Organizational knowledge

leadership: a grounded theory
approach
C. Lakshman
lnd/an lnsl/lule cf Managemenl. lndcre. lnd/a
Abstract
Purpose – Leadership theory and research has not addressed the role of leaders in knowledge
management, despite its importance to organizations. Consequently, information and knowledge
management as key leader functions have not been explored. This study is an attempt to generate a
preliminary theory of the role of leaders in knowledge management through a grounded theory
approach.
Design/methodology/approach – This study builds a grounded theory of the role of leadership in
knowledge management by comparatively analyzing 37 in-depth interviews of CEOs. Combining
deductive and inductive methods, this study establishes the key role of top executive leaders of
organizations in knowledge management.
Findings – The data from the interviews suggest that leaders are acutely aware of the role of
information and knowledge sharing and design knowledge networks that serve to maximize
organizational effectiveness. Moreover, leaders use information technology and knowledge
management to better focus on key internal and external customers. Thus, this grounded theory
emphasizes both the leader behavior dimensions of information and knowledge sharing. More
importantly, this study links the processes of knowledge management and customer-focused
knowledge management to leader and organizational effectiveness. Additionally, there seems to be
evidence that such knowledge management activities implemented by leaders can positively impact
organizational performance.
Research limitations/implications – This grounded theory study has identified relationships/
processes of leadership that are inherently longitudinal. A key limitation, however, is that the end
result is theory, which needs to be tested and refined through other conventional mechanisms.
Originality/value – This study makes significant contributions to both the leadership and
knowledge management literatures.
Keywords Leadership, Chief executives, Senior management, Knowledge management,
Qualitative research
Paper type Research paper
The long tradition of leadership theory and research has not addressed the role of
leaders in managing information and knowledge, despite their importance to
organizations (e.g. Davenport el a/, 1998, Hansen el a/, 1999). Consequently,
information and knowledge management as key leader functions have not been
explored (see Bell De Tienne el a/, 2004; Bryant, 2003; Lakshman, 2005a; Politis, 2001;
Viitala, 2004 for exceptions) until recently. The growing literature on information and
knowledge management has repeatedly stressed the lack of leadership support for the
failure of many knowledge management projects. Moreover, this literature stresses the
importance of leadership for the success of information and knowledge management
projects. Thus, the potential for integrating the leadership literature with information
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
51
Received December 2005
Revised February 2006
Accepted April 2006
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 28 No. 1, 2007
pp. 51-75
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730710718245
and knowledge management literature is great and is likely to be beneficial for both
theory and practice (see Bryant, 2003). This study is an attempt to generate a
preliminary theory of the role of leaders in knowledge management through a
grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
Although the literature on the functions of top managers have identified and
emphasized the importance of the informational role of top managers (Mintzberg,
1973; Geletkanycz and Hambrick, 1997), and the importance of information to
creating a vision (Kotter, 1990), these attempts have not focused on the management
of information or the management of knowledge as key leadership roles (Bell De
Tienne el a/, 2004; Bryant, 2003; Lakshman, 2005a; Politis, 2001; Viitala, 2004). In
addition, although some taxonomic approaches to leader behavior description have
focused on and included the information search and acquisition, and information
use in problem solving behaviors of leaders (e.g. Fleishman el a/, 1991), this work
remains at a fairly early stage and is badly in need of further development (Bell De
Tienne el a/, 2004; Bryant, 2003; Kets de Vries, 2005; Lakshman, 2005a; Viitala,
2004). Along with the above mentioned researchers and their work, another notable
exception is the work of Day and Lord (1988), who along with Lord and Maher
(1991) identify the design and building of information systems as a key leader
activity leading to improved organizational performance. Despite such early
attempts, systematic research on the role of leaders in information and knowledge
management is lacking. This study attempts to take a first step in this direction by
building a grounded theory of the role of leaders in information and knowledge
management and establishes it as a critical leadership role that can have a
significant impact on their organizations.
Neither the leadership literature nor the knowledge management literature has
focused on the organization wide, and ongoing management of information and
knowledge in terms of its positive impact on organizations. The knowledge
management literature focuses on specific knowledge management projects built using
specific knowledge management architectures and discrete applications as opposed to
organization wide and ongoing application of knowledge management. From a
leadership point of view, it would be essential to manage information and knowledge
on an organization wide basis and on a continuous basis for it to be of benefit to the
organization (Bell De Tienne el a/, 2004).
This study performs a comparative analysis of 37 in-depth interviews of CEOs who
have managed information and knowledge to drive their companies to a position of
competitive advantage[1]. All 37 of the interviews used in this generation of grounded
theory have been sourced from Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu These interviews have been
published over a long period of time and have been conducted by different interviewers
at different points in time. These acquired interviews (Winter and Stewart, 1977) and
their use in the analysis of leaders is quite common in the realm of political leadership.
Winter and Stewart (1977) provide a set of criteria for use in the systematic study of
leadership issues, as listed below for help in performing such research in a systematic
and scientific fashion. The criteria suggested by these researchers include,
representativeness of the verbal output of the sample, clear definition of the
categories or constructs to be assessed from the interview content, assessment of
theory-based constructs, comparability with other actors (executives in this case), and
standardized content samples to ensure comparability of sources of content. All of
LODJ
28,1
52
these criteria have been satisfied by: developing careful selection criteria (described
later) for the interviews used; developing constructs from the literature; defining and
operationalizing them according to the theoretical literature; and using a standardized
source for interviews (Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu). The key constructs in this study are
leadership and knowledge management, which have been identified and developed
based on the relevant literatures. This study is both deductive (based on theory),
because the key constructs have been drawn from the leadership and knowledge
management literatures, and inductive (based on data) in the use of the grounded
theory approach to determine and establish the use of knowledge management tools
and activities by executive leaders of organizations. Inductive methods also helped
identify one of the key constructs in the theory developed, that of leader realization of
the significance of knowledge and information sharing, a /a Mintzberg’s (1976)
identification of the information role played by general managers.
Research questions
There are three major problems with extant theories of leadership that motivate and
lend guidance to this grounded theory investigation of executive leadership. First, the
extant theories of leadership approach the topic from the point of view of effectiveness
of different styles of leadership, assuming that what leaders do is captured
comprehensively by the “styles” of leadership (see Levinson and Rosenthal, 1984).
Given that some literature in the leadership area (e.g. Day and Lord, 1988; Fleishman
el a/, 1991) has identified a role for leaders in information and knowledge management,
but very little subsequent research exists to substantiate or further investigate this
aspect of leadership, the assumption that we know what leaders (especially executive
leaders) do is questionable (see Politis, 2001; Viitala, 2004 for exceptions in
non-executive contexts). Thus, a reexamination of what executive leaders do is
overdue, with specific reference to their knowledge management roles.
The dominant organizational behavior approach to leadership theory has focused
on the individual, dyadic and small group level of analysis as noted by Waldman and
Yammarino (1999). Thus, with the probable exception of charismatic theories,
leadership at the top managerial level in organizations has not been systematically
examined (Bryant, 2003). It is not clear whether the theoretical frameworks used at the
micro levels (e.g. Viitala, 2004) are applicable at the macro levels in the organization
(Bryant, 2003; see also Day and Lord, 1988). Hence, there is a significant need for a
theory of strategic leadership in the specific context of knowledge management.
Third, the traditional theories of leadership do not focus on leadership processes as
much as they do on leadership styles and their effectiveness (Hunt and Ropo, 1995;
Parry, 1998). The extant theories of leadership are lacking significantly because of the
dominant focus on cross-sectional designs and focus on content to the exclusion of
processes, which are inherently longitudinal (see also Denis el a/, 2001). The grounded
theory approach to the topic of leadership serves to identify the leadership processes
over time and their actions that have an impact on the organizations, which can be
subsequently tested through other methods. These drawbacks of the extant
approaches to leadership drive the following research questions. What do leaders at
higher levels in organizations (such as CEOs) do? What role, if any, do such leaders in
organizations play in managing information and knowledge? What are the processes
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
53
through which leaders effect information and knowledge management and what
impact does it have on organizational effectiveness and leadership perceptions?
The leadership literature
The four broad approaches to the examination of leaders and leadership, viz., the trait
approach, the behavior approach, the contingency approach, and the transformational
and charismatic approach (see Yukl, 1998) have given very little emphasis to the
information and knowledge management aspects of leadership. Some of the specific
components of the approaches do imply a role of leaders in knowledge management
but fall short of examining knowledge management systematically. The trait approach
does identify business knowledge (a component of knowledge management) as an
essential quality of effective leaders (e.g. Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991). The behavioral
and contingency approaches to the study of leadership suggest that information search
and acquisition and information use (e.g. Fleishman el a/, 1991) are core dimensions of
leader behavior that have an impact on performance. Moreover, information and
knowledge requirements of situations are also key contingencies that impact leader
behavior (e.g. Vroom and Jago, 1988). The behavior of the leaders in facilitating the
existence and availability of required information and knowledge through such
processes as knowledge management can have a significant impact on organizational
effectiveness. The charismatic approach implies that information acquisition and
analysis is important for the development of vision in organizations (Kotter, 1990).
More importantly, knowledge management processes may be more systematic than
the charismatic appeal mechanism in obtaining shared vision in organizations on an
organization-wide basis. Thus, the literature points to the significance of the
examination of the processes through which executive leaders manage knowledge in
their organizations to obtain positions of competitive advantage.
Knowledge management
This review of the knowledge management literature was undertaken to identify its
importance to organizations and to identify the constituent components of knowledge
management to enable the recognition of such components in the organizations
represented by the CEOs included in this study. Knowledge has become a key
corporate resource and the necessity to manage that resource has become crucial. The
difficulty of managing this resource has made it a critical leadership role (see
Cleveland, 1985). The knowledge management literature has documented the
importance of the management of information and knowledge to the effective
performance of organizations (see for, e.g. Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Davenport el a/,
1998; Hedlund, 1994; Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Sabherwal and Becerra-Fernandez, 2003;
Zack, 1999). The literature on organizations has long since realized the value of
information and knowledge through such means as modeling organizations as
interpretive systems (Daft and Weick, 1984) and knowledge-creating mechanisms
(Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), and through the specification of
such concepts as organizational memory (e.g. Walsh and Ungson, 1991) and
organizational learning (e.g. Argyris, 1977; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Garvin, 1993; Huber,
1991; Levitt and March, 1988).
The knowledge management literature draws a systematic connection between
stimuli, data, information, and knowledge, with knowledge occupying the highest
LODJ
28,1
54
semiotic level. Knowledge, according to dictionaries, is the accumulation and
understanding of facts, ideas, principles or skills. Knowledge has also been referred to
in terms of a set of beliefs about causal relationships between actions and their
probable consequences (see Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Saffady, 2000; Thompson, 1967) or
alternatively as information that has been placed in its context and thus has been
formatted to make sense (Ramaprasad and Ambrose, 1999). Other researchers (e.g.
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Raisinghani, 2000) have argued that information becomes
knowledge either through some transformation processes within organizations or a
discernment process on the part of individuals. Thus, there is the explicit realization
that information is converted to knowledge through a broad range of processes, such
as Nonaka’s (1994) knowledge creation spiral involving the interaction between tacit
and explicit knowledge, moving through multiple levels within organizations (see also
Sabherwal and Becerra-Fernandez, 2003). Based on the above, knowledge management
is defined for the purposes of this study, as follows.
Kncu/edge managemenl defin/l/cn
Knowledge management is defined as an organizational capability that allows people
in organizations, working as individuals, or in teams, projects, or other such
communities of interest, to create, capture, share, and leverage their collective
knowledge to improve performance (see also Balasubramanian el a/, 1999). It can
simultaneously be conceptualized as the concern for the creation of structures which
combine the most advanced elements of technological resources and the indispensable
input of human response and decision making (Raisinghani, 2000). Putting processes in
place; containing a massive amount of information, organizing it logically, and making
it accessible to the right people are all key components of such a view of knowledge
management. Internal benchmarking efforts to share knowledge (O’Dell and Grayson,
1998), creating strategic alliances (see Inkpen and Dinur, 1998; Myers, 1996; Osterloh
and Frey, 2000;), investments in training and development (Hicks, 2000; Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995), and the building of computer based information repositories and
systems (e.g. Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Saffady, 2000), have all been seen as key
components of knowledge management. Hansen el a/ (1999) have identified two broad
approaches to the management of knowledge in organizations, viz., the personalization
approach and the codification approach. The personalization approach would include
face-to-face communication, communication through such structures as networks of
people, cross-functional teams, committees, task forces, training and development,
internal knowledge sharing through benchmarking and job rotation, and creation of
strategic alliances. The codification approach refers to the technological route for
knowledge management and would include the setting up of databases, data
warehouses, decision support systems, ERP systems, and electronic networks for
communication and sharing knowledge.
For the purposes of this study, knowledge management is conceptualized as the
overall set of processes that are put in place for the purpose of identifying sources of
relevant data and information in organizations, the eventual conversion of these data
and information to knowledge, and their subsequent dissemination to different points
in the organization where they are needed. Knowledge management can be
operationalized through the existence of extensive networks (both social and
technological) at multiple levels in or throughout the organization. Such
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
55
operationalization is important from the perspective of identifying leader behaviors in
the knowledge management realm through the grounded theory method.
(cmþcnenls cf /ncu/edge managemenl
Teams: the use of a team-based organizational design, with extensive use of
cross-functional and cross-divisional teams can be seen as the manifestation of the
extensive organization-wide networks. Bringing together different people with
potentially diverse data and information through teams enhances and facilitates the
process of management of information relevant to decision making and the process of
conversion of data and information to knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Hedlund, 1994;
Hedlund and Nonaka, 1993) that can then be codified using technology. Additionally,
teams also are the means through which crucial tacit knowledge can be brought to
surface. Researchers suggest that tacit knowledge can be converted to explicit
knowledge only through transformation processes that include intensive interaction of
people such as in work teams (Balasubramanian el a/, 1999; Madhavan and Grover,
1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Zack, 1999). Moreover, teams are essential not only
from the point of view of generating knowledge, but also from the point of view of
disseminating knowledge in the organization (Zack, 1999).
Olher ·cmþcnenls: in addition to the above, other processes that are set up for the
specific enhancement of the data and information obtained by the key informants
identified above, from various entities in the environment such as customers and
suppliers, constitute a key component of knowledge management. Such practices as
locating employees on the shop floor of customer organizations (Magretta, 1998) or
simpler practices as key executives spending a significant amount of time with their
customers, can serve as a vital source of accurate information that is of use to the focal
organization. Extensive use of e-mail networks, developing strategic alliances for the
purpose of learning, developing forums of interaction with different groups of
constituents, job rotation and personnel transfers, ongoing training and development
efforts, sharing knowledge through written documents, are other indicators of
knowledge management in organizations (see Inkpen and Dinur, 1998 for evidence of
the presence of all these indicators in joint ventures for knowledge acquisition
purposes).
The role of leadership in knowledge management
Many knowledge management researchers have identified leadership as a key variable
in the relationship between knowledge management and organizational effectiveness
(e.g. Bell De Tienne, 2004). Much of the evidence for the positive impact of knowledge
management on organizations is in the form of operational improvements limited to
specific processes and functions (e.g. Davenport el a/, 1998). Researchers argue for
broader knowledge management initiatives that are enterprise wide as opposed to
specific applications. More importantly, knowledge management should be seen as an
ongoing process of doing business and thus should not be limited to discrete steps
using specific applications, but institutionalized as a continuous process to serve the
organization’s needs (see Nonaka, 1991). This challenging aspect of making knowledge
management continuous and ongoing is therefore a key leadership responsibility (see
Baker’s chapter in Myers, 1996). Cleveland (1985) addressed this issue of the role of
leadership in managing knowledge in his book, The Kncu/edge Exe·ul/te He stresses
LODJ
28,1
56
the need for the use of teams, communities of people, and other such networks as the
role for leaders in managing information and knowledge, in conformance with the
components of knowledge management identified above. Hansen el a/ (1999), among
others, have addressed the organizational issue for a need to have a strategy to manage
knowledge. Since CEOs are generally accepted to have the main responsibility for
strategic management, the role of leadership in knowledge management follows from
the strategic responsibilities of the CEO.
The primary research question of this study is with respect to what leaders do that
has not been documented before. Specifically, the role of leaders in information and
knowledge management is identified and described through the grounded theory
approach. This role of leaders in information and knowledge management is
accomplished through the two broad routes viz., through technology and through
social networks. The literature review is supplemented by the grounded theory finding
in this regard. Through a combination of the review of the leadership and knowledge
management literatures and an analysis of CEO interviews, this section attempts to
develop the propositions constituting the grounded theory. Since the role of CEOs in
information and knowledge management has never before been addressed, a grounded
theory approach is necessitated to firmly establish the role of executive leaders in
knowledge management and its subsequent impact on organizational performance.
Grounded theory of the role of leaders in knowledge management
Many researchers have issued strong calls for more qualitative and processual
approaches, including grounded theory, in the examination of leadership processes
(e.g. Bryman el a/, 1988; Hunt and Ropo, 1995; Parry, 1998). Grounded theory is a
research method in which the theory emerges from the data and is grounded in it
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The theory is inductively derived from the data through a
process of constant comparative analysis hence giving it the name grounded theory
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Parry, 1998; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
In this effort at developing theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) invoke and explain the
notions of theoretical sampling and the comparative method of analysis. As opposed to
statistical sampling, theoretical sampling begins with a choice of sample that is
consistent with the phenomenon being investigated. The sample choice needs to be
consistent with the area of study and the specific topic of investigation. In this study,
the key focus is on executive leaders and their use of knowledge management in
effectively leading their organizations to high performance. Hence the notion of
theoretical sampling suggests the use of CEOs or other leaders in organizations with
broad organizational responsibilities. In-depth interviews have been a key component
of most qualitative investigations and are a key component of data collection in the
grounded theory approach. The concept of constant comparative analysis of data
described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) refers to the iterative interplay between data
collection, data analysis, and conceptualizing theory (Parry, 1998). Such comparison
extends across the multiple subjects in the theoretical sampling frame (37 CEOs in this
study) and is in the form of identifying patterns and trends across the subjects to
identify emerging relationships that constitute the theory. Such a process of
comparison is stopped when there is theoretical saturation. In other words, any
additional data collection is not likely to yield any additional benefit or create changes
to the emerging relationship that has been identified.
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
57
The samþ/e
This section comparatively analyses 37 in-depth interviews with CEOs of corporations
which have been successful in their knowledge management activities. All interviews
were conducted by different authors and have been published in the Hartard 8us/ness
Ret/eu All interviews since 1989 were used in this study, subject to the selection
criteria listed below:
.
the interview must have been with the CEO or some other top official with broad
organizational responsibilities, and not someone with functional responsibilities
such as the CFO or CIO;
.
the interview with the CEO or other top official must pertain to the CEO’s tenure
at one organization and should not be about his/her general experience with
many companies; and
.
the interview must address broad organizational concerns including knowledge
management and should not be focused exclusively on the CEO or exclusively on
one or few functions within the organizations.
Based on these criteria, several interviews were not included in the study. Table I
provides a list of all the CEO interviews included in the study.
A··ura·v cf /nfcrmal/cn c/la/ned frcm /nlert/eus
The grounded theory approach necessitates that observations from the field be
subjected to a comparative analysis before conclusions can be drawn in terms of
theoretical propositions. In this case, the comparisons were made across the 37 CEOs
and their organizations. Subsequently, the method followed here is to identify
organizational features of the companies represented by these CEOs and make
generalizations for the purposes of theory development. In addition, the grounded
theory approach also requires that the data be verified for accuracy by using multiple
sources to check for its veracity. The data from all 37 interviews are available to
different extents from multiple sources and serves as verification of that obtained from
the sources used in this study. For example, the information pertaining to Dell is
available through a number of sources (e.g. Hansen el a/, 1999; Lakshman, 2004) and
thus attests for its validity. Information about Ford obtained from the H8R interviewis
in agreement with another independent interview with Nasser (see Greenhalgh, 2000)
and a Icrlune magazine article that describes some aspects of Ford’s knowledge
sharing practices (Stewart, 2000). In addition, a few in-depth case studies of the CEOs
and their knowledge management roles in their organizations (Lakshman, 2003, 2004,
and 2005a) were used to corroborate the interviews. These case studies involved,
among other things, detailed perusal and verification of information from multiple
sources on these CEOs. This pattern of data verification through multiple sources was
satisfactorily accomplished for all the interviews in the study. Thus, the interview
sources used here can be seen as reasonably accurate in terms of a match between what
the CEO said and actual action in the organization concerned.
The following sections draw from several areas of the interviews and are organized
in two sections. The aspect of knowledge networks (a component of KM) implemented
by leaders and their impact on organizational performance is first discussed. Customer
focus and the role of knowledge management in focusing on customers is discussed
next. In both these areas, based on the activities of leaders in the 37 firms, propositions
LODJ
28,1
58
N
a
m
e
(
s
)
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
e
(
s
)
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
N
a
m
e
(
s
)
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
r
(
s
)
D
a
t
e
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
H
8
R
1
J
a
c
k
W
e
l
c
h
C
E
O
G
E
N
o
e
l
T
i
c
h
y
a
n
d
R
a
m
C
h
a
r
a
n
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
1
9
8
9
2
Y
o
s
h
i
h
i
s
a
T
a
b
u
c
h
i
C
E
O
N
o
m
u
r
a
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
S
c
h
r
a
g
e
J
u
l
-
A
u
g
1
9
8
9
3
G
e
o
r
g
e
F
i
s
h
e
r
C
E
O
M
o
t
o
r
o
l
a
,
I
n
c
.
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
A
v
i
s
h
a
i
a
n
d
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
T
a
y
l
o
r
N
o
v
-
D
e
c
1
9
8
9
4
P
a
u
l
C
o
o
k
C
h
a
i
r
m
a
n
a
n
d
C
E
O
R
a
y
c
h
e
m
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
T
a
y
l
o
r
M
a
r
-
A
p
r
1
9
9
0
5
A
l
a
i
n
G
o
m
e
z
C
E
O
T
h
o
m
s
o
n
,
S
.
A
.
J
a
n
i
c
e
M
c
C
o
r
m
i
c
k
a
n
d
N
a
n
S
t
o
n
e
M
a
y
-
J
u
n
e
1
9
9
0
6
R
o
d
C
a
n
i
o
n
C
E
O
C
o
m
p
a
q
A
l
a
n
W
e
b
b
e
r
J
u
l
-
A
u
g
1
9
9
0
7
R
o
b
e
r
t
H
a
a
s
C
h
a
i
r
m
a
n
a
n
d
C
E
O
L
e
v
i
S
t
r
a
u
s
s
a
n
d
C
o
.
R
o
b
e
r
t
H
o
w
a
r
d
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
1
9
9
0
8
J
o
h
n
R
e
e
d
C
E
O
C
i
t
i
c
o
r
p
N
o
e
l
T
i
c
h
y
a
n
d
R
a
m
C
h
a
r
a
n
N
o
v
-
D
e
c
1
9
9
0
9
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
S
m
i
t
h
C
E
O
B
e
l
l
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c
R
o
s
a
b
e
t
h
M
o
s
s
K
a
n
t
e
r
J
a
n
-
F
e
b
1
9
9
1
1
0
P
e
r
c
y
B
a
r
n
e
v
i
k
C
E
O
A
B
B
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
T
a
y
l
o
r
M
a
r
-
A
p
r
1
9
9
1
1
1
L
e
e
P
.
B
r
o
w
n
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
o
f
P
o
l
i
c
e
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k
C
i
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
A
l
a
n
W
e
b
b
e
r
M
a
y
-
J
u
n
e
1
9
9
1
1
2
C
a
r
l
H
a
h
n
C
E
O
V
o
l
k
s
w
a
g
e
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
A
v
i
s
h
a
i
J
u
l
-
A
u
g
1
9
9
1
1
3
R
o
b
e
r
t
F
.
M
c
D
e
r
m
o
t
t
C
E
O
U
S
A
A
T
h
o
m
a
s
T
e
a
l
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
1
9
9
1
1
4
A
r
n
o
l
d
H
i
a
t
t
C
h
a
i
r
m
a
n
S
t
r
i
d
e
R
i
t
e
N
a
n
S
t
o
n
e
M
a
r
-
A
p
r
1
9
9
2
1
5
A
r
d
e
n
C
.
S
i
m
s
C
E
O
G
l
o
b
e
M
e
t
a
l
l
u
r
g
i
c
a
l
I
n
c
.
B
r
u
c
e
R
a
y
n
e
r
M
a
y
-
J
u
n
1
9
9
2
1
6
P
h
i
l
K
n
i
g
h
t
C
E
O
N
i
k
e
G
e
r
a
l
d
i
n
e
E
.
W
i
l
l
i
g
a
n
J
u
l
-
A
u
g
1
9
9
2
1
7
P
a
u
l
A
l
l
a
i
r
e
C
E
O
X
e
r
o
x
R
o
b
e
r
t
H
o
w
a
r
d
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
1
9
9
2
1
8
T
o
m
C
h
a
p
m
a
n
C
E
O
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
N
a
n
c
y
A
.
N
i
c
h
o
l
s
N
o
v
-
D
e
c
1
9
9
2
1
9
N
i
c
o
l
a
s
H
a
y
e
k
C
E
O
S
M
H
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
T
a
y
l
o
r
M
a
r
-
A
p
r
1
9
9
3
2
0
E
r
n
e
s
t
o
M
a
r
t
e
n
s
C
E
O
V
i
t
r
o
N
a
n
c
y
A
.
N
i
c
h
o
l
s
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
1
9
9
3
2
1
E
d
w
a
r
d
M
c
C
r
a
c
k
e
n
C
E
O
S
i
l
i
c
o
n
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
S
t
e
v
e
n
E
.
P
r
o
k
e
s
c
h
N
o
v
-
D
e
c
1
9
9
3
2
2
D
a
v
i
d
W
h
i
t
w
a
m
C
E
O
W
h
i
r
l
p
o
o
l
R
e
g
i
n
a
F
a
z
i
o
M
a
r
u
c
a
M
a
r
-
A
p
r
1
9
9
4
2
3
P
.
R
o
y
V
a
g
e
l
o
s
C
E
O
M
e
r
c
k
N
a
n
c
y
A
.
N
i
c
h
o
l
s
N
o
v
-
D
e
c
1
9
9
4
2
4
L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
B
o
s
s
i
d
y
C
E
O
A
l
l
i
e
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
N
o
e
l
T
i
c
h
y
a
n
d
R
a
m
C
h
a
r
a
n
M
a
r
-
A
p
r
1
9
9
5
2
5
J
o
h
n
S
a
w
h
i
l
l
C
E
O
N
a
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
A
l
i
c
e
H
o
w
a
r
d
a
n
d
J
o
a
n
M
a
g
r
e
t
t
a
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
1
9
9
5
2
6
S
i
r
C
o
l
i
n
M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l
C
h
a
i
r
m
a
n
a
n
d
C
E
O
B
r
i
t
i
s
h
A
i
r
w
a
y
s
S
t
e
v
e
n
E
.
P
r
o
k
e
s
c
h
N
o
v
-
D
e
c
1
9
9
5
2
7
R
o
b
e
r
t
S
h
a
p
i
r
o
C
E
O
M
o
n
s
a
n
t
o
J
o
a
n
M
a
g
r
e
t
t
a
J
a
n
-
F
e
b
1
9
9
7
2
8
J
o
h
n
B
r
o
w
n
e
C
E
O
B
r
i
t
i
s
h
P
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
S
t
e
v
e
n
E
.
P
r
o
k
e
s
c
h
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
1
9
9
7
2
9
K
r
i
s
t
e
r
A
h
l
s
t
o
r
m
C
E
O
A
h
l
s
t
o
r
m
J
o
a
n
M
a
g
r
e
t
t
a
J
a
n
-
F
e
b
1
9
9
8
3
0
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
D
e
l
l
C
E
O
D
e
l
l
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
J
o
a
n
M
a
g
r
e
t
t
a
M
a
r
-
A
p
r
1
9
9
8
3
1
F
r
a
n
c
o
B
e
r
n
a
b
e
C
E
O
E
n
i
L
i
n
d
a
H
i
l
l
a
n
d
S
u
z
y
W
e
t
l
a
u
f
e
r
J
u
l
-
A
u
g
1
9
9
8
3
2
V
i
c
t
o
r
F
u
n
g
C
E
O
L
i
a
n
d
F
u
n
g
J
o
a
n
M
a
g
r
e
t
t
a
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
1
9
9
8
3
3
R
o
g
e
r
S
a
n
t
a
n
d
D
e
n
n
i
s
B
a
k
k
e
C
h
a
i
r
m
a
n
a
n
d
C
E
O
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
A
E
S
S
u
z
y
W
e
t
l
a
u
f
e
r
J
a
n
-
F
e
b
1
9
9
9
3
4
J
a
c
q
u
e
s
N
a
s
s
e
r
C
E
O
F
o
r
d
S
u
z
y
W
e
t
l
a
u
f
e
r
M
a
r
-
A
p
r
1
9
9
9
3
5
G
e
o
r
g
e
C
o
n
r
a
d
e
s
C
E
O
A
k
a
m
a
i
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
N
i
c
h
o
l
a
s
G
.
C
a
r
r
M
a
y
-
J
u
n
e
2
0
0
0
3
6
A
n
d
y
L
a
w
C
E
O
S
t
L
u
k
e

s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
D
i
a
n
e
L
.
C
o
u
t
u
S
e
p
-
O
c
t
2
0
0
0
3
7
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
E
i
s
n
e
r
C
E
O
W
a
l
t
D
i
s
n
e
y
C
o
.
S
u
z
y
W
e
t
l
a
u
f
e
r
J
a
n
-
F
e
b
2
0
0
0
Table I.
Names and positions of
executives included in the
study
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
59
are developed which are consistent with the data obtained from the interviews. In each
section, specific quotes from the CEOs (some of which are presented in the main text,
the others presented in tables) that clearly express their personal views and their
actions, are presented. These serve to strengthen the connection between the data and
the propositions developed from the data. Finally, conclusions based on the
propositions developed are presented.
Kncu/edge nelucr/
The presence of a knowledge network is a common occurrence in companies that are
successful at knowledge and information management (Cliffe, 1998). Consistent with
the approach of two different strategies for knowledge management, that of
codification and personalization, identified by Hansen el a/ (1999), Cliffe (1998)
presents the view that the most important factor in managing knowledge is the way a
company organizes its units and people. Thus, technological knowledge networks are
not the only means to manage knowledge. The CEOs of the 37 firms used a range of
knowledge networks from personalization to codification to a combination of both
approaches. A sample of the quotes from the interviews can be found in this section.
Table II provides a broader sample of such quotes indicating the different types of
knowledge networks in use. In each section, the concept of theoretical saturation was
used to stop listing additional quotes from the CEOs indicating the presence and the
degree of the concept in question.
Table II identifies the various operational components of knowledge management
as implemented by CEOs in their organizations. These operational components,
identified earlier from the knowledge management literature, range from broad notions
of sociocognitive networks and technological networks to narrower components such
as councils, committees, teams, job rotation, appropriate organization structuring,
internal and external benchmarking, selection, and training and development. For each
of these operational components, Table II provides samples of quotes from the CEO
interviews that illustrate their role in managing, sharing, and distributing knowledge
in organizations.
Jacques Nasser of Ford uses what could be termed the personalization approach to
knowledge management by setting up elaborate networks of people who meet face to
face and teach each other about the knowledge they have acquired (see Wetlaufer,
1999). In Nasser’s words:
We have to change our fundamental approach . . . our DNA. And teaching does that better
than any other way I know.
Spreading knowledge is part of it [teaching]. There is no better, faster way to distribute
knowledge than through teaching.
Nasser’s teaching initiative implemented at Ford consists of multiple programs at
different levels (labeled variously as capstone, Business Leadership Initiative, and
Let’s Chat About Business) in the organization starting from the top with senior
executives to the bottom with everyone who receives e-mail at Ford (about 100, 000
employees). Thus, at Ford, though the major focus is in terms of spreading knowledge
through teaching, it is aided significantly through their e-mail network to which a large
number of employees are connected.
LODJ
28,1
60
C
E
O
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Q
u
o
t
e
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
J
a
c
q
u
e
N
a
s
s
e
r
,
F
o
r
d
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
S
o
c
i
o
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k

S
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
i
t
(
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
)
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
b
e
t
t
e
r
,
f
a
s
t
e
r
w
a
y
t
o
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
h
a
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g

M
i
c
h
a
e
l
D
e
l
l
,
D
e
l
l
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
n
e
t
w
o
r
k

W
e

v
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
r
a
n
e
t
s
i
t
e
s
c
a
l
l
e
d
p
r
e
m
i
e
r
p
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
w
e
l
l
o
v
e
r
2
0
0
o
f
o
u
r
l
a
r
g
e
s
t
g
l
o
b
a
l
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
.
.
O
n
e
o
f
o
u
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,
f
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
a
l
l
o
w
s
i
t
s
5
0
,
0
0
0
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
t
o
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
s
e
l
e
c
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
o
n
l
i
n
e

J
a
c
k
W
e
l
c
h
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
s
,
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g

W
e
a
l
s
o
r
u
n
a
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
t
h
e
C
E
C
.
W
e
s
h
a
r
e
i
d
e
a
s
a
n
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
n
d
i
d
l
y
a
n
d
o
p
e
n
l
y
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
f
a
i
l
e
d
.


A
n
o
t
h
e
r
o
f
o
u
r
j
o
b
s
i
s
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
a
l
l
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
w
i
t
h
l
i
g
h
t
n
i
n
g
s
p
e
e
d
.


T
h
e
u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
-
o
u
t
i
s
c
l
e
a
r
.
W
e
w
a
n
t
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
i
t
h
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
g
o
a
l
s
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
-
m
a
k
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
w
a
r
d
s

R
o
b
e
r
t
H
a
a
s
,
L
e
v
i
S
t
r
a
u
s
s
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
r
i
n
g

O
u
r
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
d
a
t
a
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
w
a
s
a
p
i
o
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
o
u
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
t
h
e
o
r
d
e
r
r
e
p
l
e
n
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
c
y
c
l
e
f
a
s
t
e
r
a
n
d
m
o
r
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
.


W
e
h
a
v
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
-
w
i
d
e
t
a
s
k
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
a
t

s
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
a
t
h
o
w
t
o
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
w
o
r
k
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s

P
e
r
c
y
B
a
r
n
e
v
i
k
,
A
B
B
J
o
b
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
e
a
m
s
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
s
o
c
i
o
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
)

W
e
r
o
t
a
t
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
w
o
r
l
d
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
f
o
r
l
i
n
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
i
n
3
o
r
4
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
g
l
o
b
a
l
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
.
.
.
Y
o
u
a
l
s
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
w
o
r
k
i
n
m
i
x
e
d
-
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
t
e
a
m
s
.
Y
o
u
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
e
m
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
a
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
b
o
r
d
e
r
s
.


A
B
B
i
s
a
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
r
e
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
a
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
W
e
w
a
n
t
t
o
b
e
g
l
o
b
a
l
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
,
b
i
g
a
n
d
s
m
a
l
l
,
r
a
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
d
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
.
.
T
h
a
t

s
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
m
a
t
r
i
x
c
o
m
e
s
i
n
.
.
.

A
l
a
i
n
G
o
m
e
z
,
T
h
o
m
s
o
n
S
.
A
.
J
o
i
n
t
v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
,
l
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t

T
h
e
t
r
i
c
k
i
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
f
r
o
m
y
o
u
r
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
.
T
h
o
m
s
o
n
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
h
a
s
d
o
n
e
t
h
a
t
t
w
i
c
e
.
.
.
R
C
A
i
n
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
t
u
b
e
s
.
.
.
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
J
a
p
a
n
e
s
e
i
n
V
C
R
s
.
.
.
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
a
g
o
w
e
d
i
d
n
o
t
k
n
o
w
h
o
w
t
o
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
t
u
b
e
s
.
N
o
w
w
e
a
r
e
a
m
o
n
g
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
.
W
e
h
a
d
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
f
r
o
m
R
C
A
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
l
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
j
o
i
n
t
v
e
n
t
u
r
e

P
a
u
l
C
o
o
k
,
R
a
y
c
h
e
m
H
R
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
/
c
o
d
i

c
a
t
i
o
n

O
n
e
o
f
m
y
m
o
s
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
j
o
b
s
i
s

n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
a
d
d
t
o
t
h
e
R
a
y
c
h
e
m
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
g
e
n
u
i
n
e
l
y
w
a
n
t
t
o
s
e
r
v
e
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
.
.
.
t
h
a
t
m
e
a
n
s
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
h
o
w
t
h
e
i
r
m
i
n
d
s
w
o
r
k
,
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
t
h
i
n
k
a
b
o
u
t
,
w
h
a
t
e
x
c
i
t
e
s
t
h
e
m
,
h
o
w
t
h
e
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
.
.
I
s
p
e
n
d
2
0
%
o
f
m
y
t
i
m
e
r
e
c
r
u
i
t
i
n
g
,
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
.
.


Y
o
u
a
l
s
o
h
a
v
e
t
o
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
y
o
u
r
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
h
a
s
t
h
e
v
e
r
y
b
r
i
g
h
t
e
s
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
n
y
o
u
r
c
o
r
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
.
.
.
y
o
u
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
s
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
a
l
k
t
o
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
,
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
o
s
e
d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
s
.
T
h
e
y
h
a
v
e
t
o
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
,
s
w
e
a
t
,
s
w
e
a
r
,
a
n
d
d
o
w
h
a
t
e
v
e
r
i
t
t
a
k
e
s
t
o
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
o
r
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
e
v
e
r
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
f
a
x
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
.
.
.
a
b
s
o
l
u
t
e
l
y
m
a
g
n
i

c
e
n
t
.
.
.
m
u
c
h
m
o
r
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
h
a
n
v
i
d
e
o
c
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
i
n
g
.
.
.
w
e
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
s
t
a
r
t
e
d
a

N
o
t
I
n
v
e
n
t
e
d
H
e
r
e

a
w
a
r
d
a
t
R
a
y
c
h
e
m
.
W
e
c
e
l
e
b
r
a
t
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
s
t
e
a
l
i
d
e
a
s
f
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
y
t
h
e
m
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
w
o
r
k

D
e
n
n
i
s
B
a
k
k
e
,
A
E
S
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
/
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
e
m
o
r
y

T
h
e
r
e

s
t
h
e
i
n
c
r
e
d
i
b
l
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
o
f
f
r
e
e
a
n
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
w
.
.
.
i
t
u
n
d
e
r
g
i
r
d
s
e
v
e
r
y
t
h
i
n
g
w
e
d
o
.
W
h
e
n
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
r
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
b
i
g
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
f
r
o
n
t
l
i
n
e
s
,
i
t

s
n
o
t
a
s
i
f
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
d
o
i
n
g
s
o
i
n
a
v
a
c
u
u
m
.
W
e
h
a
v
e
l
o
t
s
a
n
d
l
o
t
s
o
f
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
m
e
m
o
r
y
,
a
n
d
i
t

s
c
r
u
c
i
a
l
f
o
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
t
.
.
.
a
l
l

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
w
i
d
e
l
y
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
.
T
h
a
t

s
w
h
y
f
o
r
S
E
C
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
,
e
v
e
r
y
o
n
e
o
f
o
u
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
n

i
n
s
i
d
e
r

f
o
r
s
t
o
c
k
t
r
a
d
i
n
g

(
·
c
n
l
/
n
u
e
d
)
Table II.
Sample data from
interviews pertaining to
knowledge networks
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
61
C
E
O
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Q
u
o
t
e
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
J
o
h
n
B
r
o
w
n
e
,
B
r
i
t
i
s
h
P
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
L
e
a
d
e
r
a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

I
t
i
s
t
h
e
k
e
y
t
o
b
e
i
n
g
a
b
l
e
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
o
t
h
e
r
s
m
i
g
h
t
n
o
t
s
e
e
a
n
d
t
o
e
x
p
l
o
i
t
t
h
o
s
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
r
a
p
i
d
l
y
a
n
d
f
u
l
l
y
.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
n
s
t
h
a
t
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
r
a
o
r
d
i
n
a
r
y
v
a
l
u
e
f
o
r
s
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
,
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
h
a
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
b
e
t
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
i
t
s
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
y
t
h
a
t
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
i
t
s
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
a
n
d
m
o
r
e
w
i
d
e
l
y
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
y
d
o
.
T
h
e
w
a
y
w
e
s
e
e
i
t
,
a
n
y
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
o
i
s
n
o
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
m
a
k
i
n
g
a
p
r
o

t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
c
a
n
u
s
e
t
o
m
a
k
e
a
p
r
o

t
.


T
h
e
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
e
a
m
m
u
s
t
s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
n
o
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
i
t
.
I
t
s
r
o
l
e
i
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
,
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
t
o
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
f
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
e
s
s
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
r
o
l
e
o
f
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
a
t
a
l
l
l
e
v
e
l
s
i
s
t
o
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
t
o
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
y
c
a
n
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
e
v
e
r
b
e
s
a
t
i
s

e
d
w
i
t
h
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
n
o
w

D
a
v
i
d
W
h
i
t
w
a
m
,
W
h
i
r
l
p
o
o
l
L
e
a
d
e
r
r
o
l
e
i
n
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

Y
o
u
m
u
s
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
o
s
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
r
e
a
d
e
p
t
a
t
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
i
d
e
a
s
,
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
a
n
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
b
o
r
d
e
r
s
,
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
a
r
e
a
b
s
o
l
u
t
e
l
y
f
r
e
e
o
f
t
h
e

n
o
t
-
i
n
v
e
n
t
e
d
-
h
e
r
e

s
y
n
d
r
o
m
e
,
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
l
y
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
g
l
o
b
a
l
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
b
i
g
g
e
s
t
g
l
o
b
a
l
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
f
a
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

V
i
c
t
o
r
F
u
n
g
,
L
i
a
n
d
F
u
n
g
L
o
w
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
s
o
c
i
o
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
m
e
m
o
r
y

A
t
o
n
e
l
e
v
e
l
,
L
i
a
n
d
F
u
n
g
i
s
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
d
e
,

i
p
p
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
o
u
r
3
5
0
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
o
u
r
7
,
5
0
0
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
.
W
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
a
l
l
t
h
a
t
t
o
d
a
y
w
i
t
h
a
l
o
t
o
f
p
h
o
n
e
c
a
l
l
s
a
n
d
f
a
x
e
s
a
n
d
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
v
i
s
i
t
s
.
S
o
o
n
w
e
w
i
l
l
n
e
e
d
a
s
o
p
h
i
s
t
i
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
w
i
t
h
v
e
r
y
o
p
e
n
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
s
f
r
o
m
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,
o
n
e
r
o
b
u
s
t
e
n
o
u
g
h
t
o
w
o
r
k
i
n
H
o
n
g
K
o
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k

a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
s
l
i
k
e
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
,
w
h
e
r
e
y
o
u
c
a
n

t
a
l
w
a
y
s
c
o
u
n
t
o
n
a
g
o
o
d
p
h
o
n
e
l
i
n
e
.


A
s
t
h
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
s
u
p
p
l
y
e
x
p
l
o
d
e
,
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
l
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
.
O
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
,
w
e
h
a
v
e
a
l
o
t
o
f
h
a
r
d
d
a
t
a
a
b
o
u
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
w
e
d
o
w
i
t
h
e
a
c
h
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
.
B
u
t
w
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
a
l
l
y
w
a
n
t
i
s
d
i
f

c
u
l
t
t
o
p
i
n
d
o
w
n
,
a
l
o
t
o
f
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
v
a
l
u
a
b
l
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
s
i
n
p
e
o
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
d
s
.
.
.
T
h
a
t
k
i
n
d
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
e
m
o
r
y
i
s
a
l
o
t
h
a
r
d
e
r
t
o
r
e
t
a
i
n
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
e
.
W
e
s
e
e
t
h
e
c
a
p
t
u
r
i
n
g
o
f
s
u
c
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
f
r
o
n
t
i
e
r

R
o
y
P
.
V
a
g
e
l
o
s
,
M
e
r
c
k
C
r
o
s
s
-
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
e
a
m
s

N
o
o
n
e
h
a
s
a
l
l
t
h
e
a
n
s
w
e
r
s
t
o
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
W
h
e
n
y
o
u
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s

e
x
p
e
r
t
s
i
n
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
,
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
,
o
r
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

y
o
u
a
r
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
s
,
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
e
x
c
e
l
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
s
.
.
.
C
r
o
s
s
-
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
c
r
u
c
i
a
l
t
o
d
r
u
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
I
t
d
o
e
s
n

t
m
a
t
t
e
r
i
f
t
h
e
w
o
r
l
d

s
b
e
s
t
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
c
h
e
m
i
s
t
s
s
t
a
r
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s

y
o
u
m
u
s
t
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
c
a
r
r
y
i
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
e
v
e
r
y
s
t
e
p
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
y
.
T
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
s
e
a
m
l
e
s
s
o
r
,
I
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
y
o
u
,
i
t
w
i
l
l
f
a
i
l

L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
A
.
B
o
s
s
i
d
y
,
A
l
l
i
e
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g

B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
.
I
t
i
s
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
a
t
s
p
e
c
i

c
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
,
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
e
n
e

t
o
f
e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
,
b
r
i
n
g
i
n
g
i
t
b
a
c
k
,
a
n
d
h
a
v
i
n
g
n
o
i
n
h
i
b
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
b
o
u
t
a
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
i
t
a
n
d
l
e
t
t
i
n
g
p
e
o
p
l
e
k
n
o
w
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
c
a
m
e
f
r
o
m
.
.
.
W
e
b
o
u
n
c
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
w
h
e
r
e
w
e
t
h
i
n
k
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
i
s
,
a
n
d
w
e
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
m
a
n
y
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
.
F
o
r
n
e
w
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
3
M
h
a
s
d
o
n
e
a
g
o
o
d
j
o
b
.
F
o
r
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
i
t
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
E
m
e
r
s
o
n
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
.
I
n
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
w
e

v
e
l
o
o
k
e
d
a
t
M
o
t
o
r
o
l
a
;
a
n
d
f
o
r
r
e
c
e
i
v
a
b
l
e
s
,
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
.
I
a
s
k
m
y
s
e
n
i
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
t
o
g
o
t
o
a
s
m
a
n
y
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
c
a
n
,
a
n
d
I
a
l
s
o
d
o
i
t
m
y
s
e
l
f

Table II.
LODJ
28,1
62
At Dell, the success of their entire business model depends on the sophisticated data
exchange enabled by the knowledge network that they have in place. Customers,
suppliers, and employees are all connected to the knowledge network at Dell and use
the network for different purposes (see Magretta, 1998; Hansen et al., 1999). Dell uses
its internet web site and a number of customized intranet sites that provide access to
various knowledge resources to customers, suppliers and employees. In Dell’s words:
The technology available today really boosts the value of information sharing. We can share
design databases and methodologies with supplier-partners in ways that just weren’t
possible five to ten years ago. This speeds time to market –often dramatically- and creates a
lot of value that can be shared between buyer and supplier (Magretta, 1998).
At GE, Jack Welch operates on a simple belief that information sharing and knowledge
sharing is crucial to the success of organizations. As with most other CEOs in this
study, we found that this realization on the part of CEOs (leaders) that information
sharing is crucial to their success was very instrumental in their development of
knowledge sharing initiatives in their organizations. In Welch’s words:
Yousee, I operate onaverysimple belief about business. If therearesixof us inaroom, andwe all
get the same facts, in most cases, the six of us will reach roughly the same conclusion . . . the
problemis we don’t get the same information. . . The complications arise whenpeople are cut off
frominformation they need. That’s what we’re trying to change (Tichy and RamCharan, 1989).
At Merck, Roy Vagelos operates on a similar belief that led to Merck’s acquisition of
Medco, a prescription benefits management company. In Vagelos’ words:
Expanding our information base is critical to our achieving goals: Medco has data on 38
million patients, which allow us to learn a lot more about how our drugs are prescribed and
used and, ultimately, how effective they are in fighting disease. Whether it is cutting edge
scientific information or the reams of data on how doctors prescribe Merck products,
information lies at the heart of what the company does. Our ability to leverage information
will set us apart (Nichols, 1994).
In addition to the above, the idea that CEOs, as leaders of their organizations realize the
importance of information and knowledge sharing is captured in the quotes of most
CEOs in Table II, with the CEOs of Raychem (Paul Cook), AES (Dennis Bakke), British
Petroleum (John Browne), Whirlpool (David Whitwam), and Li and Fung (Victor Fung)
especially focusing on their view on the importance of knowledge sharing for
organizational success. This realization of the importance of knowledge sharing is
directly related to the actions and initiatives of these CEOs in the knowledge
management realm, thus laying the foundation for organization-wide knowledge
leadership (see Viitala, 2004 for micro level knowledge leadership).
The concept of knowledge network and its significance to the overall business
model is consistently expressed by the CEOs of the leading companies chosen for this
study. Thus, it leads us to the proposition that leaders recognize the value of
knowledge management and realize the means through which knowledge can be
managed. More importantly, all leaders use both technology and face-to-face
participation in spreading knowledge to differing extents. Thus:
l1. The extent to which leaders realize the importance of knowledge management
is positively related to leadership perceptions and organizational
effectiveness.
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
63
l?. The extent to which leaders use technology and people effectively in
establishing knowledge networks and managing knowledge is positively
related to leadership perceptions and organizational effectiveness.
These two propositions, along with those related to customer-focused knowledge
management, discussed next, are captured in Figure 1, which presents a summary of
the theoretical relationships unearthed in this grounded theory study.
(uslcmerfc·used /ncu/edge managemenl
Knowledge management across organizational boundaries has not been discussed in
the literature until recently (see Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Hult el a/, 2004; Teigland and
Wasko, 2003), and therefore has not been adequately researched (see Teigland and
Wasko, 2003). Consonant with Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) notion that organizations can
institute knowledge management processes with partners outside traditional
organizational boundaries such as customers and suppliers, we found that the more
successful CEOs in this study expressed an attitude of intense customer-focus and
realized the value of sharing knowledge and information t/sa t/s their customers.
The role of leaders in utilizing information management for better focusing on
customers is highlighted by the CEOs in this study. Tichy and Ram Charan (1990)
report that John Reed travels more than 400, 000 miles per year – visiting customers,
cajoling employees, and sizing up markets. John Reed explains the travel aspect of the
knowledge sharing about customers in the global consumer banking business as
follows:
We started the consumer bank in 1974 . . . We flew to Belgium and all around Europe . . .
London . . . Hong Kong . . . all around Asia . . . South America . . . At each stop we studied
what Citibank was doing, what was relevant to the consumer business, and how it could
become part of a new business collective . . . We made an important discovery . . . there were
more similarities than differences among customers around the world.
Figure 1.
Summary of theoretical
relationships: executive
leadership’s role in
knowledge management
LODJ
28,1
64
The interview with Nasser (Wetlaufer, 1999) highlights the importance of internal
customers and the role of the leader in managing information to and from these
internal customers. The “Let’s chat about business” program, which is part of the
overall organizational teaching initiative, is a crucial means through which Nasser
shares information with everyone in the organization that receives e-mail. These
e-mails go out every Friday at 5.00 p.m. Nasser describes this program as follows:
They’re just another way to share the information – unfiltered – as broadly as possible
throughout the company and to encourage dialogue at all levels.
Another aspect of the focus on internal customers at the executive level comes from the
following Nasser quote:
A few years ago, I started meeting with small groups of senior executives to talk about
shareholder value and what that means in the daily approach to our jobs. The first few times,
I spent hours talking about financial ratios. But it wasn’t until someone was brave enough to
come up to me and say, “What’s a P/E ratio?” that I realized why so few people in the
company were thinking about shareholder value.
This experience led to the development of a whole new program to educate employees
in the organization about various issues including shareholder value. This is a direct
result of sharing information with them.
At Dell, some of their clients have a dedicated on-site team of Dell employees that
collect information and pass it back on to the organization. Dell’s qualitative approach
to sales forecasting includes a Dell executive walking through their customers’ sites
and obtaining information about their likely future requirements. This information is
then built into their sales and demand forecasts. Dell also organizes what are called
Platinum council meetings, which are regional meetings in which company executives
share information with customers on a whole range of issues. In Michael Dell’s words:
All of our senior executives participate in these meetings with our largest customers. The
ratio is about one Dell person to one customer.
I spend three days at each of them (platinum council meetings). They’re great events. In the
normal course of our business, I have lots of opportunities to talk to customers one on one, but
there is something much more powerful about this kind of forum. Customers tend to speak
much more openly when they’re with their peers and they know we’re there and listening.
At Silicon Graphics, Ed McCracken expresses a very strong belief in the importance of
focusing on customers and sharing information with them, for everyone in the
organization, especially their engineers and technologists. Such belief guides him in his
efforts at instituting processes focused on enhancing such sharing of information with
customers as well as internal organizational processes that would reward and
appreciate such sharing of information. In McCracken’s words:
We encourage our first – and second-level – engineering managers to spend time with
customers. We rate our key managers every six months. I remember sitting in on an
evaluation for engineering managers at which we lowered the rating of two or three because
we thought that they and their teams hadn’t spent enough time with customers . . . Our
division managers aren’t there to manage our financial performance. Their job is to manage a
special relationship between the technology and the customers’ requirements (Prokesch,
1993).
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
65
These and many other CEOs in the set of 37 personally emphasize the importance of
both external and internal customers and the importance of the information that can be
obtained from these managed events or activities. Table III provides a broader sample
of quotes indicating CEOs behaviors focused on managing knowledge t/sa t/s
customers. Data in Table III indicate that most of these CEOs realize the importance of
managing knowledge t/sa t/s customers, communicate this attitude clearly to their
organizational members, and establish organizational processes to manage such
customer-focused knowledge. As in Table II, Table III captures the different
operational components of customer-focused knowledge management such as
customer meets, traveling to meet customers, technological networks with
customers, internal organizational processes tuned to customers, organizational
structuring, customer-focused teams, customer-focused divisions, acquisitions to
enhance such information sharing, and cross-functional teams that include customers.
The grounded theory notion of theoretical saturation guided us in limiting the listing of
elicited quotes from the interviews.
Thus, these data led us to the conclusion that leaders take personal interest in using
information and knowledge management to enhance the process of focusing on
customers and obtaining valuable information in the process. Accordingly, the
following propositions can be stated:
lS. The extent to which leaders understand the role and significance of
knowledge management in providing and obtaining (sharing) information
with customers (internal and external) is positively related to leader and
organizational effectiveness.
l4. The extent to which leaders provide opportunities to all employees to obtain
information from customers (internal and external) by using information
networks is positively related to leader and organizational effectiveness.
lerscna/ þarl/·/þal/cn /v /eader /n KM a·l/t/l/es
Personal participation by CEOs in knowledge management activities is perhaps the
most crucial link between knowledge management and leadership, giving rise to the
notion of organizational knowledge leadership. There is a consistent pattern in all of
these CEO responses (verified by other sources) that the more successful CEOs
personally participated in the knowledge management activities which they were very
instrumental in instituting. The pattern also indicated that the instituting of these
activities and then personal participation in them were a direct result of their personal
realization of the significance of knowledge management to furthering organizational
goals.
Talking about the work-out process he implemented at GE, Jack Welch indicates
his passion and personal interest in the process and explains why he actively
participates in numerous work-out sessions throughout the organization. In his own
words:
The ultimate objective of the work-out is so clear. We want 300,000 people with different
career objectives, different family aspirations, different financial goals, to share directly in the
company’s vision, the information, the decision making process, and the rewards . . . In 1989,
the CEO is going to every business in this company to sit in on a work-out session. That’s a
little puzzling to them. “I own the business, what are you doing here?” they say. Well, I’m not
LODJ
28,1
66
C
E
O
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Q
u
o
t
e
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
J
a
c
q
u
e
N
a
s
s
e
r
,
F
o
r
d
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

A
f
e
w
y
e
a
r
s
a
g
o
,
I
s
t
a
r
t
e
d
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
s
m
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
p
s
o
f
s
e
n
i
o
r
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
t
a
l
k
a
b
o
u
t
s
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
t
h
a
t
m
e
a
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
d
a
i
l
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
o
u
r
j
o
b
s
.
T
h
e

r
s
t
f
e
w
t
i
m
e
s
,
I
s
p
e
n
t
h
o
u
r
s
t
a
l
k
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
a
t
i
o
s
.
B
u
t
i
t
w
a
s
n

t
u
n
t
i
l
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
w
a
s
b
r
a
v
e
e
n
o
u
g
h
t
o
c
o
m
e
u
p
t
o
m
e
a
n
d
s
a
y
,

t
h
a
t

s
a
P
/
E
r
a
t
i
o
?
]
t
h
a
t
I
r
e
a
l
i
z
e
d
w
h
y
s
o
f
e
w
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
w
e
r
e
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
s
h
a
r
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
v
a
l
u
e

M
i
c
h
a
e
l
D
e
l
l
,
D
e
l
l
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
m
e
e
t
s

I
s
p
e
n
d
t
h
r
e
e
d
a
y
s
a
t
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
m
(
p
l
a
t
i
n
u
m
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
)
.
T
h
e
y

r
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
v
e
n
t
s
.
I
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
f
o
u
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,
I
h
a
v
e
l
o
t
s
o
f
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
t
a
l
k
t
o
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
o
n
e
o
n
o
n
e
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
m
u
c
h
m
o
r
e
p
o
w
e
r
f
u
l
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
i
s
k
i
n
d
o
f
f
o
r
u
m
.
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
t
e
n
d
t
o
s
p
e
a
k
m
u
c
h
m
o
r
e
o
p
e
n
l
y
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
y

r
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
r
p
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
y
k
n
o
w
w
e

r
e
t
h
e
r
e
a
n
d
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g

J
o
h
n
R
e
e
d
,
C
i
t
i
c
o
r
p
T
r
a
v
e
l
i
n
g
t
o
m
e
e
t
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

W
e
s
t
a
r
t
e
d
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
b
a
n
k
i
n
1
9
7
4
.
.
.
W
e

e
w
t
o
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
a
n
d
a
l
l
a
r
o
u
n
d
E
u
r
o
p
e
.
.
.
L
o
n
d
o
n
.
.
.
H
o
n
g
K
o
n
g
.
.
.
a
l
l
a
r
o
u
n
d
A
s
i
a
.
.
.
S
o
u
t
h
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
.
.
.
A
t
e
a
c
h
s
t
o
p
w
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
d
w
h
a
t
C
i
t
i
b
a
n
k
w
a
s
d
o
i
n
g
,
w
h
a
t
w
a
s
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
h
o
w
i
t
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
a
n
e
w
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
.
.
.
W
e
m
a
d
e
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
.
.
.
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
m
o
r
e
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
a
m
o
n
g
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
w
o
r
l
d

R
o
b
e
r
t
H
a
a
s
,
L
e
v
i
S
t
r
a
u
s
s
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
w
i
t
h
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

O
u
r
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
d
a
t
a
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
w
a
s
a
p
i
o
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
o
u
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
t
h
e
o
r
d
e
r
r
e
p
l
e
n
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
c
y
c
l
e
f
a
s
t
e
r
a
n
d
m
o
r
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
.

L
e
e
B
r
o
w
n
,
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k
C
i
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
U
s
i
n
g
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
w
i
t
h
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
(
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
p
o
l
i
c
i
n
g
)

W
e
h
a
d
a
n
o
f

c
e
r
w
h
o
t
r
i
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
p
o
l
i
c
i
n
g
i
n
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
H
e
p
u
l
l
e
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
s
o
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
e
v
e
n
g
a
v
e
t
h
e
i
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
n
a
m
e
.
I
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
t
h
e
r
e
w
a
s
a
r
a
s
h
o
f
b
r
e
a
k
-
i
n
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
b
u
r
g
l
a
r
s
w
e
r
e
a
r
m
e
d
a
n
d
s
h
o
w
e
d
n
o
h
e
s
i
t
a
n
c
y
t
o
s
h
o
o
t
.
U
n
d
e
r
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
o
l
i
c
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
b
l
a
m
e
d
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
.
I
n
s
t
e
a
d
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
i
t
s
e
l
f
.
F
l
y
e
r
s
w
e
r
e
h
a
n
d
e
d
o
u
t
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
r
i
m
e
s
.
O
n
e
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
c
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
n
d
w
e
c
a
u
g
h
t
t
h
e
b
u
r
g
l
a
r
s

S
i
r
C
o
l
i
n
M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l
,
B
r
i
t
i
s
h
A
i
r
w
a
y
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
u
n
e
d
t
o
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

.
.
.
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
e
x
c
e
l
s
i
n
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
t
o
i
t
s
m
o
s
t
v
a
l
u
a
b
l
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
B
y
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
t
h
a
t
e
n
a
b
l
e
y
o
u
t
o
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
k
i
n
d
s
o
f
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
v
a
l
u
e
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
.
.
i
n
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
k
e
y
p
l
a
c
e
s
i
n
o
u
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
e
h
a
v
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
a
d
v
o
c
a
t
e
s
.
.
.


O
u
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
,
m
y
s
e
l
f
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
,
c
o
n
s
c
i
o
u
s
l
y
t
r
y
t
o
t
a
l
k
t
o
a
l
o
t
o
f
o
u
r
p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
.
.
.
w
e
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
f
o
r
u
m
s
.
.
.
w
e
a
s
k
o
u
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
t
o
l
e
t
t
h
e
i
r
i
m
a
g
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
g
e
r
,
e
n
t
h
u
s
i
a
s
m
,
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s

o
w
s
o
w
e
c
a
n
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
t
h
e
i
r
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
i
s
s
u
e
s

G
e
o
r
g
e
F
i
s
h
e
r
,
M
o
t
o
r
o
l
a
C
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
v
i
s
i
t
s

H
e
r
e

s
t
h
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
w
e

r
e
w
r
e
s
t
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h

H
o
w
d
o
w
e
g
e
t
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
n
s
i
d
e
M
o
t
o
r
o
l
a
w
h
o
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
b
e
s
t
t
o
h
a
v
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
p
o
w
e
r
?
O
u
r
a
n
s
w
e
r
i
s
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
h
a
t
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

i
p
s
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
h
a
t
e
m
p
o
w
e
r
s
t
h
e
s
a
l
e
s
f
o
r
c
e
.
.
.
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
o
u
r
s
a
l
e
s
f
o
r
c
e
a
r
e
s
u
r
r
o
g
a
t
e
s
o
f
o
u
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
r
e
a
c
h
b
a
c
k
i
n
t
o
M
o
t
o
r
o
l
a
a
n
d
p
u
l
l
o
u
t
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
h
e
y
n
e
e
d
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
n
d
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
n
e
e
d
s
.
W
e
w
a
n
t
t
o
p
u
t
t
h
e
s
a
l
e
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
t
t
h
e
t
o
p
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.


W
e

v
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
m
a
s
s
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
f
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
v
i
s
i
t
s
a
t
a
l
l
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
W
e
w
a
n
t
e
v
e
r
y
o
n
e
i
n
M
o
t
o
r
o
l
a
f
r
o
m
t
o
p
t
o
b
o
t
t
o
m
t
o
g
o
o
u
t
a
n
d
s
e
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
b
e
t
t
e
r
.
W
e
d
i
d
a
s
u
r
v
e
y
o
n
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
v
i
s
i
t
s
.
.
.
n
o
t
e
n
o
u
g
h
o
f
o
u
r
t
o
p
-
l
e
v
e
l
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
e
r
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
v
i
s
i
t
s
.
S
o
B
o
b
G
a
l
v
i
n
,
o
u
r
c
h
a
i
r
m
a
n
,
p
u
s
h
e
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
t
t
h
e
t
o
p
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
t
o
g
e
t
m
o
r
e
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
H
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
y
w
e
n
t
o
u
t
a
n
d
m
a
d
e
t
e
n
o
r
1
2
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
v
i
s
i
t
s
,
a
n
d
h
e
w
r
o
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
t
r
i
p
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
o
n
e
a
c
h
o
n
e

(
·
c
n
l
/
n
u
e
d
)
Table III.
Sample data from
interviews pertaining to
customer-focused
knowledge sharing
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
67
C
E
O
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Q
u
o
t
e
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
E
d
M
c
C
r
a
c
k
e
n
,
S
i
l
i
c
o
n
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
-
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
t
e
a
m
s

A
t
S
i
l
i
c
o
n
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
,
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
r
o
l
e
i
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
o
u
r
b
r
i
g
h
t
e
s
t
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
l
o
s
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
T
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
r
o
l
e
i
s
t
o
d
i
v
i
d
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
i
n
t
o
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
i
r
n
e
e
d
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
s
a
t
i
s
f
y
t
h
e
m
.
T
h
e
n
w
e
p
u
t
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
e
a
m
i
n
e
a
c
h
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
l
e
t
t
h
o
s
e
t
e
a
m
s
d
e
c
i
d
e
w
h
a
t
t
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
A
s
l
o
n
g
a
s
t
h
e
t
e
a
m
s
h
a
v
e
b
r
i
g
h
t
i
d
e
a
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
r
e
a
l
l
y
e
x
c
i
t
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
m
,
o
u
r
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
s
t
a
y
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
y
.


A
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
c
a
n

t
u
s
e
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
r
k
e
t
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
t
o
p
i
c
k
u
p
o
n
p
a
r
a
d
i
g
m
s
h
i
f
t
s
.
I
t
s
b
e
s
t
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
,
i
t
s
m
o
s
t
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
R
&
D
p
e
o
p
l
e
,
m
u
s
t
b
e
o
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
t
o
s
e
n
s
e

r
s
t
h
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
i
t
s
m
o
s
t
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

w
h
a
t
w
e
c
a
l
l
o
u
r

l
i
g
h
t
h
o
u
s
e

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

m
i
g
h
t
w
a
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
.
T
h
e
s
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
a
r
e
n

t
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
i
n
p
u
t
o
n
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
l
i
n
e
;
t
h
e
y

r
e
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
f
e
e
l
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
h
o
w
t
h
e
y
m
i
g
h
t
d
e

n
e
a
b
r
a
n
d
-
n
e
w
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
d
o
t
h
i
n
g
s
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
y

V
i
c
t
o
r
F
u
n
g
,
L
i
a
n
d
F
u
n
g
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
-
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
-
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
-
b
l
o
c
k
s
o
f
o
u
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
.
.
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
o
u
r
G
y
m
b
o
r
e
e
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
o
n
e
o
f
o
u
r
l
a
r
g
e
s
t
.
T
h
e
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
,
A
d
a
L
i
u
,
a
n
d
h
e
r
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
t
e
a
m
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
i
r
o
w
n
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
o
f

c
e
s
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
L
i
a
n
d
F
u
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
H
o
n
g
K
o
n
g
.
W
h
e
n
y
o
u
w
a
l
k
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
i
r
d
o
o
r
,
e
v
e
r
y
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
4
0
o
r
s
o
p
e
o
p
l
e
y
o
u
s
e
e
i
s
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
o
n
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
G
y
m
b
o
r
e
e

s
n
e
e
d
s
.
O
n
e
v
e
r
y
d
e
s
k
i
s
a
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
w
i
t
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
l
i
n
k
s
t
o
G
y
m
b
o
r
e
e
.
T
h
e
s
t
a
f
f
i
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
e
d
t
e
a
m
s
i
n
s
u
c
h
a
r
e
a
s
a
s
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
,
m
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
i
n
g
,
r
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
s
h
i
p
p
i
n
g
.
A
n
d
A
d
a
h
a
s
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
s
o
u
r
c
i
n
g
t
e
a
m
s
i
n
o
u
r
b
r
a
n
c
h
o
f

c
e
s
i
n
C
h
i
n
a
,
t
h
e
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
,
a
n
d
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
G
y
m
b
o
r
e
e
b
u
y
s
i
n
v
o
l
u
m
e
f
r
o
m
a
l
l
t
h
o
s
e
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.
I
n
m
a
y
b
e
5
o
f
o
u
r
2
6
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
,
s
h
e
h
a
s
h
e
r
o
w
n
t
e
a
m
,
p
e
o
p
l
e
s
h
e
h
i
r
e
d
h
e
r
s
e
l
f
.
W
h
e
n
s
h
e
w
a
n
t
s
t
o
s
o
u
r
c
e
f
r
o
m
,
s
a
y
,
I
n
d
i
a
,
t
h
e
b
r
a
n
c
h
o
f

c
e
h
e
l
p
s
h
e
r
g
e
t
t
h
e
j
o
b
d
o
n
e

R
o
y
P
.
V
a
g
e
l
o
s
,
M
e
r
c
k
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
(
M
e
d
c
o
)
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
r
i
n
g

O
u
r
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
m
a
x
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
o
u
r
d
r
u
g
s
.
F
i
r
s
t
,
w
e
m
u
s
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
e
s
a
f
e
s
t
a
n
d
m
o
s
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
r
u
g
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
l
a
b
s
.
T
h
e
n
,
o
n
c
e
t
h
e
d
r
u
g
i
s
o
n
t
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
a
n
d
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
p
r
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
t
o
a
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
,
w
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
d
r
u
g
,
t
h
a
t
h
e
o
r
s
h
e
h
a
s
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
d
r
u
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
,
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
r
u
g
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
m
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
e
p
a
t
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
a
k
i
n
g
.
W
e
c
a
n
e
n
s
u
r
e
a
l
l
t
h
i
s
b
y
c
a
p
t
u
r
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
i
t
c
o
m
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
p
h
a
r
m
a
c
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
p
u
t
t
i
n
g
i
t
i
n
t
o
a
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
d
a
t
a
b
a
n
k
t
h
a
t
f
e
e
d
s
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
c
k
t
o
t
h
e
p
h
y
s
i
c
i
a
n
,
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
,
a
n
d
u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
t
h
e
l
a
b
s
,
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
c
a
n
b
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
d
r
u
g
s
.


O
n
e
d
a
n
g
e
r
,
o
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
,
i
s
t
h
a
t
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
m
a
y
b
e
c
o
m
e
o
v
e
r
w
h
e
l
m
e
d
b
y
a
l
l
t
h
i
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
.
A
t
M
e
r
c
k
,
w
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
c
o
n
d
e
n
s
e
r
e
a
m
s
o
f
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
t
o
u
r
b
e
s
t
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
,
n
o
t
o
u
r
w
o
r
s
t
f
e
a
r
s
p
r
e
v
a
i
l

L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
A
.
B
o
s
s
i
d
y
,
A
l
l
i
e
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
C
r
o
s
s
-
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
e
a
m
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

S
o
w
e
s
a
i
d
,

O
k
a
y
,
w
e

r
e
g
o
i
n
g
t
o
d
o
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
i
s
.

A
n
d
w
e
w
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
a
i
d
,

H
e
y
,
w
e
h
a
v
e
a
l
o
t
o
f
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,
a
n
d
w
e

d
l
i
k
e
t
o
h
a
v
e
y
o
u
t
e
a
m
w
i
t
h
u
s
s
o
w
e
c
a
n
g
e
t
t
h
e
m
i
d
e
n
t
i

e
d
a
n
d
s
o
l
v
e
d
.

A
l
m
o
s
t
t
o
a
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,
t
h
e
y
a
g
r
e
e
d
t
o
d
o
t
h
a
t
.
W
e
n
o
w
h
a
v
e
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
s
o
f
m
u
l
t
i
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
e
a
m
s
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
y
h
a
v
e
h
e
l
p
e
d
g
i
v
e
o
u
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
h
i
g
h
e
r
-
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
f
a
s
t
e
r
t
u
r
n
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
i
m
e
.
.
.
T
h
e
b
e
n
e

t
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
e
a
m
s
g
o
b
e
y
o
n
d
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
s
p
e
c
i

c
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
P
e
o
p
l
e
o
f
t
e
n
u
n
d
e
r
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
h
a
v
i
n
g
f
a
c
e
t
i
m
e
w
i
t
h
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

Table III.
LODJ
28,1
68
there to tell them how to price products, what type of equipment they need, whom to hire; I
have no comments on that . . . But work-out is the next generation of what we’re trying to do.
We had to put in a process to focus on and change how work gets done in this company. We
have to apply the same relentless passion to work-out that we did in selling the vision of
number one and number two globally. That’s why we’re pushing it so hard, getting so
involved (Tichy and Ram Charan, 1989).
Michael Dell talks about the value of personal participation in the forums set up to
ensure free flow of information with customers on a constant basis such as the
Platinum Councils, regional meetings of Dell’s largest customers in Asia-Pacific, Japan,
the USA, and Europe:
All of our senior executives from around the company participate, spending time with the
customer, listening to how we’re doing. The ratio is about one Dell person to one customer. At
our last session, we had about 100 customers . . . I spend three days at each of them [Platinum
Council meetings]. They’re great events. In the normal course of business, I have lots of
opportunity to talk to customers one on one, but there is something more powerful about this
kind of forum. Customers tend to speak more openly when they’re with peers and they know
we’re there and we’re listening (Magretta, 1998).
At Allied Signal, Lawrence Bossidy participates in information sharing both
internally, with employees, and externally, with customers, thereby encouraging
others in the organization and reinforcing the value of the forums instituted for such
purposes:
First, we want to create an environment in which people will speak up. Every question is
interesting and important. When I conduct interactive sessions, I don’t walk out after three
questions. I make it clear that I’m going to be there until the last question is asked. When
employees point out things that aren’t right, I’m the first to say, “Yes, that’s one we need to do
something about, and here’s what we’re going to do.” Or, “I don’t know the answer to that, but
I’ll look into it” – and then I’d better follow up.
I made an effort to talk to customers early on, but that’s something you need to do all the
time, not just in the first 60 days. I visited a lot of customers, and in my first few months I
really got an earful. I tried to get examples in every sector – and I still do (Tichy and Ram
Charan, 1995).
At Silicon Graphics, Ed McCracken talks about the process through which they ensure
that their engineering managers actually participate in forums of information sharing
with customers, and his personal participation in such processes:
We encourage our first- and second-level engineering managers to spend time with
customers. We rate our key managers every six months. I remember sitting in on an
evaluation for engineering managers at which we lowered the rating of two or three because
we thought that they and their teams hadn’t spent enough time with customers.
Our division managers aren’t there to manage our financial performance. Their job is to
manage a special relationship between the technology and the customer’s requirements
(Prokesch, 1993).
Thus, from a behavioral perspective, by personally participating, both on a day-to-day
basis and in specially organized events, in information sharing, these CEOs send
valuable signals to all concerned of the importance of the information that can be
obtained through such knowledge networks.
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
69
Accordingly,
lo. The extent to which leaders personally participate in the process of sharing
information in day-to-day activities and specially organized information
networks is positively related to leader and organizational effectiveness.
Discussion
The data from the interviews suggest that leaders are acutely aware of the role of
information and knowledge sharing and design knowledge networks that serve to
maximize organizational effectiveness. Moreover, leaders use information technology
and knowledge management to better focus on key internal and external customers.
Thus, this grounded theory has emphasized both the leader behavior dimensions of
information and knowledge sharing and thereby serves to extend previous preliminary
work in this area (e.g. Fleishman el a/, 1991). More importantly, the grounded theory
links the processes of knowledge management and customer-focused knowledge
management to leader effectiveness and organizational effectiveness. These
relationships can be tested using methods such as structured content analysis
(Jauch el a/, 1980; Lakshman, 2005b) as described later in this section.
The data obtained from the interviews as shown in the highlighted quotes are
consistent with other portions of the interviews and are only meant to be a
representative sample. The complete interviews and the cross-section of interviews
provides more solid data that led us to the propositions developed in this study. This
study suggests that there is reason to believe that knowledge management is a key
function that leaders play a role in. Moreover, there seems to be tentative evidence that
such knowledge management activities implemented by leaders can positively impact
organizational performance. The specific propositions drawn from the data are
consistent with all the data sources and the literature and are derived from the data.
As indicated in the summary of theoretical relationships (Figure 1), the leader’s role
in knowledge management starts with the leader’s own realization of the importance of
information and knowledge management to the effective performance of the
organization. More specifically, such realization of the importance of knowledge
management, needs to manifest itself along two dimensions, one internal and the other
external. Internally, the leader’s realization of the importance of knowledge
management is instrumental in the leader’s establishment of both technological and
sociocognitive routes for managing knowledge in their organizations. Externally, the
leader’s realization of the importance of customer-focused knowledge management is
instrumental in the leader’s establishment of both technological and sociocognitive
routes for managing such knowledge. As indicated in the relevant tables, this
grounded theory approach highlights the different operational indicators of each of
these routes for managing knowledge as established by the CEOs of the organizations
included in the study. The operational components for knowledge management are
drawn from the knowledge management literature, constituting the deductive portion
of this study. This study also makes key contributions by combining both deductive
and inductive, process-based approaches to the study of leadership, with special
emphasis on new approaches to leadership in the twenty-first century. This has been
accomplished by first combining deductive and inductive approaches as has been
called for in the literature, and then by addressing a hitherto under-examined aspect of
leadership: knowledge leadership of CEOs.
LODJ
28,1
70
Tesl/ng lhese re/al/cnsh/þs
The propositions developed in this study can be tested using methods such as
structured content analysis (Jauch el a/, 1980; Lakshman, 2005b), which involve the use
of specifically designed questionnaires to tap the constructs represented by the
variables in the propositions. These questionnaires are then used by multiple raters to
provide ratings on these CEOs based on their careful reading of these interviews. The
reliability, validity, and data source issues pertinent to such study are discussed in
more detail in the literature (Jauch el a/, 1980; Lakshman, 2005b). Such research to test
the propositions developed in this study are underway and the early results are
promising and seem to support the theory developed here. Structured content analysis
varies from traditional content analysis in that it combines quantitative and qualitative
methods amenable to statistical analysis of relationships. Ratings are provided on
leaders’ textual output along specific theoretical dimensions (variables) and these are
then related to each other and to specific performance measures from independent
sources. The propositions developed here can also be tested by surveying select
subordinates of the 37 CEOs included in this study or independent, random samples of
CEO subordinates. These surveys can focus on the multiple knowledge leadership
dimensions identified here and in other studies (e.g. Lakshman, 2005a; Politis, 2001;
Viitala, 2004) and testing relationships to outcome variables obtained independently.
Conclusion
The grounded theory approach has highlighted the role of leaders in information and
knowledge management and its subsequent impact on organizational performance. By
identifying the crucial role of top executive leaders in knowledge management, this
study makes significant contributions to both the leadership and knowledge
management literatures. Based on 37 in-depth interviews with the CEOs of various
organizations, propositions with respect to the role and significance of information and
knowledge management as a leader function and responsibility have been presented.
The contributions of this grounded theory study are enormous and of major
significance to the field of leadership. The study answers calls of several sets of
researchers for more longitudinal, processual, and qualitative approaches to the
examination of leadership (Bryman el a/, 1988; House and Aditya, 1997; Hunt and
Ropo, 1995; Parry, 1998), especially as it relates to cutting edge concepts such as
knowledge management. The study adds to the growing volume of literature that
either identifies leadership as a key component of effective knowledge management
(Bell De Tienne el a/, 2004), or addresses the differing impacts of transactional and
transformational leadership on managing knowledge at different levels of the
organizational hierarchy (Bryant, 2003), in addition to the earlier attempts at
examining leadership styles (Politis, 2001), and micro-level knowledge leadership
(Viitala, 2004). Although early attempts in leadership research have identified the
information role of general managers (Mintzberg, 1977), and the use of information in
problem solving as a key leadership behavior dimension (Fleishman el a/, 1991), this
study clearly identifies the role of leaders in managing information and managing
knowledge in organizations, both internally for coordination purposes and externally
as it is directed to customers. Such identification and explication of key leadership
activities in knowledge management realms moves these literatures forward and
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
71
makes key contributions to such examination and understanding of the real nature of
leadership in the knowledge economy.
Note
1. Not all of these 37 CEOs are knowledge leaders of similar magnitude, they vary in the extent
to which they exhibit knowledge leadership.
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, Ml5 Ouarler/v, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 107-36.
Argyris, C. (1977), “Double loop learning in organizations”, Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 55
No. 5, pp. 115-25.
Balasubramanian, P., Nochur, K., Henderson, J.C. and Kwan, M.M. (1999), “Managing process
knowledge for decision support”, De·/s/cn 5uþþcrl 5vslems, Vol. 27, pp. 145-62.
Bell De Tienne, K., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C. and Harris, S. (2004), “Toward a model of effective
knowledge management and directions for future research: culture, leadership, and
CKOs”, lcurna/ cf Leadersh/þ and Organ/.al/cna/ 5lud/es, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 26-43.
Bryant, S.E. (2003), “The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating,
sharing, and exploiting organizational knowledge”, lcurna/ cf Leadersh/þ and
Organ/.al/cna/ 5lud/es, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 32.
Bryman, A., Bresnen, M., Beardworth, A. and Keil, T. (1988), “Qualitative research and the study
of leadership”, Human Re/al/cns, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 13-30.
Cleveland, H. (1985), The Kncu/edge Exe·ul/te, E.P. Dutton, New York, NY.
Cliffe, S. (1998), “Knowledge management: the well-connected business”, Hartard 8us/ness
Ret/eu, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 17-21.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, R.L. (1984), “Towards a model of organizations as interpretive systems”,
A·ademv cf Managemenl Ret/eu, Vol. 9, pp. 284-95.
Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), “Successful knowledge management
projects”, 5/can Managemenl Ret/eu, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Day, D.V. and Lord, R.G. (1988), “Executive leadership and organizational performance:
suggestions for a new theory and methodology”, lcurna/ cf Managemenl, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 453-64.
Denis, J., Lamothe, L. and Langley, A. (2001), “The dynamics of collective leadership and
strategic change in pluralistic organizations”, A·ademv cf Managemenl lcurna/, Vol. 44
No. 4, pp. 809-37.
Fiol, M.C. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), “Organizational learning”, A·ademv cf Managemenl Ret/eu,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 803-13.
Fleishman, E.A., Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Levin, K.Y., Korotkin, A.L. and Hein, M.B. (1991),
“Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: a synthesis and functional
interpretation”, Leadersh/þ Ouarler/v, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 245-87.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-91.
Geletkanycz, M.A. and Hambrick, D. (1997), “The external ties of top executives: implications for
strategic choice and performance”, Adm/n/slral/te 5·/en·e Ouarler/v, Vol. 42, pp. 654-81.
LODJ
28,1
72
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A. (1967), The D/s·cterv cf (rcunded Thecrv. 5lraleg/es fcr Oua//lal/te
Resear·h, Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, IL.
Greenhalgh, L. (2000), “Ford Motor Company’s CEO Jacque Nasser on transformational change,
e-business, and environmental responsibility”, A·ademv cf Managemenl Exe·ul/te, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 46-51.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing
knowledge?”, Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-18.
Hedlund, G. (1994), “A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation”, 5lraleg/·
Managemenl lcurna/, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 73-90.
Hedlund, G. and Nonaka, I. (1993), “Models of knowledge management in the West and Japan”,
in Lorange, P., Chakravarthy, B.G., Roos, J. and Van de Ven, H. (Eds), lmþ/emenl/ng
5lraleg/· lrc·esses. (hange. Learn/ng. and (ccþeral/cn, Basil Blackwell, London,
pp. 17-144.
Hicks, S. (2000), “Are you ready for knowledge management?”, Tra/n/ng and Dete/cþmenl,
Vol. 54 No. 9, pp. 71-4.
House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997), “The social scientific study of leadership: ¡uc tad/s?”, lcurna/
cf Managemenl, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 409-73.
Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”,
Organ/.al/cn 5·/en·e, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Slater, S.F. (2004), “Information processing, knowledge
development, and strategic supply chain performance”, A·ademv cf Managemenl lcurna/,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 241-53.
Hunt, J.G. and Ropo, A. (1995), “Multi-level leadership: grounded theory and mainstream theory
applied to the case of General Motors”, Leadersh/þ Ouarler/v, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 379-412.
Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998), “Knowledge management processes and international joint
ventures”, Organ/.al/cn 5·/en·e, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 454-68.
Jauch, L.R., Osborn, R.N. and Martin, T.N. (1980), “Structured content analysis of cases:
a complementary method for organizational research”, A·ademv cf Managemenl Ret/eu,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 517-25.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2005), “Leadership group coaching in action: the Zen of creating high
performance teams”, A·ademv cf Managemenl Exe·ul/te, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 61-76.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991), “Leadership: do traits matter?”, A·ademv cf
Managemenl Exe·ul/te, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-60.
Kotter, J.P. (1990), Thal Leaders Rea//v Dc, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Lakshman, C. (2003), “Lee P. Brown as Police Chief and Mayor: the role of knowledge
management in urban leadership”, lrc·eed/ngs cf lhe Xllllh Annua/ E·cncm/· Resear·h
5vmþcs/um, la·/scn 5lale ln/ters/lv. la·/scn. M5.
Lakshman, C. (2004), “Leading through customer-focused and supplier-focused knowledge
management: the case of (Michael) Dell”, lrc·eed/ngs cf lhe lnsl/lule cf 8ehat/cra/ and
Aþþ//ed Managemenl Xll, lrct/den·e. Rl.
Lakshman, C. (2005a), “Top executive knowledge leadership: managing knowledge to lead
change at General Electric”, lcurna/ cf (hange Managemenl, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 429-46.
Lakshman, C. (2005b), “Structured content analysis in leadership research: data sources,
reliability, and validity issues”, lrc·eed/ngs cf lhe De·/s/cn 5·/en·es lnsl/lule ?00o
(cnferen·e, 5an Iran·/s·c. (A.
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
73
Levinson, H. and Rosenthal, S. (1984), (EO. (crþcrale Leadersh/þ /n A·l/cn, Basic Books, New
York, NY.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learning”, in Scott, W.R. (Ed.), Amer/·an Ret/eu
cf 5c·/c/cgv, Vol. 14, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 319-40.
Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1991), Leadersh/þ and lnfcrmal/cn lrc·ess/ng. L/n//ng ler·eþl/cns
and lerfcrman·e, HarperCollins, Boston, MA.
Madhavan, R. and Grover, R. (1998), “From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new
product development as knowledge management”, lcurna/ cf Mar/el/ng, Vol. 62 No. 4,
pp. 1-29.
Magretta, J. (1998), “The power of virtual integration: an interview with Dell Computers’
Michael Dell”, Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 72-84.
Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nalure cf Manager/a/ Tcr/, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Myers, P.S. (Ed.) (1996), Kncu/edge Managemenl and Organ/.al/cna/ Des/gn,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Nichols, N.A. (1994), “Medicine management, and mergers: an interview with Merck’s P. Roy
Vagelos”, Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 104-14.
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge creating company”, Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organ/.al/cn
5·/en·e, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Kncu/edge·real/ng (cmþanv, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), “If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of
internal best practices”, (a//fcrn/a Managemenl Ret/eu, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74.
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000), “Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organization forms”,
Organ/.al/cn 5·/en·e, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 538-50.
Parry, K.W. (1998), “Grounded theory and social process: a new direction for leadership
research”, Leadersh/þ Ouarler/v, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 85-105.
Politis, J.D. (2001), “The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management”,
Leadersh/þ & Organ/.al/cna/ Dete/cþmenl lcurna/, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 354-64.
Prokesch, S.E. (1993), “Mastering chaos at the high-tech frontier: an interview with Silicon
Graphic’s Ed McCracken”, Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 134-44.
Raisinghani, M.S. (2000), “Knowledge management: a cognitive perspective on business and
education”, Amer/·an 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 105-12.
Ramaprasad, A. and Ambrose, P.J. (1999), “The semiotics of knowledge management”,
lrc·eed/ngs. TlT5, (har/clle. N(.
Sabherwal, R. and Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2003), “An empirical study of the effect of knowledge
management processes at individual, group, and organizational levels”, De·/s/cn 5·/en·es,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 225-60.
Saffady, W. (2000), “Knowledge management: an overview”, The lnfcrmal/cn Managemenl
lcurna/, July, pp. 4-8 (excerpted from Kncu/edge Managemenl. A Manager’s 8r/efing,
1998).
Stewart, T.A. (2000), “Knowledge worth $1.25 billion”, Icrlune, Vol. 142 No. 13, pp. 302-3.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), 8as/·s cf Oua//lal/te Resear·h. (rcunded Thecrv lrc·edures
and Te·hn/¡ues, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
LODJ
28,1
74
Teigland, R. and Wasko, M.M. (2003), “Integrating knowledge through information trading:
examining the relationship between boundary spanning communication and individual
performance”, De·/s/cn 5·/en·es, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 261-86.
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organ/.al/cns /n A·l/cn, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Tichy, N. and RamCharan (1989), “Speed, simplicity, self-confidence: an interviewwith Jack Welch”,
Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 112-20.
Viitala, R. (2004), “Towards knowledge leadership”, Leadersh/þ & Organ/.al/cna/ Dete/cþmenl
lcurna/, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 528-44.
Vroom, V.H. and Jago, A.G. (1988), The Neu Leadersh/þ. Manag/ng larl/·/þal/cn /n
Organ/.al/cns, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Waldman, D.A. and Yammarino, F.J. (1999), “CEO charismatic leadership: levels-of-management
and levels-of-analysis effects”, A·ademv cf Managemenl Ret/eu, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 266-85.
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, J.R. (1991), “Organizational memory”, A·ademv cf Managemenl Ret/eu,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-91.
Wetlaufer, S. (1999), “Driving change: an interview with Ford Motor Company’s Jacques Nasser”,
Hartard 8us/ness Ret/eu, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Winter, D.G. and Stewart, A.J. (1977), “Content analysis as a technique for assessing political
leaders”, in Hermann, M.G. and Milburn, T.W. (Eds), A lsv·hc/cg/·a/ Exam/nal/cn cf
lc//l/·a/ Leaders, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Yukl, G. (1998), Leadersh/þ /n Organ/.al/cns, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zack, M.H. (1999), “Managing codified knowledge”, 5/can Managemenl Ret/eu, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 45-58.
Further reading
Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000), “Technology is not enough: improving performance by building
organizational memory”, 5/can Managemenl Ret/eu, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 41-54.
Jurisica, I. (2000), “Systematic knowledge management and knowledge discovery”, 8u//el/n fcr
lhe Amer/·an 5c·/elv fcr lnfcrmal/cn 5·/en·e, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 9-12.
Storck, J. and Hill, P.A. (2000), “Knowledge diffusion through ‘strategic communities’”, 5/can
Managemenl Ret/eu, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 63-74.
Corresponding author
C. Lakshman can be contacted at: lakshmanc@longwood.edu
Organizational
knowledge
leadership
75
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful