Overcoming cultural barriers for innovation
and knowledge sharing
Juan C. Rivera-Vazquez, Lillian V. Ortiz-Fournier and Felix Rogelio Flores
Juan C. Rivera-Vazquez
and Lillian V. Ortiz-Fournier
are Doctoral Candidates
and Felix Rogelio Flores is
visiting faculty, all at the
Business and
Entrepreneurship School,
Universidad del Turabo,
Gurabo, Puerto Rico.
DOI 10.1108/13673270910988097
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify the cultural barriers that set back knowledge production and
sharing in organizations of the Municipality of Caguas at the Commonwealth of the Puerto Rico in order
to find effective ways to overcome them. The purpose is to explore how the enterprise promotes
efficiency among employees and how they develop a suitable environment for knowledge production
and sharing.
Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative research consists of in-depth interviews, carried out
to management personnel, and questionnaires submitted to the employees. Two hypotheses are
developed and tested using the results obtained from four organizations, public and private.
Findings – The interview responses show that at the managerial level both private and public agencies
have overcome the identified barriers that set back the knowledge sharing, while from the questionnaires it
is found at the employee level that several cultural barriers such as organizational environment, emotional
intelligence and managers’ commitment are still present.
Research limitations/implications – Although limited by the small sample of critical actors, this study
includes international and regional organizations that serve the Municipality of Caguas. The results may
set a basis to develop a methodology to analyze the presence or absence of cultural barriers in other
organizations, and municipalities of Puerto Rico.
Originality/value – This investigation may be used to develop standard procedures to cope with culture
differences when establishing a suitable environment for knowledge production and sharing among
employees.
Keywords National cultures, Knowledge sharing, Innovation, Organizational culture,
Knowledge management, Puerto Rico
Paper type Case study
Introduction
Knowledge is one of the most valuable assets of business and an important competitive
factor. It evolves continuously as the individual and the organization adapt to influences from
external and the internal environment. Knowledge sharing is the process where individuals
mutually exchange both tacit and explicit knowledge, and jointly create a new knowledge.
This process is essential in translating individual knowledge into organizational knowledge.
Focusing on our natural advantages – including a skilled labor force and unique
public-private partnerships – Puerto Rico’s spirit of innovation and its citizens’ work ethic is
becoming more available to companies than ever before. Puerto Rico has launched a
comprehensive reform program designed to streamline operations, reduce inefficiencies
and enhance the government’s responsiveness to the business community. Furthermore,
incorporating the best practices of the private sector Puerto Rico is strengthening its
reputation as a location suited for both large corporations and entrepreneurial ventures
(Hutchings, 2005). In order to participate actively in the global economy, Puerto Ricans must
start thinking how to share and create new knowledge that results in sustainable innovation.
VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009, pp. 257-270, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 257
 The inclusion of knowledge management as an organization’s best practice is meant to
ensure that collaboration is institutionalized and that knowledge sharing occurs.
Organizational culture refers to the norms and value systems that are shared among the
employees of an organization (Hill, 2007). There are many definitions of culture. Hofstede
(1980, p. 25) defines culture as:
[. . .] a collective programming of mind which distinguishes one group from another. Also, as
mental programming patterns of thinking and feeling, and potential acting.

The cultural dimensions show the overall characteristics of a country. They may significantly
influence the knowledge tranfer within enterprises as well as among buisness partners
(Bradley, 1991; Hofstede, 1983).
This investigation focuses on how to overcome cultural barriers that may set back
knowledge production and sharing in public or private agencies in the Municipality of
Caguas which is a city located at the Central-Oriental area of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. The industrial world changes and it is time of unification and globalization of
processes. Cultural differences still play a very important role in achieving success in a
business relationship. They may impact positively, by facilitating communication between
employees and business partners. However, these differences may also inhibit knowledge
transfer and as a result, deter the competitive position of an enterprise (Hauke, 2006). Thus,
it is important to recognize that culture influences meaningfully the will to share knowledge
within organizations. First, we need to define which cultural barriers can set back the
knowledge production and sharing in public and private agencies.
The main objective of this investigation is to identify the cultural barriers that can set back the
innovation process and the new knowledge production of the organizations using Caguas as
a case study. As a result it would be possible to develop best practices for change
management to frame the employee’s behaviors for knowledge sharing and improve the
culture of organizations. The results of this study are expected to be useful for implementing
an effective set of best of practices for local employees and organizations in order to
overcome those attitudes and behaviors that may interfere with the goal of entering into the
global economy for public and private organization in Caguas. Two research questions were
developed:
RQ1. Are there any existing barriers that set back the production of new knowledge and
innovation in private and public organizations?
RQ2. Do these organizations, public or private, of Caguas promote an organizational
culture addressed to knowledge sharing between the employees to solve their
problems?

The following hypotheses were tested to answer these questions.

H1. Public and private agencies in Caguas have cultural barriers that set back
knowledge production and sharing.
H2. Public and private organizations in Caguas do not promote knowledge production
and sharing.

Cultural barriers and knowledge sharing

The people have to be assured that even if they share their very specific or tacit knowledge with
others, their position in a company is not endangered (Hauke, 2006).

Bradley (1991) and McMurray (2002) define knowledge as the mixture of experience,
values, expert and contextual information that help the people or organization in the
evolution and absorption of new experience. Knowledge can be characterized as the ability
of the entreprise or agency to raise productivity and develop new products and market for
easy competition against other organizations. It can be represented as intellectual capital
(McMurray, 2002). Bradley (1991) argues that good knowledge tranfer and a culture
promoting knowledge sharing, among employess and co-operators, are crucial in reaching
competitive advantage by an enterprise.

j j
PAGE 258 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009
‘‘ Knowledge is one of the most valuable assets of business and
an important competitive factor. ’’

It is important not to confuse the concept of knowledge with information. Knowledge is only
linked to a person while information may exist indepedently. It is important for the enterprise
to encourage the employee to share what they know with others (Bradley, 1991; McMurray,
2002). The creation of knowledge takes place when data, experience and information are
chosen and transformed to comply with the best interest of the enterprise or agency.
Enterprises may extract knowledge from external sources or from an interation between new
and existing ones. Another important aspect mentioned is the capacity of the enterprise to
acquire, assimilate, adapt and apply new knowledge (Hauke, 2006).
Hill (2007) describes two ways of organization learning, by own experience and through the
experience of other partners. This means that the good learning of the organization depends
on the optimum relation between employees inside the enterprise and good comunication
with partners outside of the company. McElroy (2003) argued that organizational knowledge
is produced by individuals collaborating in groups formulating and validating new ideas and
the propagating their knowledge across the organization. There are two types of knowledge
explicit and tacit. The tacit knowledge is more dificult to share within the enterprises but the
explicit is easier to be transformed so that everybody can use it (McMurray, 2002). Two
important elements for efficient knowledge tranfer are defined as the aggregate volume of
know-how and information trasmitted per unit of time transmission and absorption. These
two elements are very important for knowledge transfer among employees within enterprises
(Bradley, 1991).
To be effective in producing and sharing knowledge, the organization must identify and
overcome some cultural barries that the literature divides into two levels:
1. barriers at the macro level that acts upon cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1983); and
2. barriers at the micro level which has to do with the organizational culture as it is shaped by
national culture of citizens working for the organization.

Cultural barriers at the macro and micro levels

Knowledge production and sharing processes are influenced by the cultural dimensions
and organizational culture. For businesses with a good organizational culture that promotes
the necessary conditions to share knowledge, managers have to be aware that the cultural
impact has two levels: the macro and micro levels. Organizational culture can act as a
mediator for national culture and knowledge management processes (Ford and Chan,
2002). In a survey of knowledge-based enterprises within Canada, 89 percent of the
respondents ‘‘agreed that their organization encourages and provides opportunities for
communicating ideas, knowledge and experience internally’’ (HRM Guide Canadian Human
Resources, 2001). In the process of knowledge transfer, aspects such as, trust, common
cultures, vocabularies, frames of reference, meeting times and places, broad ideas of
productive work, status and rewards that do not go to knowledge owners, absorptive
capacity in recipients, the belief that knowledge is not the prerogative of particular groups,
absence of the ‘‘not-invented-here’’ syndrome, and tolerance for mistakes or need for help,
among others, are key to the organizational culture (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Only by
combining them the company will develop a good evironment of knowledge prodution and
sharing between the employee and managers (Hofstede, 1983, 2000; Bradley, 1991; Hauke,
2006). The cultural dimensions at the macro level that may have a positive influence on
organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge are smaller power distance, high
level of collectivism, femininity and uncertainy avoidance, future orientation, outer direction,
low context, achieved status, informal and partnership focus culture (Hauke, 2004).

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 259
 For this study we will work with the following cultural dimensions indexes: power distance,
collectivism, femininity and uncertainy avoidance. The small power distance which brings
down the gap between the superior and the employees has a positive effect on
knowledge sharing process and production in the enterprise. The lack of formal distance
makes that the information flow better in both directions. This means that the employees
at a lower position are not afraid to show ideas to the organization. Also, it helps in the
comunication between business partners and cooperation with other enterprises. Without
an appropriate culture, knowledge transfer is at best very difficult, and most likely will not
occur (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Gold et al., 2001). Prior to 1980, organizational
culture was considered by many to be independent of national culture. Hofstede (1980),
however, argues that an organization’s culture is nested within a national culture.
Therefore, national culture should influence human resource practices and organizational
behavior.
The collectivistic index, refers to awareness of employees that teamwork yields better results
than individual work. They are more cooperative with others which promotes knowledge
production and share with others in the organization. The third cultural dimension index
selected is femininity which refers to the enviroment of cooperation where employees feel
secure to share their knowledge with others colleagues. It shows reconcilation, not agression
and self-achievement. Finally, the dimension of low level of uncertainty is correlated with lack
of rules and regulations in an organization (Bradley, 1991; Hofstede, 1983; Garcia et al.,
2008; Hutchings, 2005, Siakas and Georgiadou, 2006). It is expressed when employees do
not find formal barriers, like rules avoiding commnunication with others inside of the
organization. Hauke (2006, p. 8) argues that:
When those who work in a company are willing to take risk, they also feel responsible for their
decisions wich results in higher self-estem and better satisfaction of achieved success. In
consequense they build informal networks, which enable knowledge sharing across people.
These informal networks are also being built on the basis of ongoing cooperation between
different companies, which is positively correlated with knowledge-sharing process among them.

The excellent relations outside and inside the enterprise and a good social network have
a considerable influence the knowledge sharing between employees. Ford and Chan
(2002, p. 7) argue that national cultures and knowledge transfer intersect in the following
ways:
B cultures that are high on individualism may have more difficulty in knowledge transfer than
cultures that are high on collectivism;
B cultures that are high on power distance may have a more top-down flow of knowledge
than cultures that are low on power distance;
B cultures that are high in masculinity may have less knowledge transfer between
organizational members if the competitiveness is individually based, then there may be
no difference if competitiveness is organizationally based; and
B knowledge transfer between heterogeneous cultural groups may be more difficult or
require more time and effort than knowledge transfer within a homogenous cultural group.
Table I presents the relationship of Hofstede dimensions with knowledge management (KM)
trust and knowledge sharing. It also shows that countries with in low power distance
countries, low uncertainty avoidance countries and that are feminine express higher trust
and knowledge sharing is a natural process as one of the basic values of the culture.

‘‘ The inclusion of knowledge management as an organization’s

best practice is meant to ensure that collaboration is
institutionalized and that knowledge sharing occurs. ’’

j j
PAGE 260 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009
Table I Trust and knowledge sharing potential in different cultural settings
Dimension Characteristic relating to KM Trust Knowledge sharing

High power distance Authoritative leadership, centralized decision Low If instruction so requires
structures, inequality between higher ups and
lower downs
Low power distance Participative leadership, decentralized decision High A natural process
structures
High uncertainty avoidance Suspiciousness to innovations and new Low Has to be enforced by regulations and
knowledge, uncertainty for ambiguous situations instructions
Low uncertainty avoidance Problem solving tasks preferred High Expected
Masculinity Assertiveness, sympathy for strong Low Hiding of knowledge for competition reasons
Femininity Co-operation important sympathy for weak High A basic value
Individualism I consciousness Low If personal advantage can be identified
Collectivism In-groups High Trust has to be established before any
knowledge sharing can take place between in-
and out- groups
Out-groups Low Can take place between in- and out-groups

Source: Siakas and Georgiadou (2006)

Cultural dimensions in Puerto Rico

The are several comparative studies that support Hofstede’s dimensions. However, they do
not include data from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Moreover, there are four authors
that try to test Hofstede cultural dimensions in Puerto Rico. These are Franchi (2003), Matos
(2001), Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn (2001) and Kirman and Shapiro (2001). Franchis’ doctoral
dissertation studied whether cultural differences affected the learning process and
performance of employees of a multinational bank in three countries, including Puero Rico.
The results show the following dimensions found in Puerto Rico: low power distance,
individualist, feminine, and a strong uncertainty avoidance. Matos master’s thesis tested
Hofstede’s intrument in Puerto Rico, and the results show that Puerto Rican people have
medium-high power distance, medium-high individualism, feminine, and a strong
uncertainty avoidance.
Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn (2001), using interviews, found that Puerto Rico was collectivist
and had large power distance. Kirman and Shapiro (2001), using questionnaries, showed
that respondents had collectivist characteristics, showed high power distance and high
uncertainty avoidance characteristics, and high femininity. Moreover, these studies show that
knowledge production and sharing in the Puerto Rican culture is hard to work as they
present the influence of Hofstede’s dimensions in the organization knowledge production
and sharing processes, and their impact in the Puerto Rican culture. Hofstede (2000), Hall
(2000, 2001), Gestland (2000), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2002) have examined
the differences between the national cultures and their influence on the enterprise. However,
the above findings from studies conducted in Puerto Rico were used to identify the cultural
barriers that may set back the knowledge sharing process at the macro and micro level of
the organization as applied to the specific case of Caguas. The conceptual framework of this
investigation is presented in Figure 1 and is based in the model of the elements influencing
knowledge transfer supplemented by the following concepts presented in Hauke (2006).

Macro level
These include: multural variability which refers to how fast the components of a culture are
changing; cultural complexity referring to ease of understanding culture through given data
and facts; cultural heterogeneity is the attitude of the environment towards a foreign
enterprise; cultural hostility which is the degree of homogeneity of a culture of a country in
which a firm operates in; and Cultural interdependence which refers to how changes that
take place in other surrounding cultures influence the cultural environment in a given
country. (Hauke, 2006; Hofstede, 1983)

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 261
 Figure 1 Relationship between cultural dimensions and elements of knowledge transfer

Micro level
These include: national ideology which refers to positively correlated in countries of strong
cultural identity; Perception of foreigners as well as foreign products; and Attitude towards
the diffusion of innovation (Hauke, 2006; Hofstede, 1983; McMurray, 2002).

Objective cultural barriers

These include: unfavorable organizational culture; undeveloped communication within
enterprise; different technological background; organizational culture which promotes the
results but not the sharing; little commitment of managers in knowledge sharing process;
lack of motivation from superiors for knowledge sharing; intolerance toward mistakes or the
need for help; bad allocation of knowledge that is needed; status and rewards given to
knowledge owners; lack of financial incentives promoting the research of new knowledge
and its transfer; and lack of time (Hauke, 2006).

Subjective cultural barriers

These include: protection of own position and specialization; lack of sentiment that the
knowledge that one posses may be useful for other people in the organization; internal fear –
not being sure if the ideas are good enough; lower-level workers feel being discriminated;
fear of only giving information – without receiving it from others; lack of trust; fear of changes;
and the sense that others will not know how to use such a complicated knowledge or high
self-esteem (Hauke, 2006).
The managers play an important role in creating the environment in the organization for the
employee and the director of each department to develop a culture of good knowledge

j j
PAGE 262 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009
 production and sharing and, for the firm to create innovative of products and processes.
Thus, they need to encourage their people to share knowledge with others. The conceptual
framework combines the necessary elements of the enterprise to start or stop the process of
knowledge production and sharing being the managers the key element in overcoming
cultural barriers (CB) in the organization.

Methodology
This is a descriptive study that includes a field research consisting of in-depth interviews and
a questionnaire to a convenience sample of employees of public and private agencies. The
agencies selected were: a subsidiary of an international water system company, the
Municipality of Caguas, a clothing company and a party rental company. The questionnaire
was based on the four organizational culture dimensions developed by Geert Hofstede and
other authors as applied to the behavior of employees and managers in those organizations.
The interviews included ten questions referring to:
B how the organization recognizes the human capital;
B the methods to evaluate the employee’s performance;
B if the firm gives performance bonuses;
B how the communication between employees and managers is carried out; and
B how the organization promotes knowledge sharing.
The questionnaires had 21 questions, prepared in Spanish, which includes 11 questions on
organization’s culture to promote the environment of knowledge production and sharing in
relation to the employee, one question with five items to collect demographic information,
and nine questions to measure the knowledge sharing among employees. These
instruments serve to identify the existence of CB in the organization that may set back the
knowledge production and sharing. Table II shows the cultural dimensions of Hofstede
(2000) and Hauke (2006) as they appear in different studies.

Results and discussion

The qualitative interviews were conducted with management personnel and human
resources to explore how the enterprise promotes the efficiency among employees and how
they develop a good environment for knowledge production and sharing. We began
addressing the summary description of each organization. The first interview was conducted
with the human resources manager of the Municipality of Caguas, who is in charge of
recruiting and training new and old employees. The second interview was addressed to the
accounting manager of the water system company. He stated that the company’s business
is to sell parts for pharmaceutical water systems. The third interview was scheduled with the
human resources manager of the clothing company. Finally, the fourth interview was carried
out with the owner of the party rentals company.
From the interview responses we observed that all organizations showed low power
distance, meaning that managers take into consideration the ideas of employees. They have
decentralized decision structures which means, as stated by Siakas and Georgiadou
(2006), and Hofstede (2000), that the employee at lower positions are not afraid to show their
ideas to the organization, and that the information flow is easy in both directions which may
help with the comunication between business partners and cooperation with other

Table II Cultural dimensions of Puerto Rico from Hofstede (2000) and Hauke (2006)
Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn Kirman and Shapiro Matos Franchi This study
Cultural dimensions (2001) (2001) (2001) (2003) (2008)

Power distance Low High Medium/high Low Low

Collectivism High High Low Low High
Feminity None High High High High
Uncertainty avoidance None High High High Low

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 263
 enterprises. Also, we can observe that the organizations are very collectivistic so they realize
that team work has better results than individual work. They are more cooperative with others
and promote the knowledge production and sharing with others. Furthermore, the four
organizations appear as highly feminine showing an enviroment of cooperation which
promotes a feeling of trust to share their knowledge with other colleagues. There was also a
low level of uncertainty which means that the employees do not have formal barriers, like
rules to commnunicate with each other inside of the organization. Then, from managers
responses we can conclude that those managers promote an enviroment of knowledge
production and sharing. However, despite these results we can not corroborate Hofstede’s
cultural dimension of Puerto Rican organizational culture. It seems that at the managerial
level the charateristics that promote behaviours described by Hofstede as part of his cultural
dimensions are present. From literature we defined the four cultural barriers for which we
developed the constructs to test their relation to knowledge sharing between employees.
these are: organizational environment, managers’ commitment, localization of experts, and
emotional intelligence. Using the answers to the questionnaires we made a correlation
analysis between the different barriers, which were defined as the independent variables,
and the above mentioned dependent variable which is the knowledge sharing between
employees. Table III illustrates the Spearman correlation coefficients computed for
organizational barriers.

It is observed in Table III that organizational environment, manager commitment, localization

of experts and emotional intelligence has significant relationships with the knowledge
sharing between employees. There is a positive correlation coefficient (r ¼ 0:509) between
manager commitment and knowledge sharing among employees. Using the rule of thumb
for interpreting the size of a correlation coefficient described by Hinkle et al. (2003), this
means that there is a moderate positive linear relationship between manager commitment
and the employee’s reaction of sharing the knowledge.

Table III Correlations matrix with coefficients of determination for cultural barriers
Organizational Manager Localization Emotional Knowledge sharing
environment commitment of experts intelligence between employees
Barriers n ¼ 66 (OE) (MC) (LE) (EI) (KS)

Organizational
environment (OE) Correlation coefficient 1.000 0.638** .320** 0.379** 0.528**
Sig. . 0.000 0.009 0.002 0.000
Coefficient of
determination 0.4070 0.1024 0.1436 0.2788
Manager commitment
(MC) Correlation coefficient 0.638** 1.000 0.210 0.299* 0.509**
Sig. 0.000 . 0.091 0.015 0.000
Coefficient of
determination 0.4070 0.0441 0.0894 0.2591
Localization of experts
(LE) Correlation coefficient 0.320** 0.210 1.000 0.415** 0.438**
Sig. 0.009 0.091 . 0.001 0.000
Coefficient of
determination 0.1024 0.0441 0.1722 0.1918
Emotional intelligence
(EI) Correlation coefficient 0.379** 0.299* 0.415** 1.000 0.559**
Sig. 0.002 0.015 0.001 . 0.000
Coefficient of
determination 0.1436 0.0894 0.1722 0.3125
Knowledge sharing
between employees (KS) Correlation coefficient 0.528** 0.509** 0.438** 0.559** 1.000
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 .
Coefficient of
determination 0.2788 0.2591 0.1918 0.3125

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

j j
PAGE 264 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009
One of the most significant relationships obtained was between emotional intelligence and
knowledge sharing between employees with a positive correlation coefficient of (r ¼ 0:559).
Therefore, there is statistically significant evidence that supports the argument that an
increase in emotional intelligence may result in increasing knowledge sharing among
employees. Approximately 31 percent of the variation in knowledge sharing can be
associated with the variance of the emotional intelligence. On the other hand, the localization
of experts has a low positive correlation (r ¼ 0:438) which indicates that for this group the
localization of experts does little to differentiate attitudes of knowledge sharing among the
employees. Also, the manager commitment and the organizational environment (r ¼ 0:638)
have a moderate positive correlation. In this case the determination coefficient
(R 2 ¼ 0:4070) indicates that approximately 40.7 percent of the variation of manager
commitment may be explained by the variance organizational environment. From the
correlation matrix it was obtained that the environment in the localization of experts have a
weak positive relation with manager commitment (r ¼ 0:210) which was not statistically
significant (p ¼ 0:091).

Table IV shows the results of the multiple regression analysis using the above defined
dependent and independent variables. We observe that approximately 51.4 percent of the
variation in the knowledge sharing among employees can be attributed to the variation in the
combination of emotional intelligence, localization of experts, manager commitment and
organizational environment. Thus, there is statistically significant evidence supporting that
there is a nonzero relationship between the dependent variable and the linear combination of
the independent variables with a probability of 0.514.
When analyzing the cases of the private agencies it is observed that the correlation between
the dependent variable and the linear combination of the independent variables is 0.678,
thus approximately 45.9 percent of the variation in the knowledge sharing among employees
can be attributed to the variation in the combination of emotional intelligence, localization of
experts, manager commitment and organizational environment. We may conclude that there
is statistically significant evidence supporting that there is a nonzero relationship between
the dependent variable and the linear combination of the independent variables with a
probability of 0.678. For the cases in the public sector, the correlation between the
dependent variable and the linear combination of the independent variables is 0.838 and
R 2 ¼ 0:703. This means that approximately 70.3 percent of the variation in the knowledge
sharing among employees can be attributed to the variation in the combination of emotional
intelligence, localization of experts, manager commitment and organizational environment
with a probability of 0.838.
Table V presents the regressions coefficients that were tested for statistical significance of all
cases. It is observed that organizational environment shows p ¼ 0:008 and emotional
intelligence shows p ¼ 0:003, respectively, meaning that there is less than 1 percent of
probability that coefficients corresponding to the organizational environment and emotional
intelligence would have occurred by chance. Therefore, organizational environment and
emotional intelligence are variables that contribute more significantly to the regression when
used in combination with the others barriers. Otherwise, manager commitment and
localization of experts showed no statistically significant contribution.

Table IV Correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination for linear combination

Model R R square Adjusted R square Std error of the estimate

Both sectors 0.717a 0.514 0.482 0.40098

Private sector 0.678a 0.459 0.404 0.41532
Public sector 0.838a 0.703 0.633 0.36162

Note: a Predictors: (constant), emotional intelligence (EI), localization of experts (LE), manager
commitment (MC), organizational environment (OE)

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 265
 Table V Summary of statistical analysis
Cases t p value Contributors

All cases from the sample 2.740 0.008 Organizational environment

3.083 0.003 Emotional intelligence
Cases from private sector only 2.868 0.007 Organizational environment
2.592 0.013 Emotional intelligence
Cases from public sector only 2.457 0.025 Manager commitment

From the results of the private sector we observed that organizational environment shows
p ¼ 0:007 and emotional intelligence shows p ¼ 0:013, respectively, meaning that there is
less than 1.5 percent of probability that coefficients corresponding to the organizational
environment and emotional intelligence would have occurred by chance. We may conclude
that the organizational environment and emotional intelligence are predictor variables that
contribute to the regression when used in combination with the others barriers. Then, the
manager commitment and localization of experts had no statistically significant contribution
to the regression model. On the other hand for the cases in the public sector we found
significance for manager commitment only with p ¼ 0:025 meaning that there is less than 3
percent of probability that coefficients corresponding to the managers’ commitment would
have occurred by chance. Then, we may conclude for the public sector that the manager
commitment is the predictor variable contributing to the regression when used in
combination with the other barriers while organizational environment, localization of experts
and emotional intelligence had no statistically significant contribution to the model.

Conclusions and recommendations

Knowledge production and sharing has been recognized as the key to innovation.
Therefore, it is important to know how culture influences meaningfully the will to share
knowledge within organizations. This is a process that can be encountered in organizations
that operate within a regional economy as well as international companies that are immersed
in the global economy. In this paper it is argued that willingness to converse and share
knowledge is influenced by cultural dynamics from the external environment, such as
national culture and Hofstedes’ cultural dimensions, and from the internal environment, such
as organizational and personal culture. The organizational culture of the selected
organizations in this study shows that they are already overcoming the cultural barriers
that may set back knowledge production and sharing.
Harzing and Hofstede (1996) argue that certain cultural values could facilitate adaptation to
change, while others inhibit change. Societies that are more open to change are
characterized by individualism, low power distance, and low uncertainty avoidance.
National cultures appear to be either individualistic or collectivistic while promoting the
openness, the capacity of collaboration and the exchange of ideas and knowledge.
Organizational culture of some companies support and facilitate knowledge creation and
sharing, whereas other companies may promote knowledge retention. In a global culture
individualistic values coexist with the values of interdependence and cooperation
(Cummings, 2003; Berson et al., 2004). Thus, global culture values integrating national
culture with organization values manifest in the managers’ role and organizations’
environment. Berson et al (2004, p. 3) state:
The values of low power distance, individualism, and low uncertainty avoidance empower
managers in the local subsidiaries to think globally when adapting to changes, while acting
locally in social exchange situations.

These global linking roles are over and above the classical focus on social exchange
between managers and their employees, as reflected in the local leadership roles of task
and employee orientation (Zaccaro and Klimoski, 2001). Human beings behave in ways that
are different and predictable depending on the situation and their respective social identities
(Biddle, 1979). Social identities refer to the social categories to which one believes one

j j
PAGE 266 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009
‘‘ It is important not to confuse the concept of knowledge with
information. Knowledge is only linked to a person while
information may exist independently. ’’

belongs (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). That means that the global culture and the national culture
of employees affect the knowledge management positively or negatively in regional and
international companies. The new global environment can be likened to a new climatic layer:
it changes our reality, and its impact cascades down to affect national cultures,
organizational cultures, and personal identities (Erez and Gati, 2004).

The results of this study referring to the selected independent variables, organizational
environment, emotional intelligence and managerial commitments, are similar for the study
of Ford and Chan (2002), where lack of management support, incentives, social networks,
job security and the language barrier are related to national culture and prevented
knowledge from flowing effectively throughout the organization (Bhaskara and Sarma, 2008;
Chase, 2008; Talisayon, 2008). In the case of private organizations, where one of them is an
international subsidiary, organization environment and emotional intelligent are the most
important barriers they have to cope with. Buckley and Carter (1999) recommend creating a
team of employees responsible for coordinating knowledge created locally and knowledge
that is transferred from the parent company. This team would be in charge of removing
knowledge blocks between local employees and the parent company, and blocks between
employees hired by the headquarters and the local market knowledge. Organizational
culture is more instrumental in shaping the employee’s social identity in the workplace than
national and ethnic cultures (Straub et al., 2002).
Using the findings of previous studies conducted with Puerto Rican samples we identified
four cultural barriers that may set back the knowledge sharing process at the macro and
micro levels of the organization as applied to the specific case of Caguas. Then, two
hypotheses were developed and tested using the answers from interviews and
questionnaires of four organizations, private and public, of the Municipality of Caguas at
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Taking into consideration answers to the interviews we
could reject H1 which stated that ‘‘Public and private agencies in Caguas have cultural
barriers that set back knowledge production and sharing’’, because from the managerial
perspective the environment of their organizations promoted knowledge production and
sharing with a low power distance, high collectivism and femininity, and low uncertainty
avoidance. However, from the results of the statistical analysis of questionnaire’s answers H1
as well as H2, which state that ‘‘Public and private organizations in Caguas do not promote
knowledge production and sharing’’, can be accepted. From the employee point of view,
organizational environment, emotional intelligence and managerial commitments are
existing cultural barriers preventing knowledge sharing. In the case of public agencies the
results showed that managers and supervisors are the key for overcoming them. Otherwise,
for the private companies organizational environment and emotional intelligence are the
most important barriers that they must work with.
This study is limited by the small sample of critical actors. However, because it included
international and regional organizations that serve the Municipality of Caguas the results
may set a basis to develop a methodology to analyze the presence or absence of cultural
barriers in other organizations, and municipalities of Puerto Rico. Furthermore, this study
may be used to develop standard procedures to cope with culture differences when
establishing a suitable environment for knowledge production and sharing among
employees. Further research may include an analysis of the cultural dimensions of
Hofstede as they apply to other organizations as well.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 267
 References
Berson, Y., Erez, M. and Adler, S. (2004), ‘‘Reflections of organizational identity and national culture on
managerial roles in a multinational corporation’’, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings,
New Orleans, LA, IM: Q1-Q6.

Bhaskara, Y. and Sarma, J.V.S. (2008), ‘‘Knowledge management for competitive advantage in the steel
industry’’, Proceedings from the Second International Conference on Technology and Innovation for
Knowledge Management, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.

Biddle, B.J. (1979), Role Theory: Expectations, Identities, and Behaviours, Academic Press, New York,
NY.

Bradley, F. (1991), International Marketing Management Strategy, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.

Buckley, P. and Carter, M. (1999), ‘‘Managing cross-border complementary knowledge’’, International

Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 80-104.

Chase, R. (2008), ‘‘Global knowledge management trends’’, Proceedings from the Second International
Conference on Technology and Innovation for Knowledge Management, Asian Productivity
Organization, Tokyo.

Cummings, J. (2003), Knowledge Sharing: A Review of the Literature, The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Erez, M. and Gati, E. (2004), ‘‘Processes of cultural and behavioural changes in the context of
globalization’’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 614-6.

Ford, D. and Chan, Y. (2002), Knowledge Sharing in a Cross-cultural Setting: Case Study, Queen’s KBE
Centre for Knowledge-based Enterprises, Queen’s University, Kingston.

Franchi, J. (2003), ‘‘Comparison of learning and performance styles of cross-cultural populations in

global corporate organization’’, doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Garcia, J., Dutschke, G. and Petrucci, M. (2008), ‘‘The Hofstede model in the study of the impact of
Sevilla expo 92’’, Revista de Turismo y patrimonio cultural (PASOS), Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 27-36.

Gestland, R. (2000), Cross-cultural Business Behaviour, Marketing, Negotiations and Managing across
Cultures, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warsaw.

Gibson, B.C. and Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2001), ‘‘Metaphors and meaning, an intercultural analysis of the
concept of teamwork’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 274-304.

Gold, A., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities
perspective’’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.

Hall, E.T. (2000), The Dance of Life, Warszawskie Wydawnictwo Literackie MUZA SA, Warszawa.

Hall, E.T. (2001), Beyond Culture, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN,
Warszawa.

Harzing, A.W. and Hofstede, G. (1996), ‘‘Planned change in organizations: the influence of national
culture’’, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 14, pp. 297-340.

Hauke, A. (2004), ‘‘Polish culture facilitation or impediment for knowledge transfer? The impact of
national culture on knowledge transfer from a network approach perspective’’, paper presented at
Intercultural Knowledge Research and Intercultural Knowledge Management, Eisenstadt.

Hauke, A. (2006), ‘‘Impact of cultural differences on knowledge transfer in British Hungarian and Polish
enterprises’’, working paper [50.2006], The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Note di Lavoro Series, Social
Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection, available at: www.feem.it/NR/Feem/resources/
EURODIVPapers/ED2006-004.pdf; and http://ssrn.com/abstract¼896665 (accessed January 30, 2009).

Hill, C. (2007), International Business, Competing in the Global Marketplace, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W. and Jurs, S.G. (2003), Applied Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences,
Houghton Mifflin, London and Boston, MA.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.

j j
PAGE 268 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009
Hofstede, G. (1983), ‘‘The cultural relativity organizational practices and theories’’, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-89.
Hofstede, G. (2000), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
HRM Guide Canadian Human Resources (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management gives Canadian
businesses a competitive edge’’, available at: www.hrmguide.net/canada/learning/
knowledge_management_study.htm (accessed January 30, 2009).
Hutchings, K. (2005), ‘‘Examining the impacts of institutional change on knowledge sharing and
management learning in the people Republic of China’’, Thunderbird International Business Review,
Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 447-68.
Kirman, B.L. and Shapiro, D. (2001), ‘‘The impact of cultural values on the job satisfaction and
organizational commitment in self-managing work teams, the mediating role of employee resistance’’,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 557-69.
McElroy, M.W. (2003), The New Knowledge Management: Complexity, Learning, and Sustainable
Innovation, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
McMurray, A. (2002), ‘‘Transferring knowledge between supervisors and managerial peer groups: falling
at trust hurdle’’, paper presented at The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge,
Learning and Capabilities, Athens.
Matos, C. (2001), ‘‘Estudio exploratorio sobre los valores culturales relacionados con el trabajo de un
grupo de estudiantes puertorriqueños de la facultad de administracion de empresa usando el modelo
desarrollado por el Dr, Geert Hofstede’’, MBA thesis, University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico.
Siakas, K.V. and Georgiadou, E. (2006), ‘‘Knowledge sharing: cultural dynamics’’, Proceedings of 7th
European Conference of Knowledge Management (ECKM06), Public Academic Conferences, Reading,
pp. 505-13.

Straub, D., Loch, K., Evaristo, R., Karahanna, E. and Strite, M. (2002), ‘‘Toward a theory-based
measurement of culture’’, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), ‘‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’’, in Austin, W.G. and
Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Group Relations, Brooks-Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 33-47.

Talisayon, D.S. (2008), ‘‘The status of knowledge management in Asia: results of an APO survey of nine
member countries’’, Proceedings from the Second International Conference on Technology and
Innovation for Knowledge Management, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (2002), Riding the Waves of Culture – Understanding Cultural
Diversity in Business, Oficyna Wydawnicza, Krakow.
Zaccaro, S.J. and Klimoski, R.J. (Eds) (2001), ‘‘The nature of organizational leadership: an introduction’’,
The Nature of Organizational Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-41.

Further reading
Daniel, W.W. (1999), Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences, 7th ed., John Wiley
and Sons, New York, NY.

Jennex, E.M. (2006), ‘‘Culture, context, and knowledge management’’, International Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. i-iv.
Jones, M.L. and Alony, I. (2007), ‘‘The cultural impact of information systems – through the eyes of
Hofstede – a critical journey’’, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, Vol. 4,
pp. 408-19.

About the authors

Juan C. Rivera-Vazquez is a doctoral candidate at the School of Business and
Entrepreneurship of Universidad del Turabo, Gurabo, Puerto Rico. He received a Masters
Degree in Information Systems at Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico. He also works
as a full time Statistics Analyst for the Police Department of Puerto Rico. His research areas
of interest include cyber crime, knowledge management, and data warehousing. His
doctoral dissertation is about the perception of cyber crime in Puerto Rico, future policies
and strategies.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 269
 Lillian V. Ortiz-Fournier is a doctoral candidate at the Business and Entrepreneurship School
of Universidad del Turabo, Gurabo, Puerto Rico. For the last three years she has been
working as a full time Business Analyst for Humana Puerto Rico, a health insurance company
based in the USA. She had taught information systems courses to undergraduates and
graduate students. Her research areas of interest are knowledge management theory and
applications, decision support systems, data warehousing and artificial intelligence. The
topic of her doctoral dissertation is modeling a data warehouse for health care solutions.
Lillian V. Ortiz-Fournier is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
lortizfournier@centennialpr.net
Felix Rogelio Flores is a Tenured Professor at Universidad de Colima, Mexico, and visiting
faculty at Universidad del Turabo, Puerto Rico. He received his Business Master Degree
from Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, and doctorate degree on
Transpacific International Relations from Universidad de Colima. He is National Research
System Level 1 member in Mexico; Fulbright Scholar (2008 USA-CIES) granted 2008-2009;
and his research area of interest is alternative technologies for coconut-poor communities,
marketing management and its relationship with national and international businesses. He
has authored three books and peer reviewed several articles.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 270 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009