Leidner Et Al 2006 - Role of Culture in KM - KM_culture

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc.is prohibited.

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

The Role of Culturein Knowledge Management:

A Case Study of Two Global FirmsDorothy Leidner, Baylor University, USA

Maryam Alavi, Emory University, USA

Timothy Kayworth, Baylor University, USA

ABSTRACT

Knowledge management (KM) approaches have been broadly considered to entaileither a focus on organizing communities or a focus on the process of knowledgecreation, sharing, and distribution. While these two approaches are not mutuallyexclusive and organizations may adopt aspects of both, the two approaches entaildifferent challenges. Some organizational cultures might be more receptive to thecommunity approach, whereas others may be more receptive to the process approach.Although culture has been cited widely as a challenge in knowledge managementinitiatives, and although many studies have considered the implications of organizationalculture on knowledge sharing, few empirical studies address the influence of cultureon the approach taken to knowledge management. Using a case study approach tocompare and contrast the cultures and knowledge management approaches of twoorganizations, the study suggests ways in which organizational culture influencesknowledge management initiatives as well as the evolution of knowledge managementin organizations. Whereas in one organization, the KM effort became little more thanan information repository, in the second organization, the KM effort evolved into ahighly collaborative system fostering the formation of electronic communities.

Keywords: knowledge exchange; knowledge management; knowledge sharing;organizational culture; organizational knowledge

INTRODUCTIONKnowledge management (KM) ef-

forts often are seen to encounter difficul-ties from corporate culture and, as a re-

sult, to have limited impact (DeLong &Fahey, 2000; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998).An Ernst and Young study identified cul-ture as the biggest impediment to knowl-

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


edge transfer, citing the inability to changepeople’s behaviors as the biggest hindranceto managing knowledge (Watson, 1998). Inanother study of 453 firms, over half indi-cated that organizational culture was a ma-jor barrier to success in their knowledgemanagement initiatives (Ruggles, 1998). Theimportance of culture is also evident fromconsulting firms such as KPMG who reportthat a major aspect of knowledge manage-ment initiatives involves working to shapeorganizational cultures that hinder theirknowledge management programs (KPMG,1998). These findings and others (Hasan &Gould, 2001; Schultze & Boland, 2000)help to demonstrate the profound impact thatculture may have on knowledge manage-ment practice and of the crucial role of se-nior management in fostering cultures con-ducive to these practices (Brown & Duguid,2000; Davenport, DeLong, & Beers, 1998;DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Gupta &Govindarajan, 2000; Hargadon, 1998;KPMG, 1998; von Krogh, 1998).

Studies on the role of culture inknowledge management have focused onsuch issues as the effect of organizationalculture on knowledge sharing behaviors(DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Jarvenpaa &Staples, 2001) and the influence of cul-ture on the capabilities provided by KM(Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001) as wellas on the success of the KM initiative(Baltahazard & Cooke, 2003). More spe-cifically, Baltahazard and Cooke (2003)ascertained that constructive cultures (em-phasizing values related to encouragement,affiliation, achievement, and self-actualiza-tion) tended to achieve greater KM suc-cess. Similarly, Gold, et al. (2001) found

that more supportive, encouraging orga-nizational cultures positively influence KMinfrastructure capability and resulting KMpractice. Finally, Jarvenpaa and Staples(2001) determined that organizational cul-tures rating high in solidarity (tendency topursue shared objectives) will result in aperception of knowledge as being ownedby the organization, which, in turn, leadsto greater levels of knowledge sharing.

While studies have shown that cul-ture influences knowledge managementand, in particular, knowledge sharing, thereis little research on the broader aspects ofthe nature and means through which orga-nizational culture influences the overall ap-proach taken to knowledge managementin a firm. The purpose of this research is toexamine how organizational culture influ-ences knowledge management initiatives.We use a case study methodology to helpascertain the relationship of the organiza-tional culture to the knowledge manage-ment approaches within two companies.The following section discusses knowledgemanagement approaches and organizationalculture. The third presents the methodol-ogy. The fourth section presents the twocases and the fifth, and discusses the casefindings, implications, and conclusion.

LITERATURE REVIEW:KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTAPPROACHES ANDORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Knowledge ManagementApproaches

Knowledge can be defined as a formof high value information (either explicit



or tacit) combined with experience, con-text, interpretation, and reflection that isready to apply to decisions and actions(Davenport et al., 1998). While all firmsmay have a given pool of knowledge re-sources distributed throughout their re-spective organization, they may be un-aware of the existence of these resourcesas well as how to effectively leverage themfor competitive advantage. Therefore,firms must engage in activities that seek tobuild, sustain, and leverage these intellec-tual resources. These types of activities,generally characterized as knowledgemanagement, can be defined as the con-scious practice or process of systemati-cally identifying, capturing, and leveragingknowledge resources to help firms to com-pete more effectively (Hansen, Nohria, &Tierney, 1999; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998).

There are two fundamental ap-proaches to knowledge management: theprocess approach and the practice ap-proach. The process approach attemptsto codify organizational knowledgethrough formalized controls, processes,and technologies (Hansen et al., 1999).Organizations adopting the process ap-proach may implement explicit policiesgoverning how knowledge is to be col-lected, stored, and disseminated through-out the organization. The process ap-proach frequently involves the use of in-formation technologies, such as intranets,data warehousing, knowledge reposito-ries, decision support tools, andgroupware (Ruggles, 1998), to enhancethe quality and speed of knowledge cre-ation and distribution in the organizations.The main criticisms of this process ap-

proach are that it fails to capture much ofthe tacit knowledge embedded in firms andthat it forces individuals into fixed patternsof thinking (Brown & Duguid, 2000;DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Hargadon, 1998;von Grogh, 2000).

In contrast, the practice approach toknowledge management assumes that agreat deal of organizational knowledge istacit in nature and that formal controls, pro-cesses, and technologies are not suitablefor transmitting this type of understand-ing. Rather than building formal systemsto manage knowledge, the focus of thisapproach is to build social environmentsor communities of practice necessary tofacilitate the sharing of tacit understanding(Brown & Duguid, 2000; DeLong &Fahey, 2000; Gupta & Govindarajan,2000; Hansen et al., 1999; Wenger &Snyder, 2000). These communities areinformal social groups that meet regularlyto share ideas, insights, and best practices.

Drawing from this discussion, somekey questions emerge. First, how does cul-ture affect organizations’ approaches(e.g., process or practice) to knowledgemanagement? Second, as organizationspursue these initiatives, how do culturalinfluences affect the KM activities ofknowledge generation, codification, andtransfer? To address these questions, itis necessary to explore the concept of or-ganizational culture.

Organizational CultureSchein (1985) defines organizational

culture as a set of implicit assumptions heldby members of a group that determineshow the group behaves and responds to



its environment. At its deepest level, cul-ture consists of core values and beliefs thatare embedded tacit preferences aboutwhat the organization should strive to at-tain and how it should do it (DeLong &Fahey, 2000). These tacit values and be-liefs determine the more observable or-ganizational norms and practices that con-sist of rules, expectations, rituals and rou-tines, stories and myths, symbols, powerstructures, organizational structures, andcontrol systems (Bloor & Dawson, 1994;Johnson, 1992). In turn, these norms andpractices drive subsequent behaviors byproviding the social context through which

people communicate and act (DeLong &Fahey, 2000). Putting this into the contextof knowledge management, organizationalculture determines the social context (con-sisting of norms and practices) that deter-mines “who is expected to control whatknowledge, as well as who must share it,and who can hoard it” (Delong & Fahey,2000, p. 118). Figure 1 illustrates this con-ceptual linkage between culture andknowledge management behavior.

As Figure 1 depicts, the social con-text (consisting of norms and practices)is the medium for transmission of under-lying values and beliefs into specific

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

Process Approach Practice Approach

Type of Knowledge Supported

Explicit knowledge — codified in rules, tools, and processes.

Mostly tacit knowledge — unarticulated knowledge not easily captured or codified.

Means of Transmission

Formal controls, procedures, and standard operating procedures with heavy emphasis on information technologies to support knowledge creation, codification, and transfer of knowledge.

Informal social groups that engage in storytelling and improvisation.

Benefits

Provides structure to harness generated ideas and knowledge. Achieves scale in knowledge reuse.

Provides an environment to generate and transfer high value tacit knowledge. Provides spark for fresh ideas and responsiveness to changing environment.

Disadvantages

Fails to tap into tacit knowledge. May limit innovation and forces participants into fixed patterns of thinking.

Can result in inefficiency. Abundance of ideas with no structure to implement them.

Role of Information Technology

Heavy investment in IT to connect people with reusable codified knowledge.

Moderate investment in IT to facilitate conversations and transfer of tacit knowledge.



knowledge management behaviors.While Figure 1 is useful to explain theconceptual linkage between culture andknowledge management behavior, furtherexplanation is needed to inform our un-derstanding of the types of cultures thatexist within organizations.

A number of theories have attemptedto define culture at the organizational level.Wallach (1983) conceptualizes organiza-tional culture as a composite of three dis-tinctive cultural types: bureaucratic, inno-vative, and supportive. In bureaucratic cul-tures, there are clear lines of authority, andwork is highly regulated and systematized.Innovative cultures are characterized asbeing creative, risk-taking environmentswhere burnout, stress, and pressure arecommonplace. In contrast, supportive cul-tures are those that provide a friendly,warm environment where workers tendto be fair, open, and honest. FromWallach’s (1983) standpoint, any givenfirm will have all three types of culture,

each to varying levels of degree. Wallach’s(1983) cultural dimensions were devel-oped based upon a synthesis of othermajor organizational culture indices.Wallach’s (1983) cultural dimensions wereapplied by Kanungo, Sadavarti, andSrinivas (2001) to study the relationshipbetween IT strategy and organizationalculture. Part of the attractiveness ofWallach’s (1983) dimensions, in compari-son with other commonly used cultural in-dices such as the Organizational CultureProfile scale (O’Reilly, Chatman, &Caldwell, 1991); the Competing ValuesFramework (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983);and the Organizational Value CongruenceScale (Enz, 1986), is that it is highly intui-tive. Managers readily can identify withthe descriptions of the three general cul-ture types. Consistent with Kanungo, etal. (2001), we will employ Wallach’s(1983) approach to describe organiza-tional cultures. Specifically, we are inter-ested in the following question: How does

Underlying Cultural Beliefs & Values

The Social Context:

Cultural Norms & Practices Regarding Knowledge Management Practices

Knowledge Management Behaviors

Explicit (Observable)

Tacit (Unobservable)

Figure 1. The impact of organizational culture on knowledge managementbehaviors



organizational culture influence knowledgemanagement initiatives?

MethodologyA case study method involving mul-

tiple (two) cases was used. The approachof the study is depicted in Figure 2. Thefigure, based on the work of Yin (1994),displays the replication approach to mul-tiple-case studies. As illustrated in Figure2, the initial step in the study involved thedevelopment of a theoretical frameworkon the relationship between organizationalculture and organizational knowledgemanagement (KM) strategies. This stepwas then followed by the selection of thetwo specific cases (the data collection sites)and the design of the data collection pro-tocol. Following the case selection anddata collection steps, the individual casereports were developed. A cross-caseanalysis of the findings was then under-taken. This analysis provided the basis forthe theoretical and normative discussionsand implications presented in the final sec-tion of the article.

The two case studies involve twovery large global corporations: CompanyA and Company B. Company A is a glo-bal consumer goods company with

369,000 employees worldwide. The com-pany is headquartered in the U.S. andoperates in four other regions: Europe, theMiddle East and Africa, Central and SouthAmerica, and Asia. Company revenuesconsistently exceed $20 billion. In Com-pany A, large-scale knowledge manage-ment projects were initiated at the NorthAmerican region in 1996. Company B isa high-tech global company with multipleproduct lines and services. Similar toCompany A, Company B is headquarteredin the U.S. and operates globally in otherregions of the world. With approximately316,000 employees, its revenues exceed$80 billion. Large-scale knowledge man-agement projects were initiated in Com-pany B in 1995.

These two companies were selectedfor the purpose of this study for the fol-lowing reasons. First, significant opportu-nities and challenges are associated withknowledge management activities in largeand geographically dispersed companies.Thus, identification of factors such as or-ganizational culture that may influence KMoutcomes in this type of organizations po-tentially can lead to high payoffs. Second,considering the high levels of organizationalresources required for implementation of

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

Theoretical Framework

Case Selection

Develop Data Collection Protocol

Conduct Case Study Company A

Conduct Case Study Company B

Cross-Case Analysis, Comparisons, & Conclusions

Discussion



large-scale knowledge management initia-tives, these initiatives most likely are en-countered in very large firms. Thus, thephenomenon of interest to these research-ers could be best investigated in the con-text of very large firms with an establishedtrack record in KM projects. Finally, pastcontacts that one of the researchers hadwith these two firms facilitated their re-cruitment as case study sites.

Data CollectionData for this study were collected

through semi-structured interviews with asmall group of managers and professionalemployees at the two company locationsin the U.S. Identical approaches to datacollection were used at Company A andCompany B1. Six individuals at each ofthe two companies were interviewed. Ineach of the two companies, three of theinterviewees were the current or potentialusers of the KM systems. The remainingthree interviewees in each company werethe KMS sponsors or supporters. The in-terviews took between 45 and 85 minutesand were conducted between October2001 and January 2002. All the interviewswere tape recorded and then transcribedfor data analysis. The interviews all followedthe same protocol. The informants first wereasked to characterize their organization’sculture in their own words. The three cul-tures described by Wallach (1983) werethen portrayed, and the informants wererequested to identify which one best de-scribed their organization. The intervieweesnext were asked to describe and charac-terize the KM practices in their company.A set of specific questions guided the dis-

cussions of these practices. For example,informants were asked to describe the spe-cific KM activities that they engaged inand to discuss the effects of these activi-ties on themselves and/or their peers. In-formants were also asked to describe anyresistance and impediments to KM thatthey might have noticed in the organiza-tion. The same interviewer, using identicaldata collection protocols, conducted allthe interviews in Company A and Com-pany B. The interviewer carefully read thetranscripts to ensure accuracy.

Data AnalysisAn author not involved in the inter-

views and, hence, having no predisposedinterpretation of the transcripts, conductedthe data analysis. Based upon the tran-scribed interviews, 12 profiles were writ-ten, each one based upon the perspectiveof a single informant. These profiles de-scribed the informants’ perspective of cul-ture and their perspective of KM. The pro-files of informants for Company A werecompared and contrasted with each other,as were those of Company B. Cases foreach company, reported in the next sec-tion, then were written, based upon thewithin-case analysis. The cases for eachcompany then were interpreted from theperspective of how the culture appearedto be influencing the organizational KMinitiative. This is also reported in the nextsection. After the two cases and theirwithin-case analysis were complete, across-case comparison and contrast wasundertaken, leading to the formulation ofthe discussion section.



CASE DESCRIPTIONSAND ANALYSES

Knowledge Managementat Company

Knowledge management at Alphabegan as a top-down idea, courted by se-nior management “as a way of helping thecompany become more leading edge” ac-cording to one informant. A small groupof eight or nine individuals at headquar-ters was charged with driving knowledgemanagement and facilitating knowledgesharing. As a result of larger issues sur-facing, most notably the economic down-turn that rocked U.S.-based businessesin early 2000, the top-level initiative fellinto the background, and the small, dedi-cated group was disbanded. Thus, at theorganizational level, KM was an idea thatreceived neither funding nor action. How-ever, at the business unit level, successfulKM initiatives have been built around anintranet or around Lotus Notes teamrooms.

Intranet-Based KM ProjectsOne initiative in the marketing area

of corporate headquarters is called MIC— marketing information center. MICserves the global marketing community ofseveral thousand individuals around theworld. It is an intranet-based library con-taining links to agencies, compensations,human resource information, and con-tracts, among other things. MIC is op-portunity-oriented rather than problem-oriented. The members do not use thecommunity to post a problem inquiry andawait responses but rather to look for ideas

performed in other parts of the companyand think about adopting the ideas to theirlocal group.

MIC is intended to be a catalyst forcollaboration and to propel a universalworldwide marketing community. Becausethe chief marketing officer no longer al-lows the budgeting of glossy manuals orbrochures, MIC is widely accepted as theprimary means of obtaining such static in-formation. In fact, as attempts were madeto include best practices in MIC, the ini-tiative encountered resistance. Explainsone informant, “We could never nudge theculture enough to have people understandand be motivated to enter their informa-tion.” Another informant felt that therewere challenges in overcoming “people’sfear of being judged for their ideas andtheir indifference to yet another informa-tion site.”

CM connection (CMC) is anotherKM initiative within the North Americanmarketing unit. This is a Web-based mar-keting repository used to disseminate in-formation so that wholesalers that are re-sponsible for store-level execution can haveaccess to the most recent information onhow to merchandise the latest promotions.As with MIC, the major impact of CMChas been the reduction of the number ofprinted catalogs; in this case, by 80%.Among the challenges experienced withCM connection has been convincing con-tent providers to own the information in thesense of both providing it and keeping itup-to-date. Another issue has been thatCM connection is seen by some as dis-tracting from their relationships with clients.Even while MCC may reduce the amount



of time spent traveling, this is not neces-sarily welcome in “a sales and marketingoriented relationship company becauseyou are taking away relationship points.”

The Human Resources unit with theCorporate Functions unit also has anintranet-based KM, referred to as My Ca-reer. My Career is designed for managersand employees to help provide informa-tion about what tools, classes, and coach-ing are available for development. One ofthe goals of My Career has been to mergeall of the training information into one place.

Many such intranet-based KM havebeen developed throughout Alpha, somany that the portal project was initiatedto alleviate the problem of “too much in-formation in too many places, different IDsand passwords for each database, havingto remember what is in the database toeven go to get the information.” However,despite some initial receptiveness to theidea from the head of the New BusinessVentures unit, IT budgets were frozen andthe project never got underway.

The common thread running throughthe intranet-based KM projects at Alphais that they all are geared to housing staticinformation with the most major impactsbeing the reduction in printed catalogs.Among the greatest resistance, accordingto informants, is that these KM projectsappear to try to standardize work prac-tices in a company comprised of “creativeassertive people who want to do it theirway and make their own individual mark.”

Lotus Notes-Based KMLotus Notes forms the basis of other

KM initiatives within Company A. What

distinguishes the Lotus Notes-based KMprojects from the intranet-based KMprojects is the added focus on facilitatingteamwork. The Lotus Notes-based ini-tiatives developed independently from theintranet-based initiatives. The North-American marketing group developed aLotus Notes-based community of inter-est. The system contains examples ofbriefs, shared research, shared examplesof different sites, and information on in-ternal research. This micro KM has 50 to60 regular users. An important feature ofthe system is that whenever new informa-tion is added, community members re-ceive an e-mail. In this way, members visitthe community when new information thatis relevant to them has been posted. ThisKM project has served as a means ofsharing best practices. For example, amarketing manager from the UK postedinformation concerning a successful auc-tion initiative, which was then emulated byfive other countries. On an individual level,KM has helped to increase the frequencyof communication among members of thecommunity. Similarly, HR developed HRSource, a Lotus Notes-based general bul-letin board, where meeting notes, follow-up action items, strategy documents, andwork plans are placed. It is shared by theHR community on a global basis.

Lotus Notes is also the platform usedto develop team rooms. The individual re-sponsible for managing team rooms forNorth America has what he calls the six-month rule: if a team room is not gettingregular utilization for more than six months,it is deleted so that they can save moneyon the server expense. He says that he



deletes about 70 to 80% of team rooms.He thinks the lack of reward is the biggestbarrier toward KM system usage:“People who don’t have technology intheir title don’t take it upon themselves andare not generally rewarded for exploitingtechnology.” Also, content management isa barrier: “This is the responsibility of theend user but it is perceived as the respon-sibility of the technology group.” However,a marketing manager had another opin-ion, attributing lack of use of the teamrooms to self-preservation: “Even if some-one took the time to put something outthere, even if I knew it was there, wentand got it, had the time to review it, andunderstand it, I am going to create thisother thing by myself. I might look at thatas input, but then it is the new XYZ pro-gram and I created it.”

ANALYSIS OF ALPHA’SKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ONKM BEHAVIORS ANDOUTCOMES

The Perceptions of CultureWhile each individual interviewed

gave their own perception of the cultureat Alpha, and while the perceptions natu-rally contain some variance, there is amarked theme running throughout the in-dividuals’ views. Informants describe Al-pha as risk averse and bureaucratic. Theyspeak of an environment where peopledon’t want to be noticed, where directionis unclear, and where individual survivaltrumps teamwork. Moreover, informantsstate that people work in silos, feel iso-

lated, and are afraid of being criticized fortheir ideas. The slow, bureaucratic, hier-archical culture at Alpha has resulted insilos of information. As a consequence,managers indicate that even though theyhave great consumer and customer infor-mation, they end up reinventing the wheel1,000 times. However, our informants alsomaintained that although they character-ize the culture as bureaucratic, they alsosense that Alpha is striving to become moreinnovative and supportive.

The Possible Impactsof Culture on KM

The statements and observations ofour informants point to two largely sharedperspectives: (1) the culture emphasizesthe individual, and (2) the culture is in astate of transition. In understanding theimpacts of KM, one can see the influenceof the individuality within Company A.Table 2 lists the characteristics of culture,characteristics of the KM initiatives, andcharacteristics of KM behaviors as ex-pressed by the informants.

At work within Alpha seems to be atension between a culture that demandsindividuality and the communal aspects ofKM. The informants talk about a culturethat is one of “individual survival” whereindividuals “fear being judged for theirideas,” where there is individual “isolation,”and where individuals try to go unnoticed.The overall feeling is that of individuals try-ing to avoid being noticed. Such a culturedoes little to foster the sense of commu-nity that may be necessary to enable KMto move beyond static repositories of in-formation into the kind of dynamic system



envisioned by developers, where ideasflow freely and where KM provides acatalyst for collaborative engagement. Notonly are individuals reluctant to share theirinformation for fear of being criticized fortheir ideas, they also are reluctant to useinformation posted in a KM for lack ofcredit for the idea. Such behaviors canspring from a culture that emphasizes in-dividual ideas and contribution.

The individual aspects of the culturego well beyond individuals behaving in acertain way because of a rewards systembut reflects an underpinning notion that tosucceed in a marketing-oriented organi-zation, one must be creative and that cre-ativity is perforce, of an individual nature,so that to survive as an individual, one must

capture ideas and only share them if theyare going to be favorably judged. Onemust not look to others for learning or forproblem solving but might look to reusecreative ideas in some circumstances (likethe auction site example from the UK)where one may tailor the idea to one’s en-vironment. It is telling that the informantsspeak of using outsiders (e.g., consultants)to assist with problem solving and learn-ing instead of attempting to use any of theexisting KM to post queries, and this inspite of the fact that it is recognized thatthe company reinvents the wheel 1,000times.

Another tension within Alpha seemsto stem from the expectations of whatshould occur in a bureaucratic culture and

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

Culture Characteristics KM Characteristics KM Behaviors Dominant culture is bureaucratic Emphasis on individual: *individuals are “risk averse” *individuals fear being criticized for ideas *individuals are uneasy and prefer to go unnoticed *individual relationships externally, particularly within the marketing unit, are perceived as critical to their success

Intranet-based static repositories of information Failed top-down effort Bottom-up initiatives largely targeted creation of repositories Some use of Lotus Notes to create team rooms Team rooms have high failure rate

Individuals access information on an as-needed basis Individuals reluctant to contribute information Individuals reluctant to own and maintain content Individuals uncomfortable using ideas from the systems, since they do not own the idea Individuals use repository when rules prohibit printing brochures Individuals reluctant to use tools that would result in a loss of touch points with customers



what was occurring. The top-down ap-proach to KM, an approach that wouldbe consistent with a bureaucratic organi-zation, had failed at Alpha. Yet, despitethe failure of the top-down approach toKM and the seeming success of severalbottom-up approaches, such as MIC andthe marketing team room for the commu-nity of 50, one informant still proffered theneed for top management leadership tobe the key to success with KM. He con-sidered the bottom-up approaches as“band-aid-approaches.” In his opinion,power within Alpha comes “from knowl-edge hoarding, not knowledge sharing.”In order for KM to be assimilated in thisenvironment, “behavior really has to comefrom the top. Leadership needs to walkthe walk.” In a bureaucratic culture, indi-viduals become accustomed to clear guid-ance from senior management. The ab-sence of clearly stated support from se-nior management may be sufficient to de-ter many from experimenting with the KMtools available to help them.

SummaryAlpha has many KM initiatives that

were developed largely as bottom-up ini-tiatives. The KM tools seem well designedand housed with valuable information. Theinformants are able to use the tools to fa-cilitate the retrieval of information that theyneed in the performance of their jobs.However, the tools have not progressedyet to the level of fostering collaboration.While there are some successful commu-nities from the standpoint of providing aplace to share meeting notes and plans,the majority of team rooms remain unused

and, if used, become as much a library ofinformation as a communication tool. Insome ways, the culture of Alpha appearsto foster the types of KM behaviors ob-served, in that the individual is seen as theprimary source of innovation and ideas asopposed to the community being the ulti-mate source of success. Thus, individualswill use the systems as needed but areoccupied mostly with their individual rolesand work and do not attribute value tothe collaborative features of technology.

The Case of BetaBeta is organized into seven major

units. Our interviews were concentratedwithin the Innovations Services group ofthe consulting wing (referred to as World-wide Services Group, or WSG) of Beta.

Knowledge management at Beta be-gan in 1996 with the view that KM wasabout codifying and sharing information,leading to the creation of huge reposito-ries of procedures and process ap-proaches. It was assumed that peoplewould go to a central site, called Intellec-tual Capital Management System (ICM),pull information down, and all would bemore knowledgeable. ICM is under theprotection of the Beta Corporation. Thereis a process one must undertake to haveinformation submitted and approved. Theprocess is complicated by legalities andformalities. As a result, ICM is not used aswidely as it could be. What was discov-ered from the initial foray into knowledgemanagement was that the information wasnot being refreshed and that the approachwas not complementing the way peoplereally learned, which was through com-



munities. Consequently, the KM initiativebegan to shift to providing tools to com-munities that would help foster collabora-tion both within teams and within locationsand around the globe. Among the toolsare team rooms and communities.

Team RoomsLotus Notes-based team rooms are

widely used at Beta to coordinate virtualteams and to share important documents.Access to team databases are limited tothe members because of the confidentialnature of a lot of the issues. The projectmanager or someone delegated by theproject manager takes the responsibilityof sanitizing the material and posting themost relevant parts to a community sys-tem such as OC-zone (to be discussedlater) and/or to the ICM after the team’sproject has been completed.

The team rooms are valuable tools tohelp members keep track of occurrencesas well as to help newly assigned membersget quickly up to speed. Because of theitinerant nature of the Beta consultant’s life,it is invaluable to have the documents theyneed stored in an easily accessible mannerthat does not require sending and receivingfiles over a network. Team room databasesalso are used for managing the consultingpractices. It is important in helping newpeople with administrative tasks (e.g., howto order a piece of computer equipment,how to order business cards). The teamrooms keep track of such metrics as utili-zation so that members of the team know“who’s on the bench and who’s not.” Oneinformant gave the example of a recentproject she was put on at the last minute

that involved selling a project to a govern-ment department in another country. Shewas able to access all the documentationfrom the team room and become a pro-ductive member of a new team very quickly:“I can go in and start getting informationabout a particular topic and work with col-leagues almost immediately. It allows meto work more easily with colleagues acrossdisciplines.”

Although team rooms are invaluablein organizing and coordinating projectteams, there are also some potential draw-backs. Some view the team rooms as en-gendering “a false sense of intimacy andconnectedness.” This sense of intimacy canbe productive for the team as long asthings are going well. However, “if thingsgo south,” says an informant, “you don’thave the history or skill set to really dealwith difficult situations.” As a result, in-stead of dealing with the conflict, the teamis more likely to just take someone off theteam and replace the person with another.In this sense, problems are not solved somuch as they are avoided, and team mem-bers take on an expendable quality.

CommunitiesCommunities serve members based

not upon project or organizational posi-tion but upon interest. By 2000, a groupreferred to as the organizational change(OC) group had established a successfulcommunity of 1,500 members cuttingacross all lines of business and was be-ginning to act as consultants to othergroups trying to set up communities. TheOC community has gone so far as to quan-tify the business return of such a commu-



nity in terms of cycle time reductions andsophistication of responses to clients. TheOC community is comprised of tools,events, and organization.

1. Tools. The technology tools at the dis-posal of the OC community are data-bases of information submitted by teamrooms, including such things as whitepapers, projects, and deliverables, aswell as client information. The data-bases also contain pictures of commu-nity members with personal informationabout the members.

2. Events. An important aspect of the OCcommunity is the events that are orga-nized for community members. Theseinclude monthly conference call meet-ings, which generally are attended by40 to 90 members, and replay meet-ings, which draw another 40 to 70members. In the past, the communityhas sponsored a face-to-face confer-ence for members. Members oftenmeet others for the first time, yet theyalready feel they know each other.

3. Organization. The organization of thecommunity is managed by two com-munity leaders. When people requestinformation or have queries to post tomembers, they send their messages toone of the community leaders. Theleader first tries to forward the mes-sage directly to a subject-matter expert(SME). If the leader does not knowoffhand of an appropriate SME, theleader will post the question to the en-tire group. In this event, the group mem-bers respond to the leader rather thanto the community in order to avoid an

inundation of messages. The leadernormally receives responses within anhour. The leader then forwards the re-sponses to the individual with the query.Later, the leader sends an e-mail to theperson who made the inquiry, askinghow the response was, how much timeit saved, and so forth. The leader nor-mally gets back as many as 28 re-sponses to a particular inquiry. Theleader has manually loaded a portionof what he or she has developed in thepast seven months. There are 114pieces of intellectual capital that theleader has loaded, and it is just a por-tion of what the leader has received.

The community has a structure thatconsists of a senior global board of 30members representative of different partsof the business. There is a subject mattercouncil that constantly scans the intellec-tual capital, as well as an expert counciland the health check team.

The health check team examines suchthings as how well members communicatewith each other. They conducted an or-ganizational network analysis to help bet-ter understand the communication net-works. The team has a series of questionsto help assess how they are doing in termsof high performance teaming. They use asurvey that measures perceptions from thecommunity members about what they seeis happening and do a gap analysis onwhat is actually happening. Finally, theteam does a self-assessment of where it iscompared to the community maturitymodel developed by the OC communityleaders. There is a community mission,



vision, and goals, and they are workingon capturing data to support the metricsto demonstrate value to the company andcommunity members.

The goal is to attain level-5 maturity,which is considered an “adaptive organi-zation.” There are 13 areas of focus atwhich the community leaders look inbuilding a sustained community. Whilecommunities are felt to be organic, thereis also a community developers kit withan assessment tool to determine at whatlevel of maturity a community is and whatsteps need to be taken to move the com-munity forward. One community leadersays that the purpose of the developmentkit “is not to confine, but to provide a roadmap in which to navigate and build.” Forthis leader, the essence of community iscontinuous learning. Of the initial KM ef-forts focused on information repositories,the leader says, “I could see the technol-ogy coming that was going to enslavepeople, like an intellectual sweat shop.”By contrast, the primary tools for a com-munity are “passion and environment.”

Impact of OCAmong the major impacts of the OC

zone is that having a community helpspeople not feel isolated. “People feel theyare affiliated, that they are part of the com-pany.” Thirty percent of Beta employeesdo not have offices and work from homeor the client sites. Such a work environ-ment easily can be associated with isola-tion. However, the community is claimedby some to provide clarity of purpose. “Isee it as a conduit for both developingthought leadership and enabling thought

leadership to get into the hearts and mindsof the workers so that they all have a com-mon vision, goals, and objectives.”

Community members view the pur-pose of the community as a knowledge-sharing forum and as a means to create asense of belonging. One member went sofar as to suggest that she would “not be atBeta any longer if it wasn’t for this com-munity.” The reason is that most of herconnections at Beta have been madethrough the community. Also, being in thecommunity helps her to get assigned toprojects. For example, the leader of a newproject will call someone in the commu-nity and say that they are looking for aperson with a certain profile. She finds thatshe gets asked to work on projects thisway.

Other members refer to the commu-nity as a supportive family and state thatwithin the community is someone who hasalready encountered any issue they willencounter on a project, so the communitykeeps them from reinventing the wheel.The norms of operation exist to help theOC zone be as effective as possible. Noone is under obligation to contribute, butindividuals contribute in order to help otherpeople. One member credits the successof the community to the two leaders,whom she feels “in their hearts, care aboutthe members of the community.” She feelsthat the community is more than a com-munity of people who like the topic of or-ganizational change, but it is a communityof people who support one another.

The primary resistance to the OCcommunity has been the practice manag-ers. Most of the community members re-



port to practice managers. The practicemanagers are used to thinking in terms ofbillable hours. Indeed, the performanceevaluation system requires that anindividual’s goals support those of his orher boss, which support those of his orher boss, and so forth. The communityleaders hope that one day, participating ina community will be included as a stan-dard part of this evaluation system.

ANALYSIS OF BETAKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:THE IMPACT OF CULTUREON KM BEHAVIORSAND OUTCOMES

The Perceptions of CultureAll of the respondents from Beta

work within the same business unit. Therespondents describe the culture of Betaas a blend of hierarchical and innovative.The hierarchical aspects are evident in thatlittle innovation is undertaken until seniormanagement has officially supported theinnovation, but once senior managementdoes give the green light to an idea, “ev-erybody jumps on it.”

One aspect of culture that is high-lighted by the informants is the importanceof collaboration. Informants characterizethe street values within Beta as win, team,and execute. Beta informants recognize aduality of culture that, on the one hand,gives individuals control over their workand, at the same time, is highly supportiveof the individual. The culture is autono-mous in the sense of not having someonelooking over your shoulder and telling youwhat to do. While there is certainly com-

petition (i.e., everyone has objectives thatthey are trying to meet), things “are al-ways done in a collaborative helpful spirit.”

The other dominant aspect of cul-ture, as related by the informants, is hier-archy. The hierarchy is as much a hierar-chy of experience as of structure. Com-munity members, for example, profferedthat becoming a subject matter expert ismore about length of service to the com-pany than to one’s inherent knowledge.Another aspect of the bureaucratic cul-ture is that “there is very much a correctway to do things.”

Table 3 lists the characteristics ofculture, KM initiatives, and KM behav-iors expressed by the Beta informants.

Beta’s emphasis on collaborationseems to have enabled the progression ofKM from a static information repositorysystem into active, vital communities of in-terest, wherein individuals feel a sense ofbelonging to the extent that they identifythemselves first with the community andsecond, if at all, with their actual formalbusiness units. One informant claimed tonot identify herself at all with the Innova-tion Services unit. Of course, one couldponder whether such identity transfer fromthe business unit to the community servesthe best interest of the unit.

At the same time, the bureaucraticand innovative aspects of the culture alsohave helped. Having senior managementshow interest in KM was a catalyst to in-dividual groups undertaking KM initiativeswith great enthusiasm. In addition, ratherthan ad hoc communities that are entirelyorganic, the community model emergingat Beta is a relatively structured one.



While one can make the argumentthat Beta’s culture influences KM devel-opment and use, one also can argue thatKM at Beta is influencing Beta’s culture.OC members claim that without a senseof connection provided by the OC com-munity, Beta would be nothing but a “bigand scary” company in which individuals“get lost.” The community, though, allowsand enables a culture of connection. Ineffect, one informant believes that the OCcommunity attempts to shift a very tech-nical, phone-oriented, work-product-ori-ented way of communicating with eachother into a more personal work-in-pro-cess movement toward what Beta refersto as “thought leadership.” When askedwhy members take the time to partici-pate in the community when there is no

formal reward for doing so, one informantsaid simply, “It’s just how we do business.”Thus, the community has infused the cul-ture of the members.

Yet, this does not suggest that an or-ganizational utopia has been or will beachieved. While the culture is becomingmore connected, there is another angle.One informant believes that when youhave widespread access to knowledgemanagement, you also can have a culturewhere people that know very little aboutsomething have access to enough infor-mation to be dangerous. People get toocomfortable with having access to knowl-edge and then feel free to share it. Thisinformant remained unconvinced that theknowledge one acquires through the net-work is as solid a foundation as the knowl-

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

Culture Characteristics KM Characteristics KM Behaviors Hierarchical, yet collaborative and innovative Individuals largely responsible for their own careers, yet competition is undertaken in a cooperative manner The team is the unit of success, more so than the individual Absence of extreme supervision of individuals’ work — individuals have a sense of control

Company-wide information repository consisting of hundreds of information databases Team rooms used by project teams Communities of practice emerging. These communities include tools, events, and structures The OC community is used as an example of a successful community and as a consultant to other emerging communities

Team members actively coordinate via the team rooms Community members obtain a sense of belonging to the community Community members post information from completed team projects to the community out of a sense of commitment, not coercion Community members are more loyal to the company (less likely to depart) because of their belonging to the community Assignments to projects made through community references



edge one has acquired through experi-ence and traditional learning. Moreover,she feels that the notion of dialogue canget redefined in a way that you lose thequality of participation that one might belooking for.

SummaryBeta has many KM databases, col-

lectively referred to as Intellectual CapitalManagement. While these databases servean important role of housing and organiz-ing information in a huge organization, theydo not go so far as to foster collabora-tion. Instead, team rooms and communi-ties of interest, largely left to the discre-tion of team members and communitymembers, have proven to be vital tools toachieving collaboration, community, andbelonging. As the culture of Beta has beenreceptive to individual groups setting andpursuing their community agendas, theculture also is being subtly altered by thecommunities as members feel that theybelong more to the community than to theirbusiness units.

DISCUSSIONThe two cases offer insights into the

role that organizational culture plays in theinception and maturation of KM. This sec-tion summarizes the key findings that helpus to answer the following question: Howdoes organizational culture influence KMapproaches? We suggest four responsesto this question.

1. Organizational culture influ-ences KM through its influence on thevalues organizational members at-

tribute to individual vs. cooperativebehavior. The two companies we exam-ined share several similarities. Both hugemultinational organizations are regardedwidely by organizational members as be-ing predominantly bureaucratic in culture.Both organizations had initial KM ap-proaches that were strongly supported bysenior management. And both had initialKM approaches focused on the creationof a large centralized repository of orga-nizational knowledge to be shared through-out the organization. These two large bu-reaucratic organizations began their KMquests with the process approach. Themost striking difference between the or-ganizational cultures of these two compa-nies was the emphasis at Alpha on theindividual and the emphasis at Beta oncollectivity — the team or community.This evinces itself even in the interpreta-tion of innovation. While individuals atboth companies spoke of the need forinnovation in their organizations and ofthe striving of their organizations to de-velop an innovative culture, in the case ofAlpha, innovation was perceived as anindividual attribute, whereas at Beta, in-novation was perceived as a team-levelattribute.

The individualistic view of innovationat Alpha seemed to militate against the req-uisite sharing and cooperation that makesthe evolution of KM from process ap-proach to a community of practice ap-proach possible. In both companies, mi-cro-level experimentation of the variouspossibilities of KM was undertaken withinteams or business units. The value placedon individualism vs. cooperativism seems



to have played a significant role in the na-ture and form of the KM approach. Themicro-level experimentations by teams orbusiness units were carried out with theirown assumptions about the usefulness ofrepositories of knowledge and the useful-ness of communities or practice. We sug-gest that it is not organizational culture atthe organizational level or even the subunitlevel that has the most significant influenceon KM approach, but it is organizationalculture as embodied in the individualistic vs.cooperative tendencies of organizationalmembers. Thus, organizational culture in-fluences KM approaches through its influ-ence on individualism vs. cooperativism.From a theoretical view, it seems thatWallach’s (1983) cultural dimensions andthose of Earley (1994) were both valuableat explaining organizational level culture.However, Earley’s (1994) cultural dimen-sions at the organizational level seem bestable to explain why a KM approachtended to become more process or morepractice-based.

2. Organizational culture influ-ences the evolution of KM initiatives.Our findings suggest that firms do not de-cide in advance to adopt a process orpractice approach to KM, but that itevolves. The most natural starting point isone of process, perhaps because the ben-efits seem more evident and because it canalign more closely with the existing orga-nizational structure. Moreover, the prac-tice approach may not only fail to alignwith existing structure, but it may engen-der a virtual structure and identity. It is in-teresting that at Beta, a culture that is

viewed dominantly as bureaucratic, oncethe initial organizational change commu-nity was established, the evolution of thecommunity then became a highly structuredprocess of maturation. The communityleaders developed a toolkit to help othercommunities develop and developed amaturation model to help them to deter-mine how mature a community was andto develop a plan to move the communityforward. What some might see as an or-ganic process (i.e., establishing and de-veloping a community or practice) becamea structured process in a bureaucratic or-ganization. Even if the idea for the com-munity emerged from interested potentialmembers, the evolution took on a struc-tured form with tools, kits, assessments,and plans. The cooperative aspect of cul-ture at the individual level made the com-munity possible; the bureaucratic elementsof culture at the organizational level en-abled the community to mature. Hence,the evolution of the community was highlydependent on the individual willingness oforganizational members to sustain andnurture their community. This appearedtied to the importance they placed on co-operation with their community members,most of whom they had never met.

3. Organizational culture influ-ences the migration of knowledge. Inthe case of Alpha, where the informantsseemed to identify the individual as the ul-timate unit of responsibility in the organi-zation, the individuals also were viewedas the owners of knowledge and had theresponsibility to share their knowledge.This, in fact, created a major challenge,



since the individuals rejected this new re-sponsibility. At Beta, where the teamseemed to be the focus of responsibility,knowledge migrated from the team to thecommunity to the organizational level sys-tem and back down to the team. The leaderof the team would take responsibility forcleaning the team’s data and submitting itto the community and to the central infor-mation repository. Thus, knowledge mi-grated upward from the team to the centralrepository. Interestingly, the most usefulknowledge was claimed to be that at theteam and community level. Once the knowl-edge had completed its migration to thecentral repository, it was seen primarily asan item of insurance for use in case ofneed. Knowledge sharing and transferoccurred primarily at the team and com-munity level, whereas knowledge storagewas the function of the central repository.

The migration of knowledge also isinfluenced by the structural processes putin place to ensure that knowledge finds itsway to the appropriate persons. Of keyimportance seems to be the way the que-ries are handled. The marketing group atAlpha adopted the approach of notifyingindividuals when new information hadbeen added to the KMS. However, littleinterference was put in place to eitherguide people to the appropriate knowl-edge or to encourage people to contrib-ute knowledge. Conversely, believing thatthe community should not become a bul-letin board of problems and solutions, theleaders of the organizational change com-munity at Beta worked arduously to learnthe subject matter experts so that querieswould be submitted to the community

leader who would serve as an intermedi-ary between the individual with the queryand the expert.

It has been reported widely that theuse of knowledge directories is a primaryapplication of KM in organizations. Ourstudy suggests that the facilitated accessto experts rather than direct access via thelocation of an individual through a direc-tory or via a problem posted to a forummay lead to a more favorable communityatmosphere.

4. Knowledge management canbecome embedded in the organiza-tional culture. Over time, as KM evolvesand begins to reflect the values of the or-ganization, the KM can become a part ofthe organizational culture. At Beta, indi-viduals spoke of their community involve-ment and their team rooms as simply the“way we work.” In fact, the communitiesbecame so much part of the culture thateven though they were not part of the or-ganizational structure, they were part ofan individual’s implicit structure. The senseof belonging that the individuals reportedfeeling toward their community suggeststhat the community had become an es-sential aspect of their value system and,hence, had become part of organizationalculture. That the organizational changecommunity members at Beta identifiedthemselves first and foremost with theircommunity, in spite of receiving neitherreward nor recognition within their formalreporting unit for participating in the com-munity, indicates the extent to which com-munity participation had become a valueand an aspect of the individual culture.



Implications and ConclusionThe findings of our study suggest that

a dominantly bureaucratic culture seemsto tend toward an initial process-basedKM approach. Furthermore, a bureau-cratic culture seems to create the expecta-tion among organizational members thatsenior management needs to provide a vi-sion of purpose for KM before the organi-zational members should embark on KMactivities. As well, the members view se-nior management support as validating anyKM activities that they undertake. Innova-tive cultures, even if not the dominant cul-ture at the organizational level, seem to en-able subgroups to experiment with KM orcreate micro-KMs. In essence, in organi-zations having dominant bureaucratic cul-tures with traces of innovativeness, seniormanagement support legitimizes KM, butthe innovativeness of the culture enables itto expand far beyond an organization-widerepository. Specific KM behaviors such asownership and maintenance of knowledge,knowledge sharing, and knowledge reuse

seem to be influenced largely by the indi-vidualistic or cooperative nature of the cul-ture. Individualistic cultures inhibit sharing,ownership, and reuse, while cooperativecultures enable the creation of virtual com-munities. Earley’s (1994) work on organi-zational culture emphasized the individual-istic and collectivistic aspects of culture.Organizations encouraging individuals topursue and maximize individuals’ goals andrewarding performance based on individualachievement would be considered to havean individualistic culture, whereas organi-zations placing priority on collective goalsand joint contributions and rewards for or-ganizational accomplishments would beconsidered collectivist (Chatman &Barsade, 1995; Earley, 1994). This di-mension of organizational culture emergedas critical in our examination of the influ-ence of culture on KM initiatives. Thesefindings are summarized in Table 4.

This research set out to examine theinfluence of organizational culture onknowledge management approaches. Us-

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



ing a case study approach, we have gath-ered the perspectives of individuals in twofirms that share some cultural similaritiesyet differ in other aspects. The findings sug-gest that organizational culture influences theKM approach initially chosen by an orga-nization, the evolution of the KM approach,and the migration of knowledge. Moreover,the findings suggest that KM eventually canbecome an integral aspect of the organiza-tional culture. Much remains to be discov-ered about how organizational culturesevolve and what role information technol-ogy takes in this evolution. This case studyis an initial effort into a potentially vast ar-ray of research into the issue of the rela-tionship of information technology andorganizational culture.

REFERENCESAlavi, M., Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D.

(2005). Organizational and sub-unitvalues in the process of knowledgemanagement (Working Paper). BaylorUniversity.

Baltahazard, P. A., & Cooke, R. A.(2003). Organizational culture andknowledge management success: As-sessing the behavior-performancecontinuum (Working Paper). ArizonaState University West.

Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Under-standing professional culture in organi-zational context. Organization Studies,15(2), 275-295.

Brown, S. J., & Duguid, P. (2000). Bal-ancing act: How to capture knowledgewithout killing it. Harvard Business Re-view, 78(3), 73-80.

Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995).

Personality, organizational culture, andcooperation: Evidence from a businesssimulation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 40(3), 423-443.

Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., &Beers, M. C. (1998). Successfulknowledge management. Sloan Man-agement Review, 39(2), 43-57.

DeLong, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Di-agnosing cultural barriers to knowledgemanagement. Academy of Manage-ment Executive, 14(4), 113-127.

Earley. (1994). Self or group? Cultural ef-fects of training on self-efficacy andperformance. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 39(1), 89-117.

Enz, C. (1986). Power and shared val-ues in the corporate culture. Ann Ar-bor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A.H. (2001). Knowledge management:An organizational capabilities perspec-tive. Journal of Management Infor-mation Systems, 18(1), 185-214.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000).Knowledge management’s social di-mension: Lessons from Nucor Steel.Sloan Management Review, 42(1),71-80.

Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T.(1999). What’s your strategy for man-aging knowledge? Harvard BusinessReview, 77(2), 106-115.

Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowl-edge brokers: Lessons in pursuing con-tinuous innovation. California Man-agement Review, 40(3), 209-227.

Hasan, H., & Gould, E. (2001). Supportfor the sense-making activity of man-agers. Decision Support Systems,



31(1), 71-86.Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, S. D. (2001).

Exploring perceptions of organizationalownership of information and expertise.Journal of Management InformationSystems, 18(1), 151-183.

Johnson, G. (1992) Managing strategicchange — Strategy, culture and action.Long Range Planning, 25(1), 28-36.

Kanungo, S., Sadavarti, S., & Srinivas,Y. (2001). Relating IT strategy and or-ganizational culture: An empirical studyof public sector units in India. Journalof Strategic Information Systems,10(1), 29-57.

KPMG Management Consulting. (1998).Knowledge management: Researchreport.

O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). Ifonly we know what we know: Identifi-cation and transfer of best practices.California Management Review,40(3), 154-174.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell,D. F. (1996). Culture as social control:Corporations, cults, and commitment.Research in Organizational Behavior,18, 157-200.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, I. (1983). Aspatial model of effectiveness criteria:Towards a competing values approachto organizational analysis. Manage-ment Science, 29(3), 363-377.

Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the no-tion: Knowledge management in prac-tice. California Management Review,

40(3), 80-89.Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational cul-

ture and leadership. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schultze, U., & Boland, R. (2000).Knowledge management technologyand the reproduction of knowledgework practices. Journal of StrategicInformation Systems, 9(2-3), 193-213.

von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledgecreation. California Management Re-view, 40(3), 133-153.

Wallach, E. J. (1983, February). Individu-als and organizations: The culturalmatch. Training and DevelopmentJournal, .

Watson, S. (1998). Getting to “aha!” com-panies use intranets to turn informationand experience into knowledge — Andgain a competitive edge. ComputerWorld, 32(4), 1.

Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000).Communities of practice: The organi-zational frontier. Harvard Business Re-view, 78(1), 139-145.

ENDNOTE1 After this initial data collection, we re-

turned to Company B a year later andconducted more widespread interviewsacross different business units. Thisdata collection and analysis is discussedin Alavi, Kayworth, and Leidner(2005).

Dorothy E. Leidner, PhD, is the Randall W. and Sandra Ferguson Professor ofInformation Systems at Baylor University. Prior to rejoining the Baylor faculty,



she was associate professor at INSEAD and an associate professor at TexasChristian University. She has also been a visiting professor at the InstitutoTecnologico y des Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Mexico, at the Institutd’Administration des Entreprises at the Université de Caen, France, and atSouthern Methodist University. Dr. Leidner has received best paper awards in1993 from the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, in 1995from MIS Quarterly, and in 1999 from the Academy of Management. She iscurrently serving as co-editor-in-chief of the journal Data Base for Advances inInformation Systems. She also is serving as an associate editor for MIS Quarterly,Decision Sciences, and Decision Support Systems, and as a senior editor for theJournal of Strategic Information Systems.

Maryam Alavi, PhD, is the John and Lucy Cook Chair of Information Strategyand the former senior associate dean of Faculty and Research at the GoizuetaBusiness School of Emory University. She also serves as the director ofKnowledge@Emory, a Web-based publication of the Goizueta Business School.Dr. Alavi has authored numerous scholarly papers. Her research has beensupported by funds and hardware grants from the AT&T Foundation, AT&TCorporation, IBM, and Lucent Technologies. She has served on the editorialboards of several scholarly journals, including MIS Quarterly, Information SystemsResearch, Journal of MIS, and Journal of Strategic Information Systems. Dr. Alaviwas awarded the distinguished Marvin Bower Faculty Fellowship at the HarvardBusiness School. She also was a recipient of the University of MarylandDistinguished Scholar-Teacher Award, and was elected as the recipient of theprestigious AIS (Association of Information Systems) Fellows Award.

Tim Kayworth, PhD, is an associate professor of management information systemsin the Hankamer School of Business at Baylor University. He has prior industryexperience in information systems consulting and has also held positions as MISdirector and operations manager for private sector firms. Dr. Kayworth’s researchinterests center on the management of IT in organizations. Recent research projectshave included such topics as leadership in global virtual teams, the impact oforganizational culture on knowledge management practice, and the role of culturein information systems research. His work has been published in the EuropeanManagement Journal, the Journal of Management Information Systems, TheDATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, and the Information ResourcesManagement Journal, as well as in such international conferences as AMCIS, ICIS,and the Strategic Management Society.

Leidner Et Al 2006 - Role of Culture in KM - KM_culture

Documents

Transcript of Leidner Et Al 2006 - Role of Culture in KM - KM_culture