Influence of Organisational Culture on Knowledge Sharing Behaviour - Essay Example

? KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Communities of Practice and Knowledge Management 4 Cultural Influence on Knowledge Sharing Patterns in Organisations 5 Conclusion 7 References 8 Influence of Organisational Culture on Knowledge Sharing Behaviour Introduction Knowledge is actually a combination of values, experience, expert insight, and contextual information that helps in evaluating and incorporating new information and experience (Gammelgaard, and Ritter, 2000). One can find knowledge not only in repositories and documents but is also found to be embedded in the minds of people and with the passage of time such knowledge is demonstrated through the acts and behaviours of those people. Knowledge Management (KM) has recently emerged as an organisational theory mainly because of the increasing utilisation of knowledge in the business world (Aranda, and Fernandez, 2002). Knowledge Management is one of the hottest topics in the fields of management and information technology. Several activities are involved in the process of knowledge management. Out of the many, the most commonly cited and discussed knowledge management activity is knowledge sharing or transfer (Ford, et al., 2003). Knowledge sharing is observed to be critical towards the success of today’s business organisation (Davenport, and Prusak, 1998). This is so because it results in deployment of knowledge to certain organisational portions at a rapid rate which can prove to be highly beneficial for the organisation (Syed-Ikhsan, and Rowland, 2004). Knowledge management can thus be considered as a socio-technical system that includes different form of storage, generation, sharing and representation of knowledge. Specific functional features of knowledge management are found to be always based on certain assumptions that are inherent to the cultural backgrounds of the people who either create or manage them. However, if people having national or professional cultural backgrounds use these systems in a way that differs from those intended by its designers, it might actually result in inhibiting the process of knowledge sharing in organisations (Branch, 1997). This study entails about analysing the impact that organisational culture has on the knowledge sharing environment of the companies in general. Communities of Practice and Knowledge Management Communities of Practice (CoPs) have received renewed attention in the recent years mainly in the field of different ways of managing the social and human aspects of knowledge dissemination and creation within the firms. One can find various existing literature that are related to the discussion of CoPs in the knowledge management literature (Davenport, and Prusak, 1998; Wasko, and Faraj, 2000; Wenger, et al., 2002; Ardichvili, et al., 2003). Lave, and Wenger (1991) were the first to coin the term community of practice and it can be defined as a system of activity wherein the participants are involved in sharing their understanding related to their present activities performed in the organisation and how they are valued in their lives and the communities. One of the assumptions that is central to the concept of CoP is that community members who are adjudged to be less experienced are involved in a learning process received from the social interactions with the community members who are considered to be experts of a specific domain of knowledge (Lave, and Wenger, 1991). One of the most important benefits of CoP is its ability to generate or disseminate tacit knowledge. This type of knowledge cannot be communicated easily because most of the times it is either embedded in a particular context or is intuitive in nature (Nonaka, 1994). This type of tacit knowledge possessed by an organisation is believed to be critical towards the sustainable competitive advantage gained by the companies because others cannot easily copy or imitate it (Liedtka, 1999). Brown and Duguid (1991) have argued that internalising and sharing tacit knowledge needs interactions between the individuals in an active way like through the activity of storytelling. CoPs provide the basis or platform of such interactions to occur within an organisation. However additional challenges are faced mostly by multinational organisations in the process of knowledge creation and sharing across different cultural boundaries. Cultural Influence on Knowledge Sharing Patterns in Organisations If we analyse the knowledge sharing patterns it can be identified that various national cultural characteristics have a significant impact on the knowledge sharing patterns observed in individuals in a business organisation. This international sharing or transfer of knowledge across national boundaries has been widely studied by Bhagat, et al. (2002). The differences in the knowledge sharing patterns across different national cultures can be best understood through the various common characteristic features of natural cultures studied and developed by some of the eminent research scholars like Hofstede (2001), Triandis (1995), and Trompenaars (1994). Individualism vs. Collectivism: The differences between collectivism and individualism are perhaps the most widely used criterion in all the cultural studies. On one hand individualism is defined as the characteristics of people which consider personal goals and achievements above the organisational goal. On the other hand, collectivism can be defined as the opposite of individualism wherein people or individuals consider organisation goal as their first priority and as a result of that they tend to serve the society or community (Hofstede, 2001; Trompenaars, 1994). According to Bhagat, et al. (2002), the members of these two kinds of cultural traits have different means of processing information and creating knowledge. As for example, individuals who are individualistic in nature look at each of the information independently from its context and emphasize information in codified and written form. However, contextual clues are sought for in the information received by the individuals in a collectivist society and do not accept information in written form. In-group vs. out-group orientation: Another important aspect of the cultural differences between individualists and collectivists is that sharper distinctions between out-group and in-group members are made by the collectivists. In one of the research studies related to knowledge sharing behaviour shown by the US and Chinese managers by Chow et al. (2000) it has been found that the Chinese people do not share their knowledge that easily with the out-group members as compared to the Americans. Negative feelings are mostly associated with strong in-group oriented organisations (Ashwin, 1996). As a result of this the knowledge sharing process at inter or intra organisational level is highly inhibited by the in-group oriented organisational culture (Hutchings, and Michailova, 2004). Fear of losing face: As regards the factors that have an influence on the information seeking behaviour of the individuals, Hwang et al. (2003) suggests that it is dependent on a cultural attribute of people based on the distinction between individualism and collectivism wherein differences arise with respect to the extent up to which an individual either tries to lose face (Mianziloss) or gain face (Mianzigain). It has been found that there is a positive correlation between Mianzigain and individualism. It has also been observed by Hwang et al. (2003) that the individuals seeking to gain face are characterised of utilising formal channels of communication to show their ability and knowledge. It has also been found out by Kurman (2003) that modesty issues prevail in organisations having collectivistic culture and people in those cultural environments are reluctant to participate in the knowledge sharing process of the organisations. Importance of power distance; status; vertical and horizontal cultures; and ascription and achievement orientated cultures: Bhagat et al. (2002) presented a framework for knowledge sharing wherein the distinction between horizontal and vertical cultures developed by Triandis (1995) was included. This distinction between the vertical and horizontal cultures is very much similar to the power distance (PD) cultural dimension developed by Hofstede (2001). Vertical cultures are defined as traits of people who have inclination towards valuing equality and identify themselves having different social status than others. However, in vertical cultures people are not much concerned about the status differences between them. It has been suggested by Bhagat et al. (2002) that these cultural differences result in variations in the process of knowledge sharing. Conclusion The process of knowledge sharing is a critical issue considered in business organisations to help them to gain competitive advantage and lead towards future growth and sustainability. The findings, evidences and analysis presented in this report suggest that the organisational cultures can have a significant impact on the knowledge sharing process found in the companies. Knowledge sharing is an important constituent of the knowledge management process and this facilitates gaining more knowledge that could be helpful for the organisations to gain competitive advantage and compete successfully in the business world. Communities of Practice (CoPs) are an important part of knowledge management and it helps in the knowledge sharing process followed in organisations. CoPs generally facilitate transfer of tacit knowledge between individuals in an organisation. However, the main challenges are faced by organisations in the process of knowledge sharing across cultures. These challenges are mostly faced by multinational corporations where knowledge is needed to be shared across different national cultures. The analysis and evidences cited in this study prove that cross cultural differences between people in an organisation bring about significant differences in the ways through which knowledge is shared within the organisation. References Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T., 2003. Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), pp. 64-77. Aranda, D. and Fernandez, L., 2002. Determinants of Innovation through a Knowledge-Based Theory Lens. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(5), pp. 289-96. Ashwin, S., 1996. Forms of collectivity in a non-monetary society. Sociology, 30(1), pp. 21-39. Bhagat, R., Kedia, B., Harveston, P. and Triandis, H., 2002. Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), pp. 204-221. Branch, R.M., 1997. Educational Technology Frameworks That Facilitate Culturally Pluralistic Instruction. Educational Technology, 37(2), pp. 38-41. Brown, J. and Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice. Organization Science, 2(1), pp. 40-47. Davenport, T. and Prusak, L., 1998. Working Knowledge: How organizations Manage What They Know. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Ford, D., et al., 2003. Trust and knowledge management: The seeds of success. [online] Available at: [Accessed 27 November 2012]. Gammelgaard, J. and Ritter, T., 2000. Knowledge Retrieval Process in Multinational Consulting Firms. [pdf] Available at: [Accessed 27 November 2012]. Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications. Hutchings, K. and Michailova, S., 2004. Facilitating knowledge sharing in Russian and Chinese subsidiaries: the role of personal networks and group membership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), pp. 84-94. Hwang, A., Francesco, A. and Kessler, E., 2003. The relationship between individualism-collectivism, face, and feedback and learning processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34(1), pp. 72-91. Kurman, J., 2003. Why is self-enhancement low in certain collectivist cultures? An investigation of two competing explanations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, pp. 496-510. Lave, J. and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Liedtka, J., 1999. Linking competitive advantage with communities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(1), pp. 5-16. Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, pp. 14-37. Syed-Ikhsan, S. and Rowland, F., 2004. Knowledge Management in Public Organizations: A Study on the Relationship between Organizational Elements and the Performance of Knowledge Transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), pp. 95-111. Triandis, H., 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Colorado: Westview Press. Trompenaars, F., 1994. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. Illinois: Irwin Professional Publishing. Wasko, M. and Faraj, S., 2000. It is what one does: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2), pp. 155-173. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W., 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Read More