The Role of Culture in KM

International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2(1), 17-40, January-March 2006 17
The Role of Culture

in Knowledge Management:
A Case Study of Two Global Firms
Dorothy Leidner, Baylor University, USA
Maryam Alavi, Emory University, USA
Timothy Kayworth, Baylor University, USA
ABSTRACT
Knowledge management (KM) approaches have been broadly considered to entail

either a focus on organizing communities or a focus on the process of knowledge
creation, sharing, and distribution. While these two approaches are not mutually
exclusive and organizations may adopt aspects of both, the two approaches entail
different challenges. Some organizational cultures might be more receptive to the
community approach, whereas others may be more receptive to the process approach.
Although culture has been cited widely as a challenge in knowledge management
initiatives, and although many studies have considered the implications of organizational
culture on knowledge sharing, few empirical studies address the influence of culture
on the approach taken to knowledge management. Using a case study approach to
compare and contrast the cultures and knowledge management approaches of two
organizations, the study suggests ways in which organizational culture influences
knowledge management initiatives as well as the evolution of knowledge management
in organizations. Whereas in one organization, the KM effort became little more than
an information repository, in the second organization, the KM effort evolved into a
highly collaborative system fostering the formation of electronic communities.
Keywords: knowledge exchange; knowledge management; knowledge sharing;

organizational culture; organizational knowledge
INTRODUCTION sult, to have limited impact (DeLong &

Knowledge management (KM) ef- Fahey, 2000; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998).
forts often are seen to encounter difficul- An Ernst and Young study identified cul-
ties from corporate culture and, as a re- ture as the biggest impediment to knowl-
Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc.
is prohibited.
18 International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2(1), 17-40, January-March 2006
edge transfer, citing the inability to change that more supportive, encouraging orga-
people’s behaviors as the biggest hindrance nizational cultures positively influence KM
to managing knowledge (Watson, 1998). In infrastructure capability and resulting KM
another study of 453 firms, over half indi- practice. Finally, Jarvenpaa and Staples
cated that organizational culture was a ma- (2001) determined that organizational cul-
jor barrier to success in their knowledge tures rating high in solidarity (tendency to
management initiatives (Ruggles, 1998). The pursue shared objectives) will result in a
importance of culture is also evident from perception of knowledge as being owned
consulting firms such as KPMG who report by the organization, which, in turn, leads
that a major aspect of knowledge manage- to greater levels of knowledge sharing.
ment initiatives involves working to shape While studies have shown that cul-
organizational cultures that hinder their ture influences knowledge management
knowledge management programs (KPMG, and, in particular, knowledge sharing, there
1998). These findings and others (Hasan & is little research on the broader aspects of
Gould, 2001; Schultze & Boland, 2000) the nature and means through which orga-
help to demonstrate the profound impact that nizational culture influences the overall ap-
culture may have on knowledge manage- proach taken to knowledge management
ment practice and of the crucial role of se- in a firm. The purpose of this research is to
nior management in fostering cultures con- examine how organizational culture influ-
ducive to these practices (Brown & Duguid, ences knowledge management initiatives.
2000; Davenport, DeLong, & Beers, 1998; We use a case study methodology to help
DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Gupta & ascertain the relationship of the organiza-
Govindarajan, 2000; Hargadon, 1998; tional culture to the knowledge manage-
KPMG, 1998; von Krogh, 1998). ment approaches within two companies.
Studies on the role of culture in The following section discusses knowledge
knowledge management have focused on management approaches and organizational
such issues as the effect of organizational culture. The third presents the methodol-
culture on knowledge sharing behaviors ogy. The fourth section presents the two
(DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Jarvenpaa & cases and the fifth, and discusses the case
Staples, 2001) and the influence of cul- findings, implications, and conclusion.
ture on the capabilities provided by KM
(Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001) as well LITERATURE REVIEW:
as on the success of the KM initiative KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
(Baltahazard & Cooke, 2003). More spe- APPROACHES AND
cifically, Baltahazard and Cooke (2003) ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
ascertained that constructive cultures (em-
phasizing values related to encouragement, Knowledge Management
affiliation, achievement, and self-actualiza- Approaches
tion) tended to achieve greater KM suc- Knowledge can be defined as a form
cess. Similarly, Gold, et al. (2001) found of high value information (either explicit
is prohibited.
or tacit) combined with experience, con- proach are that it fails to capture much of
text, interpretation, and reflection that is the tacit knowledge embedded in firms and
ready to apply to decisions and actions that it forces individuals into fixed patterns
(Davenport et al., 1998). While all firms of thinking (Brown & Duguid, 2000;
may have a given pool of knowledge re- DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Hargadon, 1998;
sources distributed throughout their re- von Grogh, 2000).
spective organization, they may be un- In contrast, the practice approach to
aware of the existence of these resources knowledge management assumes that a
as well as how to effectively leverage them great deal of organizational knowledge is
for competitive advantage. Therefore, tacit in nature and that formal controls, pro-
firms must engage in activities that seek to cesses, and technologies are not suitable
build, sustain, and leverage these intellec- for transmitting this type of understand-
tual resources. These types of activities, ing. Rather than building formal systems
generally characterized as knowledge to manage knowledge, the focus of this
management, can be defined as the con- approach is to build social environments
scious practice or process of systemati- or communities of practice necessary to
cally identifying, capturing, and leveraging facilitate the sharing of tacit understanding
knowledge resources to help firms to com- (Brown & Duguid, 2000; DeLong &
pete more effectively (Hansen, Nohria, & Fahey, 2000; Gupta & Govindarajan,
Tierney, 1999; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998). 2000; Hansen et al., 1999; Wenger &
There are two fundamental ap- Snyder, 2000). These communities are
proaches to knowledge management: the informal social groups that meet regularly
process approach and the practice ap- to share ideas, insights, and best practices.
proach. The process approach attempts Drawing from this discussion, some
to codify organizational knowledge key questions emerge. First, how does cul-
through formalized controls, processes, ture affect organizations’ approaches
and technologies (Hansen et al., 1999). (e.g., process or practice) to knowledge
Organizations adopting the process ap- management? Second, as organizations
proach may implement explicit policies pursue these initiatives, how do cultural
governing how knowledge is to be col- influences affect the KM activities of
lected, stored, and disseminated through- knowledge generation, codification, and
out the organization. The process ap- transfer? To address these questions, it
proach frequently involves the use of in- is necessary to explore the concept of or-
formation technologies, such as intranets, ganizational culture.
data warehousing, knowledge reposito-
ries, decision support tools, and Organizational Culture
groupware (Ruggles, 1998), to enhance Schein (1985) defines organizational
the quality and speed of knowledge cre- culture as a set of implicit assumptions held
ation and distribution in the organizations. by members of a group that determines
The main criticisms of this process ap- how the group behaves and responds to
is prohibited.
Table 1. The process vs. practice approaches to knowledge management

Process Approach Practice Approach
Type of Explicit knowledge — codified in rules, Mostly tacit knowledge —

Knowledge tools, and processes. unarticulated knowledge not
Supported easily captured or codified.
Means of Formal controls, procedures, and Informal social groups that

Transmission standard operating procedures with engage in storytelling and
heavy emphasis on information improvisation.
technologies to support knowledge
creation, codification, and transfer of
knowledge.
Benefits Provides structure to harness generated Provides an environment to

ideas and knowledge. generate and transfer high value
tacit knowledge.
Achieves scale in knowledge reuse.
Provides spark for fresh ideas
and responsiveness to changing
environment.
Disadvantages Fails to tap into tacit knowledge. May Can result in inefficiency.
limit innovation and forces participants Abundance of ideas with no
into fixed patterns of thinking. structure to implement them.
Role of Heavy investment in IT to connect Moderate investment in IT to

Information people with reusable codified facilitate conversations and
Technology knowledge. transfer of tacit knowledge.
its environment. At its deepest level, cul- people communicate and act (DeLong &
ture consists of core values and beliefs that Fahey, 2000). Putting this into the context
are embedded tacit preferences about of knowledge management, organizational
what the organization should strive to at- culture determines the social context (con-
tain and how it should do it (DeLong & sisting of norms and practices) that deter-
Fahey, 2000). These tacit values and be- mines “who is expected to control what
liefs determine the more observable or- knowledge, as well as who must share it,
ganizational norms and practices that con- and who can hoard it” (Delong & Fahey,
sist of rules, expectations, rituals and rou- 2000, p. 118). Figure 1 illustrates this con-
tines, stories and myths, symbols, power ceptual linkage between culture and
structures, organizational structures, and knowledge management behavior.
control systems (Bloor & Dawson, 1994; As Figure 1 depicts, the social con-
Johnson, 1992). In turn, these norms and text (consisting of norms and practices)
practices drive subsequent behaviors by is the medium for transmission of under-
providing the social context through which lying values and beliefs into specific
is prohibited.
Figure 1. The impact of organizational culture on knowledge management

behaviors
Tacit
(Unobservable) Underlying Cultural Beliefs &
Values
The Social Context:

Cultural Norms & Practices Regarding
Knowledge Management Practices
Explicit Knowledge Management

(Observable) Behaviors
knowledge management behaviors. each to varying levels of degree. Wallach’s

While Figure 1 is useful to explain the (1983) cultural dimensions were devel-
conceptual linkage between culture and oped based upon a synthesis of other
knowledge management behavior, further major organizational culture indices.
explanation is needed to inform our un- Wallach’s (1983) cultural dimensions were
derstanding of the types of cultures that applied by Kanungo, Sadavarti, and
exist within organizations. Srinivas (2001) to study the relationship
A number of theories have attempted between IT strategy and organizational
to define culture at the organizational level. culture. Part of the attractiveness of
Wallach (1983) conceptualizes organiza- Wallach’s (1983) dimensions, in compari-
tional culture as a composite of three dis- son with other commonly used cultural in-
tinctive cultural types: bureaucratic, inno- dices such as the Organizational Culture
vative, and supportive. In bureaucratic cul- Profile scale (O’Reilly, Chatman, &
tures, there are clear lines of authority, and Caldwell, 1991); the Competing Values
work is highly regulated and systematized. Framework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983);
Innovative cultures are characterized as and the Organizational Value Congruence
being creative, risk-taking environments Scale (Enz, 1986), is that it is highly intui-
where burnout, stress, and pressure are tive. Managers readily can identify with
commonplace. In contrast, supportive cul- the descriptions of the three general cul-
tures are those that provide a friendly, ture types. Consistent with Kanungo, et
warm environment where workers tend al. (2001), we will employ Wallach’s
to be fair, open, and honest. From (1983) approach to describe organiza-
Wallach’s (1983) standpoint, any given tional cultures. Specifically, we are inter-
firm will have all three types of culture, ested in the following question: How does
is prohibited.
Figure 2. Case study methodology adapted from Yin (1994)

Conduct
Case Case Study
Selection Company A
Cross-Case
Theoretical
Analysis,
Framework Discussion
Comparisons,
Develop & Conclusions
Conduct
Data Collection Case Study
Protocol Company B
organizational culture influence knowledge 369,000 employees worldwide. The com-

management initiatives? pany is headquartered in the U.S. and
operates in four other regions: Europe, the
Methodology Middle East and Africa, Central and South
A case study method involving mul- America, and Asia. Company revenues
tiple (two) cases was used. The approach consistently exceed $20 billion. In Com-
of the study is depicted in Figure 2. The pany A, large-scale knowledge manage-
figure, based on the work of Yin (1994), ment projects were initiated at the North
displays the replication approach to mul- American region in 1996. Company B is
tiple-case studies. As illustrated in Figure a high-tech global company with multiple
2, the initial step in the study involved the product lines and services. Similar to
development of a theoretical framework Company A, Company B is headquartered
on the relationship between organizational in the U.S. and operates globally in other
culture and organizational knowledge regions of the world. With approximately
management (KM) strategies. This step 316,000 employees, its revenues exceed
was then followed by the selection of the $80 billion. Large-scale knowledge man-
two specific cases (the data collection sites) agement projects were initiated in Com-
and the design of the data collection pro- pany B in 1995.
tocol. Following the case selection and These two companies were selected
data collection steps, the individual case for the purpose of this study for the fol-
reports were developed. A cross-case lowing reasons. First, significant opportu-
analysis of the findings was then under- nities and challenges are associated with
taken. This analysis provided the basis for knowledge management activities in large
the theoretical and normative discussions and geographically dispersed companies.
and implications presented in the final sec- Thus, identification of factors such as or-
tion of the article. ganizational culture that may influence KM
The two case studies involve two outcomes in this type of organizations po-
very large global corporations: Company tentially can lead to high payoffs. Second,
A and Company B. Company A is a glo- considering the high levels of organizational
bal consumer goods company with resources required for implementation of
is prohibited.
large-scale knowledge management initia- cussions of these practices. For example,

tives, these initiatives most likely are en- informants were asked to describe the spe-
countered in very large firms. Thus, the cific KM activities that they engaged in
phenomenon of interest to these research- and to discuss the effects of these activi-
ers could be best investigated in the con- ties on themselves and/or their peers. In-
text of very large firms with an established formants were also asked to describe any
track record in KM projects. Finally, past resistance and impediments to KM that
contacts that one of the researchers had they might have noticed in the organiza-
with these two firms facilitated their re- tion. The same interviewer, using identical
cruitment as case study sites. data collection protocols, conducted all
the interviews in Company A and Com-
Data Collection pany B. The interviewer carefully read the
Data for this study were collected transcripts to ensure accuracy.
through semi-structured interviews with a
small group of managers and professional Data Analysis
employees at the two company locations An author not involved in the inter-
in the U.S. Identical approaches to data views and, hence, having no predisposed
collection were used at Company A and interpretation of the transcripts, conducted
Company B1. Six individuals at each of the data analysis. Based upon the tran-
the two companies were interviewed. In scribed interviews, 12 profiles were writ-
each of the two companies, three of the ten, each one based upon the perspective
interviewees were the current or potential of a single informant. These profiles de-
users of the KM systems. The remaining scribed the informants’ perspective of cul-
three interviewees in each company were ture and their perspective of KM. The pro-
the KMS sponsors or supporters. The in- files of informants for Company A were
terviews took between 45 and 85 minutes compared and contrasted with each other,
and were conducted between October as were those of Company B. Cases for
2001 and January 2002. All the interviews each company, reported in the next sec-
were tape recorded and then transcribed tion, then were written, based upon the
for data analysis. The interviews all followed within-case analysis. The cases for each
the same protocol. The informants first were company then were interpreted from the
asked to characterize their organization’s perspective of how the culture appeared
culture in their own words. The three cul- to be influencing the organizational KM
tures described by Wallach (1983) were initiative. This is also reported in the next
then portrayed, and the informants were section. After the two cases and their
requested to identify which one best de- within-case analysis were complete, a
scribed their organization. The interviewees cross-case comparison and contrast was
next were asked to describe and charac- undertaken, leading to the formulation of
terize the KM practices in their company. the discussion section.
A set of specific questions guided the dis-
is prohibited.
CASE DESCRIPTIONS performed in other parts of the company

AND ANALYSES and think about adopting the ideas to their
local group.
Knowledge Management MIC is intended to be a catalyst for
at Company collaboration and to propel a universal
Knowledge management at Alpha worldwide marketing community. Because
began as a top-down idea, courted by se- the chief marketing officer no longer al-
nior management “as a way of helping the lows the budgeting of glossy manuals or
company become more leading edge” ac- brochures, MIC is widely accepted as the
cording to one informant. A small group primary means of obtaining such static in-
of eight or nine individuals at headquar- formation. In fact, as attempts were made
ters was charged with driving knowledge to include best practices in MIC, the ini-
management and facilitating knowledge tiative encountered resistance. Explains
sharing. As a result of larger issues sur- one informant, “We could never nudge the
facing, most notably the economic down- culture enough to have people understand
turn that rocked U.S.-based businesses and be motivated to enter their informa-
in early 2000, the top-level initiative fell tion.” Another informant felt that there
into the background, and the small, dedi- were challenges in overcoming “people’s
cated group was disbanded. Thus, at the fear of being judged for their ideas and
organizational level, KM was an idea that their indifference to yet another informa-
received neither funding nor action. How- tion site.”
ever, at the business unit level, successful CM connection (CMC) is another
KM initiatives have been built around an KM initiative within the North American
intranet or around Lotus Notes team marketing unit. This is a Web-based mar-
rooms. keting repository used to disseminate in-
formation so that wholesalers that are re-
Intranet-Based KM Projects sponsible for store-level execution can have
One initiative in the marketing area access to the most recent information on
of corporate headquarters is called MIC how to merchandise the latest promotions.
— marketing information center. MIC As with MIC, the major impact of CMC
serves the global marketing community of has been the reduction of the number of
several thousand individuals around the printed catalogs; in this case, by 80%.
world. It is an intranet-based library con- Among the challenges experienced with
taining links to agencies, compensations, CM connection has been convincing con-
human resource information, and content providers to own the information in the
tracts, among other things. MIC is op- sense of both providing it and keeping it
portunity-oriented rather than problem- up-to-date. Another issue has been that
oriented. The members do not use the CM connection is seen by some as dis-
community to post a problem inquiry and tracting from their relationships with clients.
await responses but rather to look for ideas Even while MCC may reduce the amount
is prohibited.
of time spent traveling, this is not neces-

distinguishes the Lotus Notes-based KM
sarily welcome in “a sales and marketing projects from the intranet-based KM
oriented relationship company because projects is the added focus on facilitating
you are taking away relationship points.”teamwork. The Lotus Notes-based ini-
The Human Resources unit with thetiatives developed independently from the
Corporate Functions unit also has an intranet-based initiatives. The North-
intranet-based KM, referred to as My Ca- American marketing group developed a
reer. My Career is designed for managers Lotus Notes-based community of inter-
and employees to help provide informa- est. The system contains examples of
tion about what tools, classes, and coach-
briefs, shared research, shared examples
ing are available for development. One ofof different sites, and information on in-
the goals of My Career has been to merge ternal research. This micro KM has 50 to
all of the training information into one place.
60 regular users. An important feature of
Many such intranet-based KM have the system is that whenever new informa-
been developed throughout Alpha, so tion is added, community members re-
many that the portal project was initiated
ceive an e-mail. In this way, members visit
to alleviate the problem of “too much in-the community when new information that
formation in too many places, different IDs
is relevant to them has been posted. This
and passwords for each database, having KM project has served as a means of
to remember what is in the database to sharing best practices. For example, a
even go to get the information.” However,marketing manager from the UK posted
despite some initial receptiveness to theinformation concerning a successful auc-
idea from the head of the New Business tion initiative, which was then emulated by
Ventures unit, IT budgets were frozen andfive other countries. On an individual level,
the project never got underway. KM has helped to increase the frequency
The common thread running throughof communication among members of the
the intranet-based KM projects at Alpha community. Similarly, HR developed HR
is that they all are geared to housing static
Source, a Lotus Notes-based general bul-
information with the most major impacts letin board, where meeting notes, follow-
being the reduction in printed catalogs. up action items, strategy documents, and
Among the greatest resistance, according work plans are placed. It is shared by the
to informants, is that these KM projects HR community on a global basis.
appear to try to standardize work prac- Lotus Notes is also the platform used
tices in a company comprised of “creativeto develop team rooms. The individual re-
assertive people who want to do it their sponsible for managing team rooms for
way and make their own individual mark.” North America has what he calls the six-
month rule: if a team room is not getting
Lotus Notes-Based KM regular utilization for more than six months,
Lotus Notes forms the basis of other it is deleted so that they can save money
KM initiatives within Company A. What on the server expense. He says that he
is prohibited.
deletes about 70 to 80% of team rooms. lated, and are afraid of being criticized for
He thinks the lack of reward is the biggest their ideas. The slow, bureaucratic, hier-
barrier toward KM system usage: archical culture at Alpha has resulted in
“People who don’t have technology in silos of information. As a consequence,
their title don’t take it upon themselves and managers indicate that even though they
are not generally rewarded for exploiting have great consumer and customer infor-
technology.” Also, content management is mation, they end up reinventing the wheel
a barrier: “This is the responsibility of the 1,000 times. However, our informants also
end user but it is perceived as the respon- maintained that although they character-
sibility of the technology group.” However, ize the culture as bureaucratic, they also
a marketing manager had another opin- sense that Alpha is striving to become more
ion, attributing lack of use of the team innovative and supportive.
rooms to self-preservation: “Even if some-
one took the time to put something out The Possible Impacts
there, even if I knew it was there, went of Culture on KM
and got it, had the time to review it, and The statements and observations of
understand it, I am going to create this our informants point to two largely shared
other thing by myself. I might look at that perspectives: (1) the culture emphasizes
as input, but then it is the new XYZ pro- the individual, and (2) the culture is in a
gram and I created it.” state of transition. In understanding the
impacts of KM, one can see the influence
ANALYSIS OF ALPHA’S of the individuality within Company A.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: Table 2 lists the characteristics of culture,
THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON characteristics of the KM initiatives, and
KM BEHAVIORS AND characteristics of KM behaviors as ex-
OUTCOMES pressed by the informants.
At work within Alpha seems to be a
The Perceptions of Culture tension between a culture that demands
While each individual interviewed individuality and the communal aspects of
gave their own perception of the culture KM. The informants talk about a culture
at Alpha, and while the perceptions natu- that is one of “individual survival” where
rally contain some variance, there is a individuals “fear being judged for their
marked theme running throughout the in- ideas,” where there is individual “isolation,”
dividuals’ views. Informants describe Al- and where individuals try to go unnoticed.
pha as risk averse and bureaucratic. They The overall feeling is that of individuals try-
speak of an environment where people ing to avoid being noticed. Such a culture
don’t want to be noticed, where direction does little to foster the sense of commu-
is unclear, and where individual survival nity that may be necessary to enable KM
trumps teamwork. Moreover, informants to move beyond static repositories of in-
state that people work in silos, feel iso- formation into the kind of dynamic system
is prohibited.
Table 2. Characteristics of culture, KM initiatives, and KM behaviors

Culture Characteristics KM Characteristics KM Behaviors
Dominant culture is Intranet-based static Individuals access
bureaucratic repositories of information information on an as-
needed basis
Emphasis on individual: Failed top-down effort
*individuals are “risk Individuals reluctant to
averse” Bottom-up initiatives contribute information
*individuals fear being largely targeted creation of
criticized for ideas repositories Individuals reluctant to own
*individuals are uneasy and and maintain content
prefer to go unnoticed Some use of Lotus Notes to
*individual relationships create team rooms Individuals uncomfortable
externally, particularly using ideas from the
within the marketing unit, Team rooms have high systems, since they do not
are perceived as critical to failure rate own the idea
their success
Individuals use repository
when rules prohibit printing
brochures
Individuals reluctant to use

tools that would result in a
loss of touch points with
customers
envisioned by developers, where ideas capture ideas and only share them if they
flow freely and where KM provides a are going to be favorably judged. One
catalyst for collaborative engagement. Not must not look to others for learning or for
only are individuals reluctant to share their problem solving but might look to reuse
information for fear of being criticized for creative ideas in some circumstances (like
their ideas, they also are reluctant to use the auction site example from the UK)
information posted in a KM for lack of where one may tailor the idea to one’s en-
credit for the idea. Such behaviors can vironment. It is telling that the informants
spring from a culture that emphasizes in- speak of using outsiders (e.g., consultants)
dividual ideas and contribution. to assist with problem solving and learn-
The individual aspects of the culture ing instead of attempting to use any of the
go well beyond individuals behaving in a existing KM to post queries, and this in
certain way because of a rewards system spite of the fact that it is recognized that
but reflects an underpinning notion that to the company reinvents the wheel 1,000
succeed in a marketing-oriented organi- times.
zation, one must be creative and that cre- Another tension within Alpha seems
ativity is perforce, of an individual nature, to stem from the expectations of what
so that to survive as an individual, one must should occur in a bureaucratic culture and
is prohibited.
what was occurring. The top-down ap- and, if used, become as much a library of
proach to KM, an approach that would information as a communication tool. In
be consistent with a bureaucratic organi- some ways, the culture of Alpha appears
zation, had failed at Alpha. Yet, despite to foster the types of KM behaviors ob-
the failure of the top-down approach to served, in that the individual is seen as the
KM and the seeming success of several primary source of innovation and ideas as
bottom-up approaches, such as MIC and opposed to the community being the ulti-
the marketing team room for the commu- mate source of success. Thus, individuals
nity of 50, one informant still proffered the will use the systems as needed but are
need for top management leadership to occupied mostly with their individual roles
be the key to success with KM. He con- and work and do not attribute value to
sidered the bottom-up approaches as the collaborative features of technology.
“band-aid-approaches.” In his opinion,
power within Alpha comes “from knowl- The Case of Beta
edge hoarding, not knowledge sharing.” Beta is organized into seven major
In order for KM to be assimilated in this units. Our interviews were concentrated
environment, “behavior really has to come within the Innovations Services group of
from the top. Leadership needs to walk the consulting wing (referred to as World-
the walk.” In a bureaucratic culture, indi- wide Services Group, or WSG) of Beta.
viduals become accustomed to clear guid- Knowledge management at Beta be-
ance from senior management. The ab- gan in 1996 with the view that KM was
sence of clearly stated support from se- about codifying and sharing information,
nior management may be sufficient to de- leading to the creation of huge reposito-
ter many from experimenting with the KM ries of procedures and process ap-
tools available to help them. proaches. It was assumed that people
would go to a central site, called Intellec-
Summary tual Capital Management System (ICM),
Alpha has many KM initiatives that pull information down, and all would be
were developed largely as bottom-up ini- more knowledgeable. ICM is under the
tiatives. The KM tools seem well designed protection of the Beta Corporation. There
and housed with valuable information. The is a process one must undertake to have
informants are able to use the tools to fa- information submitted and approved. The
cilitate the retrieval of information that they process is complicated by legalities and
need in the performance of their jobs. formalities. As a result, ICM is not used as
However, the tools have not progressed widely as it could be. What was discov-
yet to the level of fostering collaboration. ered from the initial foray into knowledge
While there are some successful commu- management was that the information was
nities from the standpoint of providing a not being refreshed and that the approach
place to share meeting notes and plans, was not complementing the way people
the majority of team rooms remain unused really learned, which was through com-
is prohibited.
munities. Consequently, the KM initiative that involved selling a project to a govern-

began to shift to providing tools to com- ment department in another country. She
munities that would help foster collabora- was able to access all the documentation
tion both within teams and within locations from the team room and become a pro-
and around the globe. Among the tools ductive member of a new team very quickly:
are team rooms and communities. “I can go in and start getting information
about a particular topic and work with col-
Team Rooms leagues almost immediately. It allows me
Lotus Notes-based team rooms are to work more easily with colleagues across
widely used at Beta to coordinate virtual disciplines.”
teams and to share important documents. Although team rooms are invaluable
Access to team databases are limited to in organizing and coordinating project
the members because of the confidential teams, there are also some potential draw-
nature of a lot of the issues. The project backs. Some view the team rooms as en-
manager or someone delegated by the gendering “a false sense of intimacy and
project manager takes the responsibility connectedness.” This sense of intimacy can
of sanitizing the material and posting the be productive for the team as long as
most relevant parts to a community sys- things are going well. However, “if things
tem such as OC-zone (to be discussed go south,” says an informant, “you don’t
later) and/or to the ICM after the team’s have the history or skill set to really deal
project has been completed. with difficult situations.” As a result, in-
The team rooms are valuable tools to stead of dealing with the conflict, the team
help members keep track of occurrences is more likely to just take someone off the
as well as to help newly assigned members team and replace the person with another.
get quickly up to speed. Because of the In this sense, problems are not solved so
itinerant nature of the Beta consultant’s life, much as they are avoided, and team mem-
it is invaluable to have the documents they bers take on an expendable quality.
need stored in an easily accessible manner
that does not require sending and receiving Communities
files over a network. Team room databases Communities serve members based
also are used for managing the consulting not upon project or organizational posi-
practices. It is important in helping new tion but upon interest. By 2000, a group
people with administrative tasks (e.g., how referred to as the organizational change
to order a piece of computer equipment, (OC) group had established a successful
how to order business cards). The team community of 1,500 members cutting
rooms keep track of such metrics as utili- across all lines of business and was be-
zation so that members of the team know ginning to act as consultants to other
“who’s on the bench and who’s not.” One groups trying to set up communities. The
informant gave the example of a recent OC community has gone so far as to quan-
project she was put on at the last minute tify the business return of such a commu-
is prohibited.
nity in terms of cycle time reductions and inundation of messages. The leader
sophistication of responses to clients. The normally receives responses within an
OC community is comprised of tools, hour. The leader then forwards the re-
events, and organization. sponses to the individual with the query.
Later, the leader sends an e-mail to the
1. Tools. The technology tools at the dis- person who made the inquiry, asking
posal of the OC community are data- how the response was, how much time
bases of information submitted by team it saved, and so forth. The leader nor-
rooms, including such things as white mally gets back as many as 28 re-
papers, projects, and deliverables, as sponses to a particular inquiry. The
well as client information. The data- leader has manually loaded a portion
bases also contain pictures of commu- of what he or she has developed in the
nity members with personal information past seven months. There are 114
about the members. pieces of intellectual capital that the
2. Events. An important aspect of the OC leader has loaded, and it is just a por-
community is the events that are orga- tion of what the leader has received.
nized for community members. These
include monthly conference call meet- The community has a structure that
ings, which generally are attended by consists of a senior global board of 30
40 to 90 members, and replay meet- members representative of different parts
ings, which draw another 40 to 70 of the business. There is a subject matter
members. In the past, the community council that constantly scans the intellec-
has sponsored a face-to-face confer- tual capital, as well as an expert council
ence for members. Members often and the health check team.
meet others for the first time, yet they The health check team examines such
already feel they know each other. things as how well members communicate
3. Organization. The organization of the with each other. They conducted an or-
community is managed by two com- ganizational network analysis to help bet-
munity leaders. When people request ter understand the communication net-
information or have queries to post to works. The team has a series of questions
members, they send their messages to to help assess how they are doing in terms
one of the community leaders. The of high performance teaming. They use a
leader first tries to forward the mes- survey that measures perceptions from the
sage directly to a subject-matter expert community members about what they see
(SME). If the leader does not know is happening and do a gap analysis on
offhand of an appropriate SME, the what is actually happening. Finally, the
leader will post the question to the en- team does a self-assessment of where it is
tire group. In this event, the group mem- compared to the community maturity
bers respond to the leader rather than model developed by the OC community
to the community in order to avoid an leaders. There is a community mission,
is prohibited.
vision, and goals, and they are working leadership to get into the hearts and minds
on capturing data to support the metrics of the workers so that they all have a com-
to demonstrate value to the company and mon vision, goals, and objectives.”
community members. Community members view the pur-
The goal is to attain level-5 maturity, pose of the community as a knowledge-
which is considered an “adaptive organi- sharing forum and as a means to create a
zation.” There are 13 areas of focus at sense of belonging. One member went so
which the community leaders look in far as to suggest that she would “not be at
building a sustained community. While Beta any longer if it wasn’t for this com-
communities are felt to be organic, there munity.” The reason is that most of her
is also a community developers kit with connections at Beta have been made
an assessment tool to determine at what through the community. Also, being in the
level of maturity a community is and what community helps her to get assigned to
steps need to be taken to move the com- projects. For example, the leader of a new
munity forward. One community leader project will call someone in the commu-
says that the purpose of the development nity and say that they are looking for a
kit “is not to confine, but to provide a road person with a certain profile. She finds that
map in which to navigate and build.” For she gets asked to work on projects this
this leader, the essence of community is way.
continuous learning. Of the initial KM ef- Other members refer to the commu-
forts focused on information repositories, nity as a supportive family and state that
the leader says, “I could see the technol- within the community is someone who has
ogy coming that was going to enslave already encountered any issue they will
people, like an intellectual sweat shop.” encounter on a project, so the community
By contrast, the primary tools for a com- keeps them from reinventing the wheel.
munity are “passion and environment.” The norms of operation exist to help the
OC zone be as effective as possible. No
Impact of OC one is under obligation to contribute, but
Among the major impacts of the OC individuals contribute in order to help other
zone is that having a community helps people. One member credits the success
people not feel isolated. “People feel they of the community to the two leaders,
are affiliated, that they are part of the com- whom she feels “in their hearts, care about
pany.” Thirty percent of Beta employees the members of the community.” She feels
do not have offices and work from home that the community is more than a com-
or the client sites. Such a work environ- munity of people who like the topic of or-
ment easily can be associated with isola- ganizational change, but it is a community
tion. However, the community is claimed of people who support one another.
by some to provide clarity of purpose. “I The primary resistance to the OC
see it as a conduit for both developing community has been the practice manag-
thought leadership and enabling thought ers. Most of the community members re-
is prohibited.
port to practice managers. The practice petition (i.e., everyone has objectives that
managers are used to thinking in terms of they are trying to meet), things “are al-
billable hours. Indeed, the performance ways done in a collaborative helpful spirit.”
evaluation system requires that an The other dominant aspect of cul-
individual’s goals support those of his or ture, as related by the informants, is hier-
her boss, which support those of his or archy. The hierarchy is as much a hierar-
her boss, and so forth. The community chy of experience as of structure. Com-
leaders hope that one day, participating in munity members, for example, proffered
a community will be included as a stan- that becoming a subject matter expert is
dard part of this evaluation system. more about length of service to the com-
pany than to one’s inherent knowledge.
ANALYSIS OF BETA Another aspect of the bureaucratic cul-
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: ture is that “there is very much a correct
THE IMPACT OF CULTURE way to do things.”
ON KM BEHAVIORS Table 3 lists the characteristics of
AND OUTCOMES culture, KM initiatives, and KM behav-
iors expressed by the Beta informants.
The Perceptions of Culture Beta’s emphasis on collaboration
All of the respondents from Beta seems to have enabled the progression of
work within the same business unit. The KM from a static information repository
respondents describe the culture of Beta system into active, vital communities of in-
as a blend of hierarchical and innovative. terest, wherein individuals feel a sense of
The hierarchical aspects are evident in that belonging to the extent that they identify
little innovation is undertaken until senior themselves first with the community and
management has officially supported the second, if at all, with their actual formal
innovation, but once senior management business units. One informant claimed to
does give the green light to an idea, “ev- not identify herself at all with the Innova-
erybody jumps on it.” tion Services unit. Of course, one could
One aspect of culture that is high- ponder whether such identity transfer from
lighted by the informants is the importance the business unit to the community serves
of collaboration. Informants characterize the best interest of the unit.
the street values within Beta as win, team, At the same time, the bureaucratic
and execute. Beta informants recognize a and innovative aspects of the culture also
duality of culture that, on the one hand, have helped. Having senior management
gives individuals control over their work show interest in KM was a catalyst to in-
and, at the same time, is highly supportive dividual groups undertaking KM initiatives
of the individual. The culture is autono- with great enthusiasm. In addition, rather
mous in the sense of not having someone than ad hoc communities that are entirely
looking over your shoulder and telling you organic, the community model emerging
what to do. While there is certainly com- at Beta is a relatively structured one.
is prohibited.
Table 3. Characteristics of Company B culture, KM initiatives, and KM behaviors

Culture Characteristics KM Characteristics KM Behaviors
Hierarchical, yet Company-wide information Team members actively
collaborative and innovative repository consisting of coordinate via the team
hundreds of information rooms
Individuals largely databases
responsible for their own Community members
careers, yet competition is Team rooms used by project obtain a sense of belonging
undertaken in a cooperative teams to the community
manner
Communities of practice Community members post
The team is the unit of emerging. These information from completed
success, more so than the communities include tools, team projects to the
individual events, and structures community out of a sense of
commitment, not coercion
Absence of extreme The OC community is used
supervision of individuals’ as an example of a Community members are
work — individuals have a successful community and more loyal to the company
sense of control as a consultant to other (less likely to depart)
emerging communities because of their belonging
to the community
Assignments to projects
made through community
references
While one can make the argument formal reward for doing so, one informant
that Beta’s culture influences KM devel- said simply, “It’s just how we do business.”
opment and use, one also can argue that Thus, the community has infused the cul-
KM at Beta is influencing Beta’s culture. ture of the members.
OC members claim that without a sense Yet, this does not suggest that an or-
of connection provided by the OC com- ganizational utopia has been or will be
munity, Beta would be nothing but a “big achieved. While the culture is becoming
and scary” company in which individuals more connected, there is another angle.
“get lost.” The community, though, allows One informant believes that when you
and enables a culture of connection. In have widespread access to knowledge
effect, one informant believes that the OC management, you also can have a culture
community attempts to shift a very tech- where people that know very little about
nical, phone-oriented, work-product-ori- something have access to enough infor-
ented way of communicating with each mation to be dangerous. People get too
other into a more personal work-in-pro- comfortable with having access to knowl-
cess movement toward what Beta refers edge and then feel free to share it. This
to as “thought leadership.” When asked informant remained unconvinced that the
why members take the time to partici- knowledge one acquires through the net-
pate in the community when there is no work is as solid a foundation as the knowl-
is prohibited.
edge one has acquired through experi- tribute to individual vs. cooperative
ence and traditional learning. Moreover, behavior. The two companies we exam-
she feels that the notion of dialogue can ined share several similarities. Both huge
get redefined in a way that you lose the multinational organizations are regarded
quality of participation that one might be widely by organizational members as be-
looking for. ing predominantly bureaucratic in culture.
Both organizations had initial KM ap-
Summary proaches that were strongly supported by
Beta has many KM databases, col- senior management. And both had initial
lectively referred to as Intellectual Capital KM approaches focused on the creation
Management. While these databases serve of a large centralized repository of orga-
an important role of housing and organiz- nizational knowledge to be shared through-
ing information in a huge organization, they out the organization. These two large bu-
do not go so far as to foster collabora- reaucratic organizations began their KM
tion. Instead, team rooms and communi- quests with the process approach. The
ties of interest, largely left to the discre- most striking difference between the or-
tion of team members and community ganizational cultures of these two compa-
members, have proven to be vital tools to nies was the emphasis at Alpha on the
achieving collaboration, community, and individual and the emphasis at Beta on
belonging. As the culture of Beta has been collectivity — the team or community.
receptive to individual groups setting and This evinces itself even in the interpreta-
pursuing their community agendas, the tion of innovation. While individuals at
culture also is being subtly altered by the both companies spoke of the need for
communities as members feel that they innovation in their organizations and of
belong more to the community than to their the striving of their organizations to de-
business units. velop an innovative culture, in the case of
Alpha, innovation was perceived as an
DISCUSSION individual attribute, whereas at Beta, in-
The two cases offer insights into the novation was perceived as a team-level
role that organizational culture plays in the attribute.
inception and maturation of KM. This sec- The individualistic view of innovation
tion summarizes the key findings that help at Alpha seemed to militate against the req-
us to answer the following question: How uisite sharing and cooperation that makes
does organizational culture influence KM the evolution of KM from process ap-
approaches? We suggest four responses proach to a community of practice ap-
to this question. proach possible. In both companies, mi-
cro-level experimentation of the various
1. Organizational culture influ- possibilities of KM was undertaken within
ences KM through its influence on the teams or business units. The value placed
values organizational members at- on individualism vs. cooperativism seems
is prohibited.
to have played a significant role in the na- viewed dominantly as bureaucratic, once
ture and form of the KM approach. The the initial organizational change commu-
micro-level experimentations by teams or nity was established, the evolution of the
business units were carried out with their community then became a highly structured
own assumptions about the usefulness of process of maturation. The community
repositories of knowledge and the useful- leaders developed a toolkit to help other
ness of communities or practice. We sug- communities develop and developed a
gest that it is not organizational culture at maturation model to help them to deter-
the organizational level or even the subunit mine how mature a community was and
level that has the most significant influence to develop a plan to move the community
on KM approach, but it is organizational forward. What some might see as an or-
culture as embodied in the individualistic vs. ganic process (i.e., establishing and de-
cooperative tendencies of organizational veloping a community or practice) became
members. Thus, organizational culture in- a structured process in a bureaucratic or-
fluences KM approaches through its influ- ganization. Even if the idea for the com-
ence on individualism vs. cooperativism. munity emerged from interested potential
From a theoretical view, it seems that members, the evolution took on a struc-
Wallach’s (1983) cultural dimensions and tured form with tools, kits, assessments,
those of Earley (1994) were both valuable and plans. The cooperative aspect of cul-
at explaining organizational level culture. ture at the individual level made the com-
However, Earley’s (1994) cultural dimen- munity possible; the bureaucratic elements
sions at the organizational level seem best of culture at the organizational level en-
able to explain why a KM approach abled the community to mature. Hence,
tended to become more process or more the evolution of the community was highly
practice-based. dependent on the individual willingness of
organizational members to sustain and
2. Organizational culture influ- nurture their community. This appeared
ences the evolution of KM initiatives. tied to the importance they placed on co-
Our findings suggest that firms do not de- operation with their community members,
cide in advance to adopt a process or most of whom they had never met.
practice approach to KM, but that it
evolves. The most natural starting point is 3. Organizational culture influ-
one of process, perhaps because the ben- ences the migration of knowledge. In
efits seem more evident and because it can the case of Alpha, where the informants
align more closely with the existing orga- seemed to identify the individual as the ul-
nizational structure. Moreover, the prac- timate unit of responsibility in the organi-
tice approach may not only fail to align zation, the individuals also were viewed
with existing structure, but it may engen- as the owners of knowledge and had the
der a virtual structure and identity. It is in- responsibility to share their knowledge.
teresting that at Beta, a culture that is This, in fact, created a major challenge,
is prohibited.
since the individuals rejected this new re- leader who would serve as an intermedi-
sponsibility. At Beta, where the team ary between the individual with the query
seemed to be the focus of responsibility, and the expert.
knowledge migrated from the team to the It has been reported widely that the
community to the organizational level sys- use of knowledge directories is a primary
tem and back down to the team. The leader application of KM in organizations. Our
of the team would take responsibility for study suggests that the facilitated access
cleaning the team’s data and submitting it to experts rather than direct access via the
to the community and to the central infor- location of an individual through a direc-
mation repository. Thus, knowledge mi- tory or via a problem posted to a forum
grated upward from the team to the central may lead to a more favorable community
repository. Interestingly, the most useful atmosphere.
knowledge was claimed to be that at the
team and community level. Once the knowl- 4. Knowledge management can
edge had completed its migration to the become embedded in the organiza-
central repository, it was seen primarily as tional culture. Over time, as KM evolves
an item of insurance for use in case of and begins to reflect the values of the or-
need. Knowledge sharing and transfer ganization, the KM can become a part of
occurred primarily at the team and com- the organizational culture. At Beta, indi-
munity level, whereas knowledge storage viduals spoke of their community involve-
was the function of the central repository. ment and their team rooms as simply the
The migration of knowledge also is “way we work.” In fact, the communities
influenced by the structural processes put became so much part of the culture that
in place to ensure that knowledge finds its even though they were not part of the or-
way to the appropriate persons. Of key ganizational structure, they were part of
importance seems to be the way the que- an individual’s implicit structure. The sense
ries are handled. The marketing group at of belonging that the individuals reported
Alpha adopted the approach of notifying feeling toward their community suggests
individuals when new information had that the community had become an es-
been added to the KMS. However, little sential aspect of their value system and,
interference was put in place to either hence, had become part of organizational
guide people to the appropriate knowl- culture. That the organizational change
edge or to encourage people to contrib- community members at Beta identified
ute knowledge. Conversely, believing that themselves first and foremost with their
the community should not become a bul- community, in spite of receiving neither
letin board of problems and solutions, the reward nor recognition within their formal
leaders of the organizational change com- reporting unit for participating in the com-
munity at Beta worked arduously to learn munity, indicates the extent to which com-
the subject matter experts so that queries munity participation had become a value
would be submitted to the community and an aspect of the individual culture.
is prohibited.
Table 4. Summary of organizational culture’s Influence on KM

Cultural Perspective Influence of Culture on Knowledge
Management
Bureaucratic (Wallach, 1983) Favors an initial process approach to KM
Creates expectation among members that

senior management vision is essential to
effective KM
Innovative (Wallach, 1983) Enables subgroups in organizations to
experiment with KM and develop KMs
useful to their group
Individualistic (Earley, 1994) Inhibits sharing, ownership, and reuse of
knowledge
Cooperative (Earley, 1994) Enables the evolution of process-oriented
KM to practice-oriented KM
Enables the creation of virtual communities
Implications and Conclusion seem to be influenced largely by the indi-

The findings of our study suggest that vidualistic or cooperative nature of the cul-
a dominantly bureaucratic culture seems ture. Individualistic cultures inhibit sharing,
to tend toward an initial process-based ownership, and reuse, while cooperative
KM approach. Furthermore, a bureau- cultures enable the creation of virtual com-
cratic culture seems to create the expecta- munities. Earley’s (1994) work on organi-
tion among organizational members that zational culture emphasized the individual-
senior management needs to provide a vi- istic and collectivistic aspects of culture.
sion of purpose for KM before the organi- Organizations encouraging individuals to
zational members should embark on KM pursue and maximize individuals’ goals and
activities. As well, the members view se- rewarding performance based on individual
nior management support as validating any achievement would be considered to have
KM activities that they undertake. Innova- an individualistic culture, whereas organi-
tive cultures, even if not the dominant cul- zations placing priority on collective goals
ture at the organizational level, seem to en- and joint contributions and rewards for or-
able subgroups to experiment with KM or ganizational accomplishments would be
create micro-KMs. In essence, in organi- considered collectivist (Chatman &
zations having dominant bureaucratic cul- Barsade, 1995; Earley, 1994). This di-
tures with traces of innovativeness, senior mension of organizational culture emerged
management support legitimizes KM, but as critical in our examination of the influ-
the innovativeness of the culture enables it ence of culture on KM initiatives. These
to expand far beyond an organization-wide findings are summarized in Table 4.
repository. Specific KM behaviors such as This research set out to examine the
ownership and maintenance of knowledge, influence of organizational culture on
knowledge sharing, and knowledge reuse knowledge management approaches. Us-
is prohibited.
ing a case study approach, we have gath- Personality, organizational culture, and
ered the perspectives of individuals in two cooperation: Evidence from a business
firms that share some cultural similarities simulation. Administrative Science
yet differ in other aspects. The findings sug- Quarterly, 40(3), 423-443.
gest that organizational culture influences the Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., &
KM approach initially chosen by an orga- Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful
nization, the evolution of the KM approach, knowledge management. Sloan Man-
and the migration of knowledge. Moreover, agement Review, 39(2), 43-57.
the findings suggest that KM eventually can DeLong, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Di-
become an integral aspect of the organiza- agnosing cultural barriers to knowledge
tional culture. Much remains to be discov- management. Academy of Manage-
ered about how organizational cultures ment Executive, 14(4), 113-127.
evolve and what role information technol- Earley. (1994). Self or group? Cultural ef-
ogy takes in this evolution. This case study fects of training on self-efficacy and
is an initial effort into a potentially vast ar- performance. Administrative Science
ray of research into the issue of the rela- Quarterly, 39(1), 89-117.
tionship of information technology and Enz, C. (1986). Power and shared val-
organizational culture. ues in the corporate culture. Ann Ar-
bor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
REFERENCES Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. H. (2001). Knowledge management:
(2005). Organizational and sub-unit An organizational capabilities perspec-
values in the process of knowledge tive. Journal of Management Infor-
management (Working Paper). Baylor mation Systems, 18(1), 185-214.
University. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000).
Baltahazard, P. A., & Cooke, R. A. Knowledge management’s social di-
(2003). Organizational culture and mension: Lessons from Nucor Steel.
knowledge management success: As- Sloan Management Review, 42(1),
sessing the behavior-performance 71-80.
continuum (Working Paper). Arizona Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T.
State University West. (1999). What’s your strategy for man-
Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Under- aging knowledge? Harvard Business
standing professional culture in organi- Review, 77(2), 106-115.
zational context. Organization Studies, Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowl-
15(2), 275-295. edge brokers: Lessons in pursuing con-
Brown, S. J., & Duguid, P. (2000). Bal- tinuous innovation. California Man-
ancing act: How to capture knowledge agement Review, 40(3), 209-227.
without killing it. Harvard Business Re- Hasan, H., & Gould, E. (2001). Support
view, 78(3), 73-80. for the sense-making activity of man-
Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). agers. Decision Support Systems,
is prohibited.
31(1), 71-86. 40(3), 80-89.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, S. D. (2001). Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational cul-
Exploring perceptions of organizational ture and leadership. San Francisco,
ownership of information and expertise. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Journal of Management Information Schultze, U., & Boland, R. (2000).
Systems, 18(1), 151-183. Knowledge management technology
Johnson, G. (1992) Managing strategic and the reproduction of knowledge
change — Strategy, culture and action. work practices. Journal of Strategic
Long Range Planning, 25(1), 28-36. Information Systems, 9(2-3), 193-
Kanungo, S., Sadavarti, S., & Srinivas, 213.
Y. (2001). Relating IT strategy and or- von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge
ganizational culture: An empirical study creation. California Management Re-
of public sector units in India. Journal view, 40(3), 133-153.
of Strategic Information Systems, Wallach, E. J. (1983, February). Individu-
10(1), 29-57. als and organizations: The cultural
KPMG Management Consulting. (1998). match. Training and Development
Knowledge management: Research Journal, .
report. Watson, S. (1998). Getting to “aha!” com-
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If panies use intranets to turn information
only we know what we know: Identifi- and experience into knowledge — And
cation and transfer of best practices. gain a competitive edge. Computer
California Management Review, World, 32(4), 1.
40(3), 154-174. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000).
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, Communities of practice: The organi-
D. F. (1996). Culture as social control: zational frontier. Harvard Business Re-
Corporations, cults, and commitment. view, 78(1), 139-145.
Research in Organizational Behavior,
18, 157-200. ENDNOTE
1
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, I. (1983). A After this initial data collection, we re-
spatial model of effectiveness criteria: turned to Company B a year later and
Towards a competing values approach conducted more widespread interviews
to organizational analysis. Manage- across different business units. This
ment Science, 29(3), 363-377. data collection and analysis is discussed
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the no- in Alavi, Kayworth, and Leidner
tion: Knowledge management in prac- (2005).
tice. California Management Review,
Dorothy E. Leidner, PhD, is the Randall W. and Sandra Ferguson Professor of

Information Systems at Baylor University. Prior to rejoining the Baylor faculty,
is prohibited.
she was associate professor at INSEAD and an associate professor at Texas

Christian University. She has also been a visiting professor at the Instituto
Tecnologico y des Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Mexico, at the Institut
d’Administration des Entreprises at the Université de Caen, France, and at
Southern Methodist University. Dr. Leidner has received best paper awards in
1993 from the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, in 1995
from MIS Quarterly, and in 1999 from the Academy of Management. She is
currently serving as co-editor-in-chief of the journal Data Base for Advances in
Information Systems. She also is serving as an associate editor for MIS Quarterly,
Decision Sciences, and Decision Support Systems, and as a senior editor for the
Journal of Strategic Information Systems.
Maryam Alavi, PhD, is the John and Lucy Cook Chair of Information Strategy
and the former senior associate dean of Faculty and Research at the Goizueta
Business School of Emory University. She also serves as the director of
Knowledge@Emory, a Web-based publication of the Goizueta Business School.
Dr. Alavi has authored numerous scholarly papers. Her research has been
supported by funds and hardware grants from the AT&T Foundation, AT&T
Corporation, IBM, and Lucent Technologies. She has served on the editorial
boards of several scholarly journals, including MIS Quarterly, Information Systems
Research, Journal of MIS, and Journal of Strategic Information Systems. Dr. Alavi
was awarded the distinguished Marvin Bower Faculty Fellowship at the Harvard
Business School. She also was a recipient of the University of Maryland
Distinguished Scholar-Teacher Award, and was elected as the recipient of the
prestigious AIS (Association of Information Systems) Fellows Award.
Tim Kayworth, PhD, is an associate professor of management information systems

in the Hankamer School of Business at Baylor University. He has prior industry
experience in information systems consulting and has also held positions as MIS
director and operations manager for private sector firms. Dr. Kayworth’s research
interests center on the management of IT in organizations. Recent research projects
have included such topics as leadership in global virtual teams, the impact of
organizational culture on knowledge management practice, and the role of culture
in information systems research. His work has been published in the European
Management Journal, the Journal of Management Information Systems, The
DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, and the Information Resources
Management Journal, as well as in such international conferences as AMCIS, ICIS,
and the Strategic Management Society.
is prohibited.

The Role of Culture in KM

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Role of Culture in KM

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2(1), 17-40, January-March 2006 17

The Role of Culture

Knowledge management (KM) approaches have been broadly considered to entail

Keywords: knowledge exchange; knowledge management; knowledge sharing;

INTRODUCTION sult, to have limited impact (DeLong &

Table 1. The process vs. practice approaches to knowledge management

Type of Explicit knowledge — codified in rules, Mostly tacit knowledge —

Means of Formal controls, procedures, and Informal social groups that

Benefits Provides structure to harness generated Provides an environment to

Role of Heavy investment in IT to connect Moderate investment in IT to

Figure 1. The impact of organizational culture on knowledge management

The Social Context:

Explicit Knowledge Management

knowledge management behaviors. each to varying levels of degree. Wallach’s

Figure 2. Case study methodology adapted from Yin (1994)

organizational culture influence knowledge 369,000 employees worldwide. The com-

large-scale knowledge management initia- cussions of these practices. For example,

CASE DESCRIPTIONS performed in other parts of the company

of time spent traveling, this is not neces-

Table 2. Characteristics of culture, KM initiatives, and KM behaviors

Individuals reluctant to use

munities. Consequently, the KM initiative that involved selling a project to a govern-

Table 3. Characteristics of Company B culture, KM initiatives, and KM behaviors

Table 4. Summary of organizational culture’s Influence on KM

Creates expectation among members that

Enables the creation of virtual communities

Implications and Conclusion seem to be influenced largely by the indi-

31(1), 71-86. 40(3), 80-89.

Dorothy E. Leidner, PhD, is the Randall W. and Sandra Ferguson Professor of

she was associate professor at INSEAD and an associate professor at Texas

Tim Kayworth, PhD, is an associate professor of management information systems

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi