3. Theoretical diversity: the wide-ranging content of organisational culture values
3.4. Aspects of organisational culture influencing of knowledge-sharing habits
Previous research has shown that organisational culture is one of the key determinants among the factors contributing to, or hindering, knowledge exchange (Abzari & Teimouri, 2008; Al-Alawi et al, 2007;
Stankosky, 2005; McDermott & O'Dell, 2001). However, comparatively little research regarding the impact of organisational culture on knowledge exchange has been conducted (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007).
Today, knowledge sharing is widely-held to be inherently necessary to the health of most enterprises (Smith and McKeen, 2002). It is believed that a large part of organisational cultures acts as a barrier that hinders knowledge-sharing and should be replaced, so that the situation becomes more favourable (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). According to DeLong and Fahey (2000), there are four main reasons why culture is viewed as a condition for knowledge exchange in an organisation:
1. Culture forms people's assumptions of what type of knowledge is important.
2. Culture determines the relationships between the levels of knowledge, namely, which knowledge belongs to the organisation and which belongs to the individual.
3. Culture creates a context for social interaction regarding knowledge.
4. Culture contributes to the emergence and acceptance of new knowledge.
Cameron and Quinn argued that taken-for-granted values, underlying assumptions, expectations and definitions already in existence contributed to the reason for ignoring organisational culture as an important factor. Among various theories and models, the structural framework developed by Cameron and Quinn (1988) or the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument is widely used for studies of
based on the key indicators of organisational efficiency. Cameron and Quinn provided a list of organisational efficiency indicators determining the leading organisational values: clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy.
The results of several studies have shown that the hierarchy culture does not contribute to knowledge exchange within an organisation. The values of hierarchy culture provide for strong policy, compliance with its rules and adaptation. Such adaptation to company policy is not always voluntary, but is determined by an employment relationship. Almost all processes within organisation are determined by the procedures maintaining the customary organisational rhythm of work, and organisation is integrated through formal regulations and official policy. In such organisation, success is determined by accurate performance of all operations and ability to forecast a long-term outlook. Leaders are proud of being rational coordinators and organisers (Deal & Kennedy, 2000).
Strict rules and policies can result in both formal and informal relationships in a company; however, employee interaction may be not so productive in the sphere of improving the intellectual capital and quality in the workplace. Mutual trust and knowledge-exchange governed by laws and regulations (e.g., employee X is obliged to contact employee Y) will not be sufficiently transparent. Previous studies have shown that in organisations with a dominating hierarchy culture, managers are reluctant to share knowledge with their subordinates (Lichtenstein & Brain, 2006).
Willem and Buelens (2009) showed that hierarchy and centralisation had no negative effect on knowledge-sharing. However, team-based structures and horizontal coordination resulted in a higher level of knowledge-sharing (Friesl M. et al., 2011).
In organisations with characteristics of a hierarchical culture, a difference of opinions can develop with regard to the method of building information turnover between people of different ranks of hierarchy. It is therefore necessary to establish uniform criteria, values or assumptions, which should be followed in the CI process. In the event that the organisation is ruled by conflicting views that are mutually exclusive, it means that the organisational culture is weak and lacks stability.
Knowledge-exchange within an organisation cannot be ensured by regulations or by force. A motivating environment should be created, which would promote knowledge sharing and in which there would be balance between individual and collective interests (Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
Clan culture is characterised by a friendly working environment, appearing to the employees like a large family, but the organisation is united by trust and traditions. The relationship between the individual and the collective (community, group, team or organisation) is the main condition promoting knowledge exchange (van den Hooff & Huysen, 2009). In such a culture, employees are usually involved in
decision-In a company with a dominating market culture, the focus is on communication formed between the organisation and its customers (Luu, 2013b). At customer-oriented companies, there is a positive trend in knowledge exchange among middle-level employees (Ooi et al., 2012). Likewise, adhocracy culture also energises the momentum to change or innovate, especially in terms of technology, among members of the organisation (Luu, 2014a). Such a culture improves knowledge-absorption capacities, and stimulates dynamics of learning among members. Adhocracy culture allows the most successful implementation of new ideas within an organisation, to organise debates in order to reach an innovative strategy. Moreover, adhocracy culture involves members in complex problems, which stimulates them to bring knowledge and experience to the situation, and create, use and share tacit knowledge (Augier et al., 2001).
Adhocracy culture is characteristic of a dynamic, creative working environment that is full of initiative.
Such a culture is characterised by the willingness of people to dedicate their time in favour of the common matter; organisation, for its part, stimulates individual initiatives and freedom. People are united by the idea of innovation and the constant implementation of innovations in the working environment (Deal & Kennedy, 2000).
Luu (2013a) argued that an organisation's orientation towards success or external orientation creates an incentive for employees to accept individual changes, as well as changes in the organisation. In such a manner, employees identify themselves as individuals within the team or within the entire organisation, and activate their impulses through sharing knowledge with their colleagues and other organisational members, while simultaneously filling gaps in their knowledge.
Previous research has shown that leaders and employees function at different levels, depending on their values orientation (Hall, 2001). Employees need to know how to translate the values. If people understand the meaning, how it links to what they do and the positive impact it can have on them and their colleagues, then employees will have greater motivation to put values into practice. Values must be well communicated if they are to become part of the culture of an organisation. Fukuyama believed that trust develops when people share a set of values, such that certain expectations of consistent and honest behaviour exist. Moreover, the particular character of the values is less important than the fact that they are shared. Leaders’ values of their care for followers, integrity and competence are all necessary to foster interpersonal trust – an essential ingredient in servant leadership (Covey, 2009, Greenleaf, 2002; Russell, 2001).
Barrett (2006) believed that the primary task to be completed at the preparatory stage of changing the entire system is to evaluate general values of the particular company in order to find out employees' personal values and their views regarding the current and the desired cultural values. The process should begin with identification of the steering group's values and with the steering group's commitment to changing their behaviour.
In their study of the relative impact or contribution resulting from the manner in which a leader conducts certain changes, the leaders' general leadership styles and the willingness to work for the certain changes, Herold and Fedor (2010) found that personal trust overpowered the behaviour of the leadership of smart change. However, not all leaders enjoy such close relationships with their followers that they can use these relationships during the changes, and even those who have such behaviour at their disposal can replenish their personal competencies with a more relevant behaviour suitable for changes. For example, an organisation, the activity of which is hindered by poor internal relationships, could focus on building trust.
3.4.1. The trust influence of organisational knowledge sharing
Trust plays a fundamental role in the process of social exchange, by clearing individuals of their obligation (Blau, 1986). Blau believed that the maintenance of a relationship in the long-term is heavily dependent on the sense of trust established between two individuals. For instance, Cook and Wall (1980) defined trust between individuals and groups within organisations as a phenomenon that is a highly important ingredient in the long-term stability of these organisations and the well-being of its members.
Organisational trust is of increasing interest, due to its positive influence on organisational and member outcomes, including organisational effectiveness, job satisfaction and team performance (Coleman, 1990; Rousseau et al., 1998; Tannenbaum et al., 1992). In turn, on the theoretical level, Renzl (2008) provided empirical evidence for two ways in which trust has an impact on knowledge sharing: reducing fear of losing one’s unique value, and improving knowledge documentation.
A state-based definition of trust in organisations is distinct from an interpersonal view of trust (Rotter, 1967), and also from an economical, transaction-based trust (Das & Teng, 1998), in two key ways. Firstly, a state-based definition of organisational trust specifies the boundary condition as the relationship between the trustor and the trustee; and secondly, it examines the influence of the organisational context on the development of trust (Mayer et al., 1995). Dietz and Den Hartog (2006) found that trust in the most-quoted definitions can be broken down into three constituent parts: trust as a belief, as a decision and as an action (Table 8).
Table 8. Common definitions of trust (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006)
The conscious regulation of one’s dependence on another Zand (1972)
A state involving confident positive expectations of another’s motives with respect to oneself in situations entailing risk
Boon & Holmes (1991)
The extent to which a person is confident in, and willing to act on the basis of, the words, actions and decisions of another
McAllister (1995)
The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party
Mayer et al. (1995)
The specific expectation that another’s actions will be beneficial, rather than detrimental, and the generalised ability to take for granted
...a vast array of features of the social order.
Creed & Miles (1996)
Confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct in a context of risk
Lewicki et al. (1998)
... reflects an expectation or belief that the other party will act benevolently
Whitener et al. (1998)
A psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability [to another] based on positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another
Rousseau et al. (1998)
Several authors have confirmed that trust is the essential element allowing for interaction within relationships and social exchanges (Young, 2006; Bachmann & Inkpen, 2011). Thus, trust tends to crystallise the relationship between two individuals by building a virtuous spiral of exchanges (Paillé et al., 2013). Some studies have provided evidence to show that trust facilitates knowledge-sharing in an organisation (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994; Goh, 2002; Renzl, 2008; Holste et al., 2010).
Levin et al. (2004) described two distinct types of trust that are instrumental in the process of sharing knowledge: benevolence-based trust and competence-based trust. They further argued that trust can be developed even when there is only infrequent interaction between individuals, as long as competence- and benevolence-based trust exists between the two parties. Examining trust as an essential element of culture, we can understand how a lack of a trust culture permits discord and disharmony, not only in organisations, but also in social institutions from the family to the world (Greenleaf, 2002).
level attained (Massey & Dawes, 2007), experience with the task, expertise and disposition (Sarker et al.
2001). Experts of change Herold and Fedor (2010) showed that leaders who have established relationships of personal trust will enjoy followers' support during the period of certain changes, although they will not do everything ‘by the book’ when it comes to practical management of change.
However, if this change-related behaviour is inappropriate or is not considered to be mutually favourable, it will exhaust the resources of trust and make changes much more difficult.
In as early as 1960, Argyris (1990) expressed the view that trust in management is an important condition for organisational activity. Trust in senior management encourages cooperation, which in turn is a precondition for knowledge-sharing, thus contributing to the growth of an organisation's success.
Individuals are more willing to share or contribute knowledge in a trusting atmosphere (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Empirical studies have shown that positive cooperation among individuals is an essential precondition for knowledge-sharing (e.g., Levin & Cross, 2004; Lucas, 2005), which stimulates interpersonal knowledge-sharing and learning. Confidence can be studied from different perspectives:
from trust as an individual feature to trust as a social reality. For example, previous studies have found a positive correlation between trust in management and organisational performance.
As trust is a key relationship commodity, if not the key relationship commodity, an understanding of how to operationalise the power of the trust concept is important for managers (Dowell et al, 2013). Leaders should persuade their followers to accept change on the basis of the strong mutual personal trust they have built with those whom they ask to change.
3.4.2. Barriers to the development of trust
Herold and Fedor (2010) showed that leaders who have established relationships of personal trust will enjoy their followers' support in the period of the concrete changes, even they do not do everything ‘by the book’ when they come to change management in practice. However, if this change-related behaviour is in appropriate or not viewed as mutually beneficial, it will exhaust the reserves of trust and make the changes far more difficult.
The building of trust in an organisation requires a leader to engage in a difficult task, one that is fraught with risk; several forces may hinder the development of trust among group members (Fairholm &
Fairholm, 2000):
(1) Individual (interpersonal communication, apathy and alienation, the risk of trusting others, personal selfish interest, leader sensitivity to follower needs);
Shaw (1997) believed the key imperatives in building high-trust organisations and teams are achieving results, acting with integrity, and demonstrating concern, as shown in Figure 21.
Trust Achieving Results:
Following through on business commitments
Acting with Integrity:
Behaving in a consistent
manner
Demonstrating Concern:
Respecting the well-being of
others Leadership practices
Organisational architecture
Organisational culture
Figure 21. Building trust (Shaw, 1997)
Sustaining an appropriate level of trust requires a balance of these imperatives - even when they come into conflict with each other. This balancing act requires superb leadership, as well as an organisation designed to sustain trust (Shaw, 1997).
It has been shown that the behaviour of leaders influences the perception of organisational culture among followers (Block, 2003), and it is thought that the types of practices involved arise from the basic assumptions that managers make in developing and attempting to implement visions/philosophies and/or business strategies that are necessary for the company’s long-term survival (Igo & Skitmore, 2006).
The building of trust in an organisation requires a leader to engage in a difficult task, one fraught with risk (Fairholm & Fairholm, 2000). As trust is a key relationship commodity, if not the key relationship commodity, an understanding of how to operationalise the power of the trust concept is important for managers (Dowell et al., 2013). A leader should be capable of convincing their followers to accept the changes on the basis of the strong personal trust acquired from those whom they ask to change. These relationships are characterised by mutual support of different levels, and a mutual necessity – a satisfaction that will affect the followers' aspiration to act in the direction suggested by the leader. The followers will do this in accordance with the extent to which they trust their leader – that he/she has the
opinion, will be open to others' contributions, will obtain information, will identify problems together, will encourage, will create action plans and will celebrate the success.
He et al. (2009) argued that trust has been widely recognised in many studies as an important enabling factor in seeking knowledge.