A Review on the Relationship Of Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture

W.W. Hu
School of Management Zhejiang Gongshang University Hangzhou, China hww@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn

AbstractMany scholars research the relationship of knowledge management and organizational culture since the birth of knowledge management theory and their have a variety different points of view. Now we will sort out and comment on all those chronological points. Keywords-knowledge management; organizational culture; idiosyncrasy point; adaptive point;relationship

behavior. Orlikowski&Gash consider that originally Knowledge sharing (KS) is affected by the meaning that organizational members attach to group technology [2]. Another determinant of KS is the extent to which participants have common value and a shared context for sharing knowledge, in the form of common experiences vocabulary or academic background [3][4]. These meaning and value are determined by ones basic assumptions which are the building blocks of culture[5]. That is, organizational values can affect individual knowledge sharing intention attitude and behavior. The further place, their research indicated specific values could facilitate or block knowledge sharing such as Hierarchy structure negatively affects knowledge sharing whereas a powerful organizational relation has the positive influence to it. Hierarchy organizational structure is controlled by hierarchy culture. And the powerful relations, like a extended family, is a kind of typical clan culture. Gold et al. also indicated the relationship of some organizational value,KM capability and organizational effectiveness[6].Their conclusion is that organization with more open and the support value guidance favors the constructive knowledge behavior, such as sharing viewpoints between organizational member. Delong & Fahey found that specific guidance values could reduce barriers to knowledge sharing, they also proved that organizational values such as trust and cooperation strengthened the willing of sharing ideas and experiences between members. Conversely, those value systems which emphasized personal power and competition between members would lead to knowledge hoarding behavior [7]. Similarly, Jarvenpaa and Staples studied college human resources management. The results indicated that organization values influence individual sense to knowledge property rights, then influence individual knowledge sharing tendency with others. Their conclusion is that members who sensitive to knowledge property rights would use more cooperation tool to share the information and knowledge [8]. B. Organizational Culture and Knowledge Creation Some researches focused on the relationship of specific values and knowledge creation. For example, Lee and Choi examined various enablers of knowledge creation, among them the organizational values of collaboration, trust, and learning.

I.

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of knowledge management discipline has coincided with the development of the global knowledge based economy in which emphasis has been shifted from traditional factors of production, namely capital, land and labour, to knowledge [1]. KM takes knowledge as the core factor of management and integrates members' intrinsic tacit knowledge and the external explicit knowledge. KM is mainly based on two platforms: information technology and organizational culture. Moreover, organization culture is more important. The prior researches also indicated that the organization culture not only affected KM implementation decision, but also was the key factor of successful knowledge management. Therefore, many researches focused on the relationship of KM and OC. Their points gradually vicissitude along with information technology development, environment change and deep-going theory research. This paper tries to sort theses points and comment them respectively. Collectively there are two stages research on the relationship of KM and OC: idiosyncrasy point and adaptive point. II.
IDIOSYNCRACY POINT

Idiosyncrasy point refers to that specific culture values positively affect KM, and the others is opposite. Prior research focused on which specific culture value could positively affect knowledge sharing creation etc. A. Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing First research focused on organizational values and knowledge sharing. They generally considered that organizational values are important to knowledge sharing

978-1-4244-7161-4/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE

They found support for their hypothesis of a positive relationship of organizational culture (defined by collaboration, trust, and learning) and knowledge creation processes and conclude that shaping an organizations cultural factors are key to a firms ability to manage knowledge effectively [9]. In a similar vein, Lee and Choi also found that the culture of the extended Linux community was important in regulating the norm of open sharing, in addition to providing a quality control mechanism. They discovered that culture acted as a social control mechanism to manage community members and to sanction those who deviated from norms. The freedom to express criticism was found to be a significant underpinning of the development process that enabled knowledge to expand[9]. Chuas study also emphasized the significance of human relationships by demonstrating that promoting a culture of respect, friendship and cohesion is positively related to knowledge creation [10]. Gold et al. also proved that open and supportive values essentially formed a part of organizational knowledge structural capacities. They can quickly response to new external market needs, then influence organization innovation capability [6]. Orlikowski&Gash considered that the clan culture played an important role not only in knowledge sharing but also in knowledge creation [11]. C. Organizational Culture and Effective KM Ribiere studied the relationship between the successful knowledge management and organizational culture. He found that organizational culture is an important predictor of success. Moreover, successful communal organizations possessing high solidarity and trust integrate various knowledge management approaches rather than focusing on one of them [12]. Ruppel&Harrington explored factors affecting the implementation of intranets for KS. Results of their study indicated that clan cultures characterized by cohesion are directly and positively related to intranet implementation, whereas market cultures characterized by competition do not support it [13]. D. Summary In these studies, the underlying theme has been that certain types of organizational values will lead to different types of KM behavior and that these behaviors will lead to varying outcomes. Thus, good cultural values such as sharing, openness, and trust will lead to positive KM behaviors (e.g., knowledge contribution and sharing), which will lead to innovation and efficiencies, whereas bad values will lead to dysfunctional KM behaviors (e.g., information hoarding) and, hence, undesirable outcomes such as inefficiencies. Therefore, organizations should seek to promote and build the types of cultural values that support their specific KM objectives. In essence, prior researches express the point of view that organizational culture directly influences the knowledge management performance. Some specific values positively affect knowledge management performance, and others have a negative effect. Furthermore, under the guidance of this point, managers considered that the organizational culture should be changed, such as rejecting those "bad" values and maintaining or introducing "good" values, to adapt KM. These changes can

promote constructive knowledge management activities and achieve good knowledge management performance. III. ADAPTIVE POINT

Along with the knowledge management practice's development and the method diversification, knowledge management's fundamental research also unceasingly deepens. Researches found that idiosyncrasy point theory can not explain knowledge management activities under the diverse cultures. Therefore researches examine the relationship of organizational culture and KM strategy with a more flexible viewpoint. They considered that there are diversification methods for knowledge management. These methods might adapt the different cultural atmosphere. So in the short run OC do not be changed. Schwandt&Marquardt considered that no culture can be suitable for all environments [14]. There is a adaptive relationship between culture and environment. This is a viewpoint which directly linked culture to adaptability, and adaptability is the basis for organizational survival. In organizational learning, this function is expressed by the subsystem of environment. It scans or tests environment and select what is inputted to the organization. We can also understand the relationship of organizational culture and knowledge management, that is, there exists adaptation between organizational culture and knowledge management. Mcdermott &ODell Studied 40 company deemed to share knowledge effectively in order to determine the culture characteristics that explain their success. They observed that these companies adapted their approach to knowledge management to fit their culture by (a) linking the sharing of knowledge to the solving of practical problems;(b) tying knowledge sharing to a preexisting core value;(c) introducing knowledge management in a way that matches the organizations style;(d) building on existing networks that people use in their daily work, and (e) encouraging peers and supervisors to exert pressures to share. Their study pointed to the importance of linking knowledge sharing to organizational actions, which are ultimately determined by the organizational culture [15]. Maryam alavi extends the early KM notions of organizational cultures as either abetting or contravening knowledge sharing, by identifying specific, often competing, organizational values and how these influence a broad array of KM-related behaviors. They point out most previous research find that OC is very important to KM-related activities, but they did not point out how OC affect KM. Their empirical research on worldwide services (wws) of a multinational corporation indicated the OC affected the selecting and using of the specific KM tools [16]. There are five conclusions as follows: First, their findings indicate that organizational members values influence the ways in which they use KM technology. When managers undertake large-scale KM initiatives cannot expect uniformity in how groups will use KM tools. Rather, these uses may vary based upon the assortment of local and organization-level cultural values that influence perceptions of how these tools should be used. Faced with such an environment, managers may need to set cultural change

efforts in motion to achieve certain desired KM tool uses, particularly if prevailing values are not consistent with desired KM tool uses. Second, different patterns of KM tool usage will have implications for which features of technology figure most prominently in such use. This could have potential implications for designers of KM systems that might need to emphasize certain features of technology over others depending on the cultural context. Third, groups with different values using KM tools for different purposes are likely to experience diverse KM outcomes. And they We would argue that initial attempts by WWS to foster more effective organization wide knowledge behaviors failed, due, in large part, to the lack of social context to facilitate these behaviors. Fourth groups using KM tools tended to experience outcomes consistent with their embedded values. This suggests that even though groups may use KM tools similarly, their underlying motivations for such use may vary dramatically based on their cultural values. As such, those seeking to implement KM initiatives within firms should not expect that there will be a uniform set of outcomes of KM use across the organization. This will be particularly true if, as some argue, organizations are comprised of various local cultures. Fifth, their study suggests that cultural values seem to influence a firms approaches to KM. Our findings suggest that firms do not decide in advance to adopt a repository or community approach to KM, but that this evolves. Maryam alavis study deepens adaptive point. Table.1 specialize the main points of KM-OC relationship.
TABLE I. Scholar Delong and Fahey THE POINTS OF KM-OC RELATIONSHIP

knowledge management approaches focusing on one of them. Mcdermott and ODell Maryam alavi

rather than

KM strategy was the most effective way to implementing KM and the effective KM is the result of KM-culture adaptation Organizational culture values influence KM tools selection, using and KM outcomes.

IV.

CONCLUSION

COMMENT AND EXPENDITURE

A. Conclusion and Commentary From the review, we find the viewpoint of KM-OC relationship is evolved with the development of KM. The initial idea towards knowledge management is more of a concept of knowledge sharing and creation. Therefore studies on the relationship between OC and KM focus on the searching for certain specific culture values and endeavor to shape these values, so as to improve knowledge sharing and creation. In this paper we call it idiosyncrasy point. With the development of KM theory and practice, researchers find that the process of knowledge sharing and creation may be completed via various means, and in different organizational cultures, different methods and tools may be applied, which has led to another research area adaptive point. There is an interaction relationship between knowledge management and organization culture. In the short run, knowledge management strategy must adapt to current culture to guarantee smooth application and gain expected results. In the long run, the application of knowledge management strategy may lead to potential changes in cultural values, which may stabilize after a period of time. This may in turn lead to changes in knowledge management strategy. Maryam alavihad pointed out methods and tools used in knowledge management was evolved [16]. Nevertheless, organizational culture is a basic hypothesis model, created in the process of organizational adaptation to external changes and internal modifications. This internal and external coordination and modification take a comparatively long process and this basic hypothesis is a comparatively stable model. On the contrary, knowledge management is new, the choice and use of strategy, methods and tools can be flexible. Compared with organizational culture change, knowledge management modification is more realistic. The author therefore believes that at the initial stage of knowledge management introduction and application, more attentions should be paid to the current organization culture, and a flexible knowledge management strategy should be adopted. B. Follow-up Research Through the theory review of KMculture, we find that most researches still emphasis on some specific culture values. Although this initial body of KMculture research has helped to validate the importance of cultural values for firms KM initiatives and provided insights into some important values, it still lacks a detailed analysis outlining specific types of values and how these values might relate to KM strategies choices and subsequent outcomes. Moreover, it focuses almost exclusively on the processes of knowledge sharing and creation. Other processes, such as knowledge seeking and use, the employment

Jarvenpaa and Staples

Gold et al.

Lee and choi

Chua

Ruppel and Harrington

Robiere

Main point Specific guidance values can reduce barriers to knowledge sharing, they also proved that organizational values such as trust and cooperation strengthened the willing of sharing ideas and experiences between members. Conversely, those value systems which emphasized personal power and competition between members would lead to knowledge hoarding behavior. Organization values influence individual sense to knowledge property rights, then influence individual knowledge sharing tendency with others. Members who sensitive to knowledge property rights would use more cooperation tool to share information and knowledge. Organization with more open and the support value guidance favors the constructive knowledge behavior, such as sharing viewpoints between organizational members. These values also can influence organization innovation capability. Organizational culture (defined by collaboration, trust, and learning) has a positive influence on knowledge creation processes .Shaping an organizations cultural factors are key to a firms ability to manage knowledge effectively. Emphasizing the importance of relationship with respect friendship and cohesion for knowledge creation. Clan cultures characterized by cohesion are directly and positively related to intranet implementation whereas market cultures characterized by competition do not support it. Organizational culture is an important predictor of success. Successful communal organizations possessing high solidarity and trust integrate various

of tools to support KM, and the outcomes of KM, have yet to be carefully examined. Mcdermott and ODell 2001 indicated that KM strategy was the most effective way to implementing KM, and the effective KM is the result of KM-culture adaptation. Maryam alavi 2006 Examined the way that organizational culture, as evidenced in perceived organizational values, influences KM practices. They extends the early KM notions of organizational cultures as either abetting or contravening knowledge sharing, by identifying specific, often competing, organizational values and how these influence a broad array of KM-related behaviors. These researches are the basis of later researches, also adaptation researches staring. But it still lacks a detailed analysis outlining specific types of values and KM-strategy, and empirical study between. In later study, we should classify the KM strategies, which are compounds of KM attitude, method and technology. Then study how specific culture influences the selection of KM strategy and the KM-OC adaptation influence KM outcomes. ACKNOWLEDGMENT It is a project supported by the national Natural Science Foundation of China (70972135).

[4] [5] [6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] [11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

REFERENCES
[1] Sajjad M. Jasimuddin A holistic view of knowledge management strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol.12 no.2, pp. 57-66, 2008. Orlikowski,W.J.,&Gash,D.C..Technological Frames:Making Sense of Information[J].ACM Transactions on Informations Systems.; vol.12 no.2, pp.174-207,1994. Alavi,M..Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems:Conceptual Foundation and Research Issues[J].MIS Quarterly.vol.25 no.1, pp.107-136 ,2001. [15]

[2]

[16]

[3]

Scollon,R.,&Scollon,S..Intercultural Communication :A discourse approach[M]. Cambridge.UK:Blackwell.1995. Schein,E.H..Organizational Culture and Leadership[M].San Franciso:Jossey-Bass.1992. Gold,A.H.;Malhotra,A.;Segars,A.H..Knowledge management:an organizational capabilities perspective[J].Journal of Management Information Systems.vol.18 no.1, pp.185-214 ,2001. De Long,D.W.&Fathey,L. Diagnosing Culture Barriers to Knowledge Management[J].The Academy of Management Executive. Vol.14 no.4,pp.113-127, 2000. Jarvenpaa,S.L.;Staples,D.S.. Exploring Perceptions of Organizational Ownership of Information and Expertise[J]. Journal of Management Information systems.vol.18 no.1, pp.151-183, 2001. Lee, H., and Choi, B. Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination[J]. Journal of Management Information Systems. Summer.vol.20 no.1, pp.179228, 2003. Chua,A. The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation[J]. Journal of Intellectual Capital. Vol.3 no.4,pp.375-392, 2002. Orlikowski,W.J.,&Gash,D.C..Technological Frames:Making Sense of Information[J].ACM Transactions on Informations Systems.vol.12 no2,pp.174-207,1994. Ribiere,V.M..Assessing Knowledge Management Initiative Success as a Function of Organizational Culture[D].Unpubished doctoral dissertation,The George Washington University,Washington,DC. 2001. Ruppel,C.P.,&Harrington,S.J.. Sharing Knowledge through Intranets: A Study of Organizational and Implementation[J]. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.vol.44 no.1,pp.37-52,2001. Cameron,K.S.,&Ettington,D,R.. The Conceptual Foundational Culture[M]. In J.C.Smart(Ed),Higher education:Handbook of theory and research (vol.4).New York:Agathon Press. 1988. Mcdermott,R.,&ODell,C. Overcoming culture barriers to sharing Knowledge[J].Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol.5 no.1,pp.7685,2001. Maryam Alavi,Timothy R.Kayworth,and Dorothy E.Leidner. An Empirical Examination of the Influence of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management Practices [J]. Journal of Management Information Systems .vol.22 no.3,pp.191-224,Winter 20056.