Employees create their own system of values and roles in the social background, and with this created role, interacts with organisational culture. It is as a result of social identity that differences between different groups of individuals are observed. For example, if trust is a social background value, differences between employee' and supervisor' values would not be so dimensional, as revealed in the study performed in Latvia. Another perspective relates to the conclusions of identity theory, which addresses identity in the context of human roles, for example, with regard to job position, profession and work; individuals undertake numerous different roles. In particular, hidden roles are considered, for example, an employee and a parent, and how these roles ‘get on’ and influence each other. The more important the relationships are, the more important is the identity of the role. Organisational Identification is understood as a process, as an interaction between individuals and the organisation (Ashforth et al., 2008). Individuals inherit the collective features by interpreting and enacting the identities. The organisation encourages enactment of this role and provides feedback. Therefore, organisations should consider the impact of a variety of factors on communication satisfaction and knowledge-sharing culture in managing CI in Latvian enterprises that are already established within the social background (Figure 25).
Figure 25. The influence of various factors on organisational culture of knowledge sharing in managing competitive intelligence in Latvian enterprises
Similarly, the results showed a relationship between Organisation Identification and CI in Latvian enterprises. A strong relationship was observed between Organisation Identification and such stages of the CI process as ‘Internal Information’ and ‘Formal Infrastructure’. In the social context, identity consists of the individual's desire to feel adherent to a certain group of people who appear to him/her to be valuable and emotionally attractive. Identification occurs to meet the need for security and adherence (Ashforth et al., 2008). It is as a result of social identity that differences are observed between different groups of individuals; personal identity provides differences between people.
Organisational culture is another major factor to be considered when creating the habits of knowledge-sharing in an organisation, in which culture should stimulate integration of knowledge. When carrying out a transformation of organisational culture, care should be taken to ensure that the developed knowledge-sharing procedure and methods alignment with generally accepted organisational values and ensure simplicity in transforming culture. Davenport and Prusak (1998) believed that the more complex and detailed these are, the fewer are the number of opportunities to alter the knowledge-sharing habits of the organisation.
When the previous step is completed and changes in the habits of organisational culture have been performed, the knowledge-sharing culture should be strengthened. The task of present day leaders is to develop a knowledge-sharing culture that actively promotes and facilitates knowledge sharing, supports interpersonal trust and strengthens loyalty to the organisation. Evaluating the correlation between organisational trust and knowledge sharing in Latvian organisations, the selected parameters showed a statistically weak correlation between these two factors in general. This could be explained by differences between employees' and supervisors' values regarding a knowledge-sharing culture.
However, the responses showed a positive correlation between organisational trust and Intragroup knowledge-sharing. In addition, there was a correlation between the factors describing employee awareness that organisation should act in accordance with its words, and Intragroup knowledge-sharing.
The results of this study indicate a correlation between the factors describing the awareness that organisation will be capable of implementing its promises, and Intragroup knowledge-sharing.
Moreover, there was also a correlation between Intragroup knowledge-sharing and the factors indicating that organisation believes in organisational honesty.
There is little available knowledge of how to efficiently change organisational culture in the organisation and even less relating to how to create a knowledge-sharing culture (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Kotter, 2012). It is only clear that cultural transformation requires investment. Kotter (1996) believed that changes in an organisation ‘can come undone, even after years of effort, because the new approaches haven’t been anchored firmly in group norms and values.’
In addition to employee communication satisfaction, communication plays an important role in order to transform culture in the organisation. If the organisational values differ from the employees' values, if the value of a change to an organisation is not clearly explained, then the changes will not produce the expected results. Smith, Heather and McKeen (2011) stated that ‘this is especially important when
The majority of knowledge is shared through social contact. Previous studies have shown that people are five times more likely to ask their friends and colleagues, and not seek information from other sources (Cross & Baird, 2000). However, the CI process is more often associated with such concepts as information systems access to information systems and data storage facilities, electronic knowledge-sharing, etc. However, personal contact is an essential and integral part of the CI process. It is therefore essential to develop such cultural values as trust and confidence, which are already in the social milieu, when creating a social background. The results of the present study showed that employees share their knowledge with those whom they trust and whose reputation has been evaluated. In addition, supervisors believe that trust has a positive impact on the CI process; however, it was also shown that in the supervisors' view, interpersonal trust may have a negative impact on the course of the CI process stage ‘awareness’. Supervisors often use technical means of communication, considering that trust does not affect, or may have a negative impact, on achievement of the result. The reason could also be the lack of belief in employee competencies, hence the preference for technical knowledge-sharing.
Supervisors believe that trust does not motivate communication satisfaction in the aspect CI. This could indicate that supervisors evaluate the CI processes as activities carried out strictly following regulations and instructions, and excluding the presence of subjective factors. It is significant that supervisors believe that satisfaction with the amount of information, and with upwards, downwards and horizontal communication, does not promote the CI process.
Employees in the organisation feel that knowledge-sharing is one-sided, and that supervisors do not believe in employees' competencies. Therefore, knowledge-sharing is artificial and does not provide the expected results. It also promotes impairment of the value of the CI process in the company.
Unmotivated employees will not be interested in sharing information. Supervisors have a particularly important role in the promotion of knowledge sharing habits. The study in Latvia showed that employees emphasise the importance of interpersonal communication and the importance of being aware that supervisors see and evaluate the progress made. In this area, the study showed large contradictions, which may be considered as disruption to both knowledge-sharing and delivering the CI process.
The present study showed that both employees and supervisors believe that organisational identification has a positive impact on knowledge sharing. In addition, organisational identification has a positive impact on Interpersonal trust, as viewed by both supervisors and employees. One more aspect that should be considered when introducing changes into an organisation is the aspect of organisational identity, which addresses social identity particularly in the context of the organisation. It is important for individuals to understand who they are as an organisation.
Working environment could also affect knowledge-sharing habits. Davenport (1998) stated that if a person mostly does his job alone or does not support a verbal knowledge-sharing, it is unlikely that he
CI process. It could be assumed that supervisors are overloaded with information, and that they therefore do not want to share information; however, such habits would disrupt the CI process in its focusing stage. Knowledge-sharing is of great importance if it is used for achieving the goal – making a decision. Therefore, any knowledge-sharing should be focused on achieving the goal.