making, it did not include specific
measures for trust and an ethical work environment, which is critical for knowledge
creation and knowledge management. Hence, the author has modified the competing
values framework by adding the dimension, which represents ethical and trusting
culture. Based on the congruity between the modified competing values framework and
the knowledge creation and conversion framework, the author has formulated six
propositions about the propensity of organizations of different dominant cultural styles to
engage in the four processes of knowledge creation and conversion. The resulting
organizational knowledge management framework is depicted in Figure 6. Exploring and
understanding the relationships between characteristics of organizational culture and
Figure 6 The organizational knowledge management framework
Competing Value
Framework
Culture
Clan Culture
information sharing,
teamwork,
collaboration,
talent management,
empowerment,
interpersonal
relationships, and
participative decisionmaking
Adhocracy Culture
innovation,
creativity,
articulating future
vision,
adaptation,
transformation change,
growth,
entrepreneurship,
external support, and
resource acquisition
Market Culture
competitiveness,
fast response,
decisiveness,
productivity,
goal clarity,
driving through
barriers,
efficiency, and
goal achievement
Hierarchical Culture
routine & predictable
work processes,
structuring,
documentation,
assessment &
measurement,
centralization,
controlling processes,
stability,
efficiency
improvement
Ba
Originating
provides context for
socialization
interact face-to-face
share their experiences,
feelings, emotions and
mental models
care, love, trust, and
commitment
Dialoguing
provides context for
externalization
collective and face-toface interactions
individuals mental
models and skills are
shared, and converted
into common terms, and
expressed as concepts
Systemizing
provides context for
combining
existing explicit
knowledge is transmitted
through
on-line or network
modes of
communication,
groupware,
documentation, and
databanks
Exercising
offers a context for
internalization
individuals embody
explicit knowledge that
is communicated through
manuals
documents, or
simulation programs
Knowledge assets
Experiential
Tacit knowledge shared
through common
experiences
skills and know-how
of individuals
care, love, trust
security
Energy, passion and
tension
Conceptual
Explicit Knowledge
articulated through
images, symbols and
language
product concepts
design
brand equity
Systemic
Systemized and packaged
explicit knowledge
documents,
specifications,
manuals
database
patents and licenses
Routine
Tacit knowledge
routinized and embedded
in actions and practices
know-how in daily
operations
organizational
routines
organizational
culture
enhance creation, conversion, sharing and transfer of knowledge, which underlines the most
critical aspect for successful organizational transformation. Additionally, the proposed
framework could aid in the analysis of insufficient knowledge management processes, for,
e.g. where a culture of knowledge hoarding[3] creates hindrances in knowledge sharing
(Ardichvili et al., 2006; Hurley and Green, 2005). Such a situation is not uncommon in an
extremely competitive organization, which aggressively focuses on a market culture (Hurley
and Green, 2005).
Recent studies on knowledge transfer between units of MNCs, JVs, etc. highlight various
factors, including cross-cultural differences, which create obstructions in smooth knowledge
sharing patterns (e.g. Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). The
proposed integrative framework could aid organizational leaders to recognize that creation
and transfer of knowledge across cultural boundaries creates additional challenges, and
further suggests that any introduction of a knowledge management system in a new country
or region should be made to fit to values and cultural preferences of members of the
organization of the respective country or region. In other words, any introduction of
country-specific knowledge sharing systems based on the cultural requires assessment,
and identification of culture-specific barriers to knowledge exchange.
Thus, the proposed theoretical framework helps managers to understand the linkages
between culture and knowledge management and thus empowers them to consider the
cultural interventions that may be needed to focus on specific knowledge management
processes. It also outlines a need to focus on all knowledge management practices without
being handicapped by prevalent culture in implementing processes. Further, it provides an
opportunity for managers to understand ethical practices in different levels of the
organization and their implications for knowledge management. When employees trust and
ethically care for each other, and the organization facilitates such an ethical climate, then
employees share important information with each other, thus improving the efficacy of
knowledge management practices. Also, this fosters a sense of collective belongingness
and employees collaborate with each other instead of competing with each other to make
the knowledge management practices more effective.
Limitations
The limitations of this paper are that while developing the integrative framework, the author
has not taken into account the shortcomings in Nonaka and Takeuchis (1995) and Nonaka
et al.s (2000) knowledge creation and conversion framework. For instance, according to
Essers and Schreinemakers (1997), although the Nonakas framework recognizes that the
capacity for corporate action depends on ideas and beliefs as well as on scientific
knowledge, its subjectivism tends towards a dangerous relativism as it makes justification a
matter of managerial authority, and neglects to consider how scientific criteria relate to
corporate knowledge. Besides, this framework also fails to recognize that the commitment of
different groups to their ideas and the resulting need to resolve this conflict by managerial
authority cannot augur good for ingenuity and innovation (Essers and Schreinemakers,
1997). Moreover, this framework neither explains how new ideas are produced nor explains
how depth of understanding (necessary for expertise) develops (Bereiter, 2002; as cited in
Gourlay, 2006).
In view of the above limitations, further theoretical conceptualization is required not only to
elucidate the processes by which tacit knowledge becomes explicit but also to provide
explanation for the shortcomings in the knowledge creation and conversion framework.
More importantly, such conceptualization could provide the foundation for the identification
of the conceptual, interpersonal, and technical skills that managers and leaders require for
facilitating knowledge management.
There exists vast amount of contemporary literature on various schools of thought in respect
of organizational culture, which posits different but compelling views to understand
organizational culture (for details see Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984; Alvesson, 2002). In
addition, there is also an emerging school of thought, which highlights the orientation as
another dimension to study organizational culture. But the author has restricted this study to
Conclusion
The competing values framework originally emerged from empirical research to explain
the intricate and paradoxical nature of organizational effectiveness. Nonaka and Takeuchis
(1995) and Nonaka et al.s (2000) knowledge creation and conversion framework
endeavored to elucidate knowledge creation and conversion in organizations. Integrating
the two frameworks the competing values framework with an additional dimension of
ethical and trusting culture and the knowledge creation and conversion framework can
provide the means to understand how organizational culture impels or improves the
expansion of organizational knowledge.
Despite the limitations discussed above, the proposed integrative framework provides an
elegant conceptual model with an integrated set of techniques and tools to understand the
linkages between organizational culture and knowledge management in an organization.
The author, however, does not claim universal applicability or generalizability of the
proposed integrative framework; it only suggests a possible diagnostic or normative
prescription. The proposed integrative framework may be used to conduct further empirical
studies whose results will provide clearer evidence with regard to the nature of normative
statement implied by the proposed integrative framework. In conclusion, by suggesting the
integration of organizational culture and knowledge management theory, the author expects
to develop organizational interventions facilitating improved knowledge management, to
promote development of theory, and to encourage further empirical research into these very
important facets of organizational behavior.
Notes
1. Ba is defined as a shared context in which knowledge is shared, created, and utilized. Ba is the
concept that was originally proposed by the Japanese philosopher (Nishida, 1921; as cited in
Nonaka et al., 2000) and later further developed by Shimizu (1995); as cited in Nonaka et al. (2000).
However, the concept of place has also been talked about by such philosophers as Plato, Kant,
Husserl and Whitehead also (Nonaka et al., 2000).
2. The competing values framework was developed initially from research conducted by University of
Michigan faculty members on the major indicators of effective organizational performance. It has
been found to be an extremely useful model for organizing and understanding a wide variety of
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundation and research issues, MIS Quaterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36.
Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M.E. (1984), Theories of organizational culture, Organization Studies, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 193-226.
Alvesson, M. (1987), Organization, culture and ideology, International Studies of Management and
Organizations, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 4-18.
Alvesson, M. (2002), Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage, London.
Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R. (2003), Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative
framework and emerging themes, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 571-82.
Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T. and Stuedemann, R. (2006), Cultural influences on
knowledge sharing through online communities of practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 94-107.
Aristotle (1952), Nicomachean ethics, in Ross, W.D. (Ed.), The Works of Aristotle, Chicago University
Press, Chicago, IL.
Ashforth, B.E. (1985), Climate formation: issues and extensions, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 837-47.
Bansal, G., Malani, P. and Popli, S. (2009), Knowledge hoarding, Indian School of Business Insight,
Winter, pp. 33-5, available at: www.eiu.com/report_dl.asp?mode fi&fi 927257077.PDF&rf 0
(accessed 12 August 2010).
Berrio, A.A. (2003), An organizational culture assessment using the competing values framework:
a profile of Ohio State university extension, Journal of Extension, Vol. 41 No. 2, available at: www.joe.
org/joe/2003april/a3.php (accessed 14 August 2010).
Bhagat, R.S., Kedia, B.L., Harveston, P.D. and Triandis, H.C. (2002), Cultural variations in the
cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 204-21.
Bock, F. (1999), The intelligent approach to knowledge management: viewing KM in terms of content,
culture, process and infrastructure, Knowledge Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 22-5.
Bojnord, N.H. and Afrazeh, A. (2006), Knowledge management in project phases, pp. 67-72,
proceedings of The 5th WSEAS Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems,
Madrid, Spain, available at: www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2006madrid/papers/512-171.pdf
(accessed 24 August 2010).
Brown, R.B. and Woodland, M. (1999), Managing knowledge wisely: a case study in organizational
behavior, Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 175-98.
Byosiere, P. and Luethge, D.J. (2004), Realizing vision through envisioning reality: strategic leadership
in building knowledge spheres, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Leading in Turbulent Times:
Managing in the New World of Work, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 243-58.
Cameron, K.S. (n.d.), An introduction to competing value framework, available at: www.haworth.com/
en-us/Knowledge/Workplace-Library/Documents/An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Competing%
20Values%20Framework.pdf (accessed 29 August 2010).
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagonising and Changing Organizational Culture,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., DeGaff, J. and Thakor, A.J. (n.d.), The competing values framework:
creating value through purpose, practices, and people, available at: http://competingvalues.com/
competingvalues.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Competing-Values-Leadership-Excerpt.pdf
(accessed 14 August 2010).
Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2008), Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management,
7th Ed., South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Cohen, D. (1993), Creating and maintaining ethical work climates: Anomie in the workplace and
implications for managing change, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 343-58.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1998), Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Random
House, London.
Curry, A. and Stancich, L. (2000), The internet: an intrisic component of strategic management,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 249-68.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what They
Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.
Denison, D.R. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991), Organizational culture and organizational development:
a competing values approach, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, pp. 1-21.
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R. and Quinn, R.E. (1995), Paradox and performance: toward a theory of
behavioral complexity in managerial leadership, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 524-40.
Dion, M. (1996), Organizational culture as matrix of corporate ethics, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 4, pp. 329-51.
Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R. and Gherardi, S. (1998), Organizational learning: diverging communities
of practice?, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 259-72.
Essers, J. and Schreinemakers, J. (1997), Nonakas subjectivist conception of knowledge in corporate
knowledge management, Knowledge Organization, Vol. 24, pp. 24-32.
Frederick, W.C. (1995), Values, Nature, and Culture in the American Corporation, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Glisby, M. and Holden, N. (2003), Contextual constraints in knowledge management theory: the cultural
embeddedness of Nonakas knowledge-creating company, Knowledge and Process Management,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
Gray, J.H. and Densten, I.L. (2005), Towards an integrative model of organizational culture and
knowledge management, International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 594-603.
Gourlay, S. (2006), Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonakas theory, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1415-36.
Gummer, B. (1998), Social relations in an organizational context: social capital, real work, and structural
holes, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 87-105.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), Knowledge managements social dimension: lesson from
nucor steel, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Hatch, M.J. (1993), The dynamics of organizational culture, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 657-93.
Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., Kaptein, M. and Oosterhaut, J.H.V. (2008), Contracts for communities:
a processual model of organizational virtue, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 100-21.
Hurley, T.A. and Green, C.W. (2005), Knowledge management and the nonprofit industry: a within and
between approach, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, available at: www.tlainc.com/
articl79.htm (accessed 14 August 2010).
Inkpen, A.C. (1996), Creating knowledge through collaboration, California Management Review,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-40.
Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998), Knowledge management processes and international joint
ventures, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 454-68.
Jackson, T. (2000), Management ethics and corporate policy: a cross-cultural comparison, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 349-69.
Jones, C. (2003), As if business ethics were possible, within such limits. . ., Organization, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 223-48.
Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A. and Kakabadse, A. (2001), From tacit knowledge to knowledge
management: leveraging invisible assets, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 137-54.
King, W.R. (2000), Playing an integral role in knowledge management, Infromation Systems
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 59-61.
Knapp, E. and Yu, D. (1999), Understanding organizational culture: how culture helps or hinders the
flow of knowledge, Knowledgement Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 16-21.
Lemken, B., Kahler, H. and Rittenbruch, M. (2000), Sustained knowledge management by
organizational culture, proceedings of the HawaiI International Conference On System Sciences,
January 4-7, 2000, Maui, Hawaii, IEEE, available at: www.iai.uni-bonn.de/,prosec/virto/HICSS2000.pdf
(accessed 28 August 2010).
McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
McIntyre, S.G., Gauvin, M. and Waruszynski, B. (2003), Knowledge management in the military
context, Canadian Military Journal, Spring, pp. 35-40.
Magnier-Watanabe, R. (2009), Congruent knowledge management behaviors as discriminate sources
of competitive advantage, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 109-24.
Malhotra, Y. (1997), Knowledge management in inquiring organizations, proceedings of 3rd Americas
Conference on Information Systems, available at: http://km.brint.com/km.htm (accessed 28 August
2010).
Malhotra, Y. (1998), Knowledge management, knowledge organizations and knowledge workers:
a view from the front lines, available at: http://km.brint.com/km.htm (accessed 28 August 2010).
Martin, B. (2000), Knowledge management with in the context of management: an evolving
relationship, Singapore Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 17-37.
Muller, A. and Kolk, A. (2010), Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance: evidence
from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.
Naicker, N. (2008), Organizational culture and employee commitment: a case study, available at:
http://ir.dut.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10321/475/Naicker_2008.pdf?sequence 1 (accessed 29 August
2010).
Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), The concept of ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation,
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2003), The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a
synthesizing process, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 2-10.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000), SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Noordina, A. and Hassanb, S. (n.d.), Knowledge management model for UUMs golf club, available at:
www.eg2 km.org/articles/Adapting%20Nonakas%20SECI%20Model%20in%20developing%20KMS%
20for%20UUMs%20Golf%20Club.pdf (accessed 14 August 2010).
OReilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwel, D.F. (1991), People and organization culture: a profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 487-516.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1993), Learning from notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation,
The Information Society, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 237-51.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979), A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms,
Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 833-48.
Ouchi, W.G. (1984), The M-Form cociety: lessons from business management, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 191-213.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kenan Paul, London.
Popadiuk, S. and Choo, C.W. (2006), Innovation and knowledge creation: how are these concepts
related?, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 302-12.
Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (1983), Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness:
some preliminary evidence, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983a), A competing value framework approach to organizational
effectiveness, Public Productivity Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-40.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983b), A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing
values approach to organizational analysis, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 363-77.
Rastogi, P.N. (2000), Knowledge management and intellectual capital: the new virtuous reality of
competitiveness, Human Systems Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 19-49.
Ribere, V.M. and Sitar, A.S. (2003), Critical role of leadership in nurturing a knowledge supporting
culture, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 39-48.
Ruppel, C.P. and Harrington, S.J. (2001), Sharing knowledge through intranets: a study of
organizational culture and intranet implementation, IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 33-52.
Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Smircich, L. (1983), Concepts of culture and organizational analysis, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-58.
Suppiah, V. and Sandhu, M.S. (2011), Organisational cultures influence on tacit knowledge sharing
behaviour, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 462-77.
Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. (2004), Hitotsubashi on knowledge management: knowledge creation and
dialectics, available at: http://140.78.61.8/born/mpwfst/05/0507hitotsubashi.pdf (accessed 14 August
2010).
Trevino, L. (1990), A cultural perspective on changing organizational ethics, in Woodman, R. and
Passmore, W. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 195-230.
Trevino, L. and Brown, M. (2004), Managing to be ethical: debunking five business ethics myths,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, pp. 69-83.
Tichy, N.M. and Sherman, S. (1994), Control Your Own Destiny or Someone Else Will, Harper Business,
New York, NY.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-76.
Tsoukas, H. (2003), Do we really understand tacit knowledge?, available at: http://webcache.
googleusercontent.com/search?q cache:UBNHatJPFLwJ:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi%3D10.1.1.18.8864%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf Do we really understandtacit
knowledge?&hl en&gl in (accessed 14 August 2010).
Tuttle, D.B. (1997), A classification system for understanding individual differences in temporal
orientation among processual researchers and organizational informants, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 349-66.
VonKrogh, G. (1998), Care in knowledge creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 134-53.
Walsh, I.J., Bhatt, M. and Bartunek, M.J. (2009), Organizational knowledge creation in the Chinese
context, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 261-78.
Wang, D., Su, Z. and Yang, D. (2011), Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 363-73.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice learning as a social system, available at; www.co-i-l.com/
coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml (accessed 24 July 2010).
Wilkins, A.L. and Ouchi, W.G. (1983), Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and
organizational performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 468-81.
Wortuba, T., Chonko, L. and Loe, T. (2001), The impact of ethics code familiarity on manager
behaviour, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 33, pp. 59-69.
Yu, T. and Wu, N. (2009), A review of study on the competing values framework, Internatiional Journal
of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 37-42.
Zhou-Sivunen, P. (2005), Organizational culture impact in ERP implementation in China, available at:
www.pafis.shh.fi/graduates/peizho03.pdf (accessed 29 August 2010).