Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture A Theoretical Integrative Framewor

Journal of Knowledge Management
Knowledge management and organizational culture: a theoretical integrative framework

Rajnish Kumar Rai
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rajnish Kumar Rai, (2011),"Knowledge management and organizational culture: a theoretical integrative framework", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 15 Iss 5 pp. 779 - 801
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111174320
Downloaded on: 17 January 2015, At: 19:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 93 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6567 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)
Visvalingam Suppiah, Manjit Singh Sandhu, (2011),"Organisational culture's influence on tacit knowledge-sharing behaviour", Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 462-477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137439
Dong Wang, Zhongfeng Su, Dongtao Yang, (2011),"Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 363-373 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137385
Adel Ismail Al-Alawi, Nayla Yousif Al-Marzooqi, Yasmeen Fraidoon Mohammed, (2007),"Organizational culture and knowledge sharing:
critical success factors", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 22-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540740 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Knowledge management and

organizational culture: a theoretical
integrative framework
Rajnish Kumar Rai
Abstract
Purpose Organizational culture is a critical factor in building and reinforcing knowledge management
in organizations. However, there is no theoretical framework that comprehensively explains the effect of
organizational culture on knowledge management in organizations. This paper endeavors to develop a
theoretical integrative framework for organizational knowledge management and organizational culture.
Rajnish Kumar Rai is based

at the Indian Institute of
Management, Ahmedabad,
India.
Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper. It modifies the competing value

framework by adding a new dimension representing ethical and trusting culture, and then integrates it
with the SECI model of knowledge creation and conversion by identifying the conceptual parallels
between the two frameworks and then analyzing the interaction effects among the dimensions.
Findings Based on the congruity between the modified competing values framework and the
knowledge creation and conversion framework, the paper formulates six propositions about the
propensity of organizations of different dominant cultural styles to engage in the four processes of
knowledge creation and conversion.
Research limitations/implications The dynamic nature of the framework presented in the paper
points to the importance of longitudinal and comparative research in understanding the effects of
organizational culture on organizational knowledge management systems in organizations.
Practical implications The proposed integrative framework would facilitate organizational learning
and lead to the improvement of knowledge management practices in organizations as it helps managers
to understand the linkages between culture and knowledge management.
Originality/value This paper presents a new framework linking organizational culture to knowledge
management. It moves away from analyzing culture only in terms of its positive and negative influences
on knowledge management. Instead, it suggests a typology of the kind of knowledge management
processes that organizations are likely to focus on depending on the culture that prevails in an
organization.
Keywords Organizational culture, Knowledge management, Competing values framework,
Knowledge creation and conversion, Ethical and trusting culture,
Paper type Conceptual paper
n the era of globalization, knowledge creation and knowledge management have

become dominant factors for organizations global competitiveness (Bhagat et al.,
2002), effective organizational performance and success (Martin, 2000; Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995; Popadiuk and Choo, 2006), and actualizing human capital (Brown and
Woodland, 1999). The significance of knowledge creation and management was highlighted
by Nonaka (1991) when he noted:
Successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely
throughout the organization and quickly embody it in new technologies and products (p. 162).
Received May 2011

Revised June 2011
Accepted June 2011
DOI 10.1108/13673271111174320
The organizational culture is considered to be a critical factor in building and reinforcing

knowledge creation and knowledge management in organization as it impacts how
members learn, acquire, and share knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Gummer, 1998;
Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Knapp and Yu, 1999; Martin, 2000). Paradoxically, the
organizational culture has also been identified as the main hindrance to successful
VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011, pp. 779-801, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
PAGE 779
knowledge management in organizations (Bock, 1999; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Knapp
and Yu, 1999; Rastogi, 2000; Ribere and Sitar, 2003). But very little is known about how
organizational culture enables or obstructs knowledge creation and its management in
organizations.
It is evident from the extant literature that the primary focus of the earlier studies has been on
developing frameworks/models and typologies to define and outline the characteristics of
organizational culture, for, e.g. the competing values framework (Quinn and Rohrbaugh,
1983a, b) and the organizational culture profile (OReilly et al., 1991). The recent works in
knowledge management also have unambiguously emphasized the close relationship
between knowledge management and organizational culture (Davenport and Prusak, 2000;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), along with an appreciation of social context of learning
(Easterby-Smith et al., 1998), and augmenting individual participation in communities of
practice (Easterby-Smith et al., 1998). Hence, organizations need to foster cultures where
their members are promoted to share knowledge in order to gain competitive advantage, but
unfortunately they have little understanding of how to create and leverage it in practice
(Wenger, 1998). There are, however, a few studies in this area but they focus on limited
aspects of organizational culture and organizational knowledge management. For, e.g. see
Lemken et al. (2000); Noordina and Hassanb (n.d.); Ruppel and Harringtons (2001). Gray
and Densten (2005) attempted to develop an integrative framework but they have also
ignored the important aspect of ethical and trusting culture in their proposed model.
Therefore, further research is needed to understand the relationship between organizational
culture and knowledge creation and its management.
This paper endeavors to extend previous theories by examining the interrelationships
between organizational culture and knowledge creation and knowledge management, and
to develop a theoretical integrative framework for organizational culture and knowledge
management in organizations by identifying conceptual parallels between theories of
organizational culture and knowledge creation and conversion frameworks. The study is
significant as integrative framework of organizational culture and knowledge management in
organizations would facilitate organizational learning, which would in turn lead to the
improvement in knowledge management practices. It should also facilitate creation of
processes to put that knowledge in action.
The rest of the paper is organized into six sections. The first section briefly explains the
framework for knowledge creation and conversion (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka
et al., 2000). The next section briefly describes the competing values framework (Quinn
and Rohrbaugh, 1983a, b). This section also explains the need for conceptual modifications
of the competing values framework, and modifies it by incorporating a new dimension
representing ethical and trusting culture. The third section examines the linkages and
interrelationships between the modified competing values framework and knowledge
creation and conversion framework, and then develops an integrative theoretical
framework to understand the relationship between creation and management of
knowledge in organizations and its culture. The penultimate section briefly discusses the
theoretical and managerial implications of the proposed integrative framework. This section
also discusses the limitations and presents directions for future research. The concluding
section highlights the importance of the proposed integrative framework by suggesting that
the proposed framework could be used by business leaders not only to facilitate
organizational learning and improvement in knowledge management practices but could
also be used to facilitate creation of processes to put that knowledge in action.
Knowledge creation and knowledge management: a theoretical framework

Interestingly, while researchers and practitioners unanimously agree on the significance of
knowledge, especially with regard to the need of organizations to continuously develop new
knowledge to compete in the rapidly changing environment, there is no agreement among
them with respect to the concepts and definitions related to knowledge and knowledge
management (King, 2000; Martin, 2000). According to Davenport and Prusak (2000),
knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert
PAGE 780 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011
insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information (p. 5). Davenport and Prusak (2000) further explained that in organizations,
knowledge often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories, but also in
organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms (p. 5). According to Malhotra
(1997), knowledge that is contained in the minds of organizational members is the greatest
organizational resource. In a 1998 study, Malhotra (1998) defined knowledge management
as a synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information
technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings. Rastogi (2000)
defined knowledge management as a systematic and integrative process of coordinating
organization-wide activities of acquiring, creating, storing, sharing, diffusing, developing,
and deploying knowledge by individuals and groups in pursuit of major organizational
goals (p. 40). However, despite the subtle differences between various definitions, scholars
agree that effective and efficient knowledge management is central to organizational
performance and success (Martin, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). For the purpose of
this study, knowledge is defined as justified true beliefs derived from accumulated
information (Nonaka, 1994), and knowledge creation as the generation of new knowledge
(Argote et al., 2003).
Knowledge, its creation and conversion

Nonakas research (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka
and Toyama, 2003) represents the main theoretical underpinning for understanding how
organizational knowledge is created, shared, converted and transferred in present-day
organizations. Although some scholars disapprove of Nonakas work for emphasizing the
need to convert tacit knowledge (Tsoukas, 2003) and assuming cultural universality (Glisby
and Holden, 2003), his research provides an internationally agreed terminology that is used
to describe a generalized theory of knowledge creation and conversion to which important
divergences can be drawn (Walsh et al., 2009). Therefore, Nonakas framework (Nonaka,
1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003) has
been used in this paper to describe the process of knowledge creation and conversion in
organizations.
Scholars generally categorize knowledge into two types tacit and explicit knowledge
(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003; Nonaka et al.,
2000). Nonakas research (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000;
Nonaka and Toyama, 2003) builds on the difference between explicit and tacit knowledge
(Polanyi, 1966). Tacit knowledge, also known as embedded and sticky knowledge, is
subjective and experience based knowledge, which cannot be expressed in works,
sentences, number or formulas, etc. (Polanyi, 1966). This also includes cognitive skills such
as beliefs, images, intuition, and mental models as well as technical skills such as craft and
know-how (Polanyi, 1966). Tacit knowledge is deeply embedded in an individuals actions
and experience as well as in his/her ideals, values, or emotions (Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Explicit knowledge, also sometimes called leaky knowledge, is objective and rational, which
can be documented and distributed to others, which includes guidelines, procedures, white
papers, reports, strategies and others (Kakabadse et al., 2001; Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Although both types of knowledge have distinguishing features between them, they
complement each other so far as knowledge creation and conversion in organizations is
concerned. Explicit knowledge without the tacit insight quickly loses its meaning (Nonaka
et al., 2000). However, according to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p. 247) tacitness may be
considered as a variable, with a degree of tacitness being a function of extent to which the
knowledge is or can be codified or abstracted. Knowledge may dynamically shift between
tacit and explicit over time (Nonaka et al., 2000), but some knowledge will always remain
tacit (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
Knowledge is created through a process in which various contradictions are synthesized
through dynamic interactions among individuals, the organization, and the environment
(Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). Besides, the process of knowledge
creation is through a spiral that integrates two seemingly opposing concepts such as tacit
VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 781
and explicit, chaos and order, micro (individual) and macro (environment), self and other, mind
and body, part and whole, deduction and induction, creativity and control, top-down and
bottom-up, bureaucracy and task force, and so forth (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2004, p. 9).
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) identified four distinct processes socialization,
externalization, combination and internalization (SECI) by which new knowledge is
created through conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge. Nonaka et al. (2000)
further extended the SECI process and proposed a more detailed framework consisting of
two more elements, which explains how organizations create knowledge dynamically. These
two elements are ba, the shared context for knowledge creation; and knowledge assets
the inputs, outputs, and moderator of the knowledge-creating process (Nonaka et al., 2000).
The SECI process: four modes of knowledge conversion
According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), an organization creates knowledge through

interactions between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge, and the interaction between
the two types of knowledge is known as knowledge conversion. The basic concept
underlying the SECI process is that knowledge is first created within the individuals, which is
then transmitted to the organization. The approach underlying Nonaka and Takeuchis
(1995) model is that knowledge conversion is a social interaction between individuals, and it
is not confined within an individual. Figure 1 provides a conceptual diagram of the four
modes of knowledge conversion.
Socialization is a process where individuals share experiences with each other, which also
includes creation and sharing of mental models, world views, and mutual trust (Nonaka and
Konno, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Firms often acquire and take advantage of the
tacit knowledge embedded in customers or suppliers by interacting with them (Bojnord and
Afrazeh, 2006). Externalization characterizes the conversion of tacitly held knowledge,
Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of the SECI process
Tacit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Externalizaon
Socializaon
G
I
I
I
Tacit
Knowledge
Internalizaon
Environment
Combinaon
Environment
G
I
Org
Org
G
Explicit
Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
Note: I = Individual; G = Group; Org = Organization

Source: Adapted from Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
Explicit
Knowledge
Environment
Explicit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Environment
such as specialized knowledge held by customers or specialists, into an explicit, readily

understandable form (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000). The conversion of
tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge helps it to be crystallized and shared by others,
which becomes basis for creation of new knowledge (Byosiere and Luethge, 2004; Nonaka
et al., 2000). The successful conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge depends
on the sequential use of metaphor, analogy, and model (Nonaka et al., 2000). The above two
modes, which use tacit knowledge as an input, represent exploration processes (Popadiuk
and Choo, 2006).
The other two modes of knowledge creation, which employ explicit knowledge as an input,
represent exploitation processes (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006). Combination is the next
stage where existing explicit knowledge is articulated, shared, and reconfigured into more
complex and systematic sets of explicit knowledge (McIntyre et al., 2003; Nonaka and
Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This process is facilitated by
large-scale databases and computerized communication networks (Nonaka et al., 2000).
Finally, the internalization mode is the process where explicit knowledge is embodied and
internalized through knowledge interpretation and is converted into tacit knowledge
(Byosiere and Luethge, 2004; Nonaka et al., 2000). Instead of progressing in sequential
stages, these four modes represent essential components of an optimal spiral of knowledge
creation, which amplifies knowledge created by individuals and crystallizes it as a part of
the knowledge network of the organization (Nonaka, 1994, p. 20).
Ba: shared context in motion for knowledge creation
Contrary to the cartesian view of knowledge, which emphasizes the absolute and
context-free nature of knowledge, Nonaka (1994) and Nonaka et al. (2000) assert that the
knowledge-creation is basically a rational process, which requires ba[1] or shared
context. Ba is the key in knowledge creation, generation and regeneration as it provides
the energy, quality, and place to perform the individual conversions and to move along the
knowledge spiral (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, p. 41). Ba, however, does not essentially mean
a physical space; it, in fact, means a specific time and space (Nonaka et al., 2000).
The key idea in understanding ba is interaction among those who share the context, and
such interactions consequently results in knowledge creation (Nonaka et al., 2000). There
are two dimensions of interactions: one dimension characterizes whether the interaction
takes place individually or collectively, and the other dimension characterizes whether the
interaction takes place through face-to-face contact or virtual media such as books,
manuals, e-mails, etc. (Nonaka et al., 2000). Ba is classified into four types on the basis of
the dimensions of interactions: originating ba, dialoguing ba, systemizing ba, and exercising
ba (Nonaka et al., 2000). While the relationships between each single ba and conversion
mode are not exclusive, each ba offers a context for a specific step in the
knowledge-creation process.
Originating ba is a place, which primarily offers a context for socialization where individuals
interact face-to-face and share their experiences, feelings, emotions and mental models,
which are important elements in sharing tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka
et al., 2000). Originating ba is the place where care, love, trust, and commitment emerge,
which forms the basis for knowledge conversion among individuals (Nonaka and Konno,
1998). Dialoguing ba is place where collective and face-to-face interactions take place
during which individuals mental models and skills are shared, and converted into common
terms, and expressed as concepts (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Thus, dialoguing ba
primarily offers a context for externalization (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000).
Systemizing ba is a place which mainly offers a context for combination where existing
explicit knowledge can be relatively easily transmitted to a large number of people in formal
form such as through on-line or network modes of communication, groupware,
documentation and databanks, which actually offers a virtual collaborative environment
for creation of systemizing ba (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000). Exercising ba
is a place where individual and virtual interactions take place which facilitate individuals
embodying explicit knowledge that is communicated through virtual media, such as written
manuals or simulation programs (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Thus, exercising ba primarily
offers a context for internalization (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000). The SECI
process of knowledge creation and conversion and characteristics of ba can be mapped
together (Figure 2).
Knowledge assets
According to Nonaka et al. (2000), knowledge assets, which are the inputs, outputs, and
moderating factors of the knowledge-creating process, are extremely critical to the
knowledge-creating processes. For proper understanding of how knowledge assets are
created, acquired, and exploited, Nonaka et al.(2000) categorized knowledge assets into
four types: experiential knowledge assets, conceptual knowledge assets, systemic
knowledge assets, and routine knowledge assets.
Experiential knowledge assets consist of the shared tacit knowledge, which is built through
shared hands-on experience amongst the members of the organization, and between the
members of the organization and other stakeholders (Nonaka et al., 2000). Conceptual
knowledge assets consist of explicit knowledge expressed through images, symbols and
language (Magnier-Watanabe, 2009). Since conceptual knowledge assets are tangible, they
are easier to comprehend as compared to experiential knowledge assets (Nonaka et al.,
2000). Systemic knowledge assets consist of systematized and packaged explicit
knowledge, such as explicitly stated technologies, product specifications, manuals, and
documented information about customers and suppliers (Magnier-Watanabe, 2009). Other
examples of systemic knowledge are legally protected intellectual property rights such as
patents, geographic indications, trademarks, etc. Since these assets are tangible, visible
and easily comprehensible, they can be transferred relatively easily (Nonaka et al., 2000).
Routine knowledge assets consist of tacit knowledge that is routinized and embedded in the
actions and practices of the organization, for, e.g. know-how, organizational culture,
organizational routines for carrying out the day-to-day business of the organization, etc.
(Nonaka et al., 2000). Through continuous exercises, certain patterns of thinking and action
are reinforced and shared amongst organizational members (Nonaka et al., 2000). These
Figure 2 The SECI process of knowledge creation and conversion and types of interaction
of ba
Type of Interacon
Collecve
Socializaon
Externalizaon
(Tacit Tacit)
(Tacit Explicit)
Originang ba
Dialoguing ba
Exercising ba
Systemizing ba
(Explicit Tacit)
(Explicit Explicit)
Internalizaon
Combinaon
Sharing & creang tacit

knowledge through
direct experience
Individual
Source: Adapted from Nonaka et al. (2000)
Collecve
Virtual
Virtual
Media
Face to Face
Arculang tacit
knowledge through
dialogue & reecon
Face to Face
Individual
Creang tacit
knowledge through
sharing experience
Systemizing & applying

explicit knowledge &
informaon
four types of knowledge assets form the basis of the knowledge-creating process, and since
knowledge assets are dynamic, new knowledge assets can be created from existing
knowledge assets (Nonaka et al., 2000). The four categories of knowledge assets
correspond with the four modes of SECI knowledge creation and conversion processes
(Figure 3).
In the past few decades, the concept of organizational culture has gained wide acceptance
as a way to understand human systems. It has been studied from a variety of perspectives
ranging from disciplines such as anthropology and sociology, to the applied disciplines of
organizational behavior, management science and organizational commitment (Naicker,
2008). Schein (1985) defined organizational culture as a set of learned responses where
basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization [. . .] [and]
define in a basic taken-for-granted fashion an organizations view of itself and its
environment (pp. 5-6). Cohen (1993) viewed organizational cultures as complex
combinations of formal and informal systems, processes, and interactions. Formal
organizational culture components include leadership, structure, policies, reward
systems, socialization mechanisms, decision-making processes, etc. Informal
organizational culture components include implicit behavioral norms, values, role models,
organizational myths and rituals, organizational beliefs, historical anecdotes, and language
(Cohen, 1993; Dion, 1996; Frederick, 1995; Schein, 2004; Trevino, 1990; Trevino and Brown,
2004). The contemporary definition of organizational culture includes what is valued, the
dominant leadership style, the language and symbols, the procedures and routines, and the
definitions of success that characterizes an organization (Cameron and Quinn, 1999;
Schein, 1992; as cited in Berrio, 2003). The concept of culture seems to lend itself to very
different uses such as collectively shared forms of ideas and cognition; symbols and
meanings; values and ideologies; rules and norms; emotions and expressiveness; the
collective unconscious; behavior patterns; and structures and practices (Alvesson, 2002).
Figure 3 SECI knowledge conversion process and knowledge assets
Experienal Knowledge
Assets
Conceptual Knowledge
Assets
(tacit knowledge shared)
(explicit knowledge
arculated through images,
symbols)
Roune Knowledge
Assets
Systemic Knowledge
Assets
(tacit knowledge embedded

in pracce)
(systemazed and packaged

explicit knowledge)
Explicit
Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Tacit
Knowledge
Understanding organizational culture
Explicit
Knowledge
Several scholars have developed integrative frameworks of organizational culture (Allaire

and Firsirotu, 1984; Alvesson, 2002; Schein, 1985, 1992; as cited in Zhou-Sivunen, 2005;
Hatch, 1993), but there is hardly any consensus with regard to a general theory of
organizational culture (Alvesson, 1987; Ashforth, 1985; Smircich, 1983; Zhou-Sivunen,
2005). One of the most recent and elegant frameworks of organizational culture is envisaged
by Alvesson (2002), who drew upon the range of relevant literature within organization
studies, synthesized it and identified eight metaphors exchange regulator, compass,
social glue, sacred cow, affect regulator, disorder, blinders, world-closure of
organizational culture. Although the eight metaphors do not represent a comprehensive
list of ways of using the metaphor of culture, they cover many of the most common modes of
thinking culturally (Alvesson, 2002).
The author has, however, used the competing values framework (CVF) in this paper to
develop an integrative framework as it is one of the most significant and extensively used
models for constructing the profile of an organizations culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).
Competing value framework of organizational culture
The competing values framework was initially based on research to identify indicators of
organizational effectiveness[2] (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983a). The basic framework
consists of two dimensions: one dimen-sion differentiates an emphasis on flexibility,
discretion, and dynamism from an emphasis on stability, order, and control; and the other
dimension differentiates an internal orientation with a focus on integration, collaboration, and
unity from an external orientation with a focus on differentiation, competition, and rivalry
(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). While one continuum ranges from versatility and pliability on
one end to steadiness and durability on the other end, the other ranges from cohesion and
consonance on the one end to separation and independence on the other (Cameron, n.d.).
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983b) pointed out that these two sets of competing values are
recognized dilemmas in the organizational literature.
The two dimensions of the competing values framework form four quadrants, each one
representing a distinct set of organizational and individual factors which guide
organizational tasks of environmental management and internal integration (Cameron and
Quinn, 1999). These four models represent opposite or competing assumptions (Cameron
and Quinn, 1999). Each dimension highlights a core value that is opposite from the value on
the other end of the continuum, i.e. flexibility versus stability, internal focus versus external
focus. The dimensions, therefore, produce quadrants that are also contradictory or
competing on the diagonal.
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983b) named the four quadrants as four models: human relations
model (upper left quadrant), open system model (upper right quadrant), rational goal model
(lower right quadrant), and internal process model (lower left quadrant). The four
effectiveness criteria models in the competing values framework are also called four
organizational culture types (Cameron and Quinn, 2006; as cited in Yu and Wu, 2009).
Based on former organizational culture studies in the literature, these four culture types were
termed as clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy, respectively (Cameron and Quinn, 2006;
as cited in Yu and Wu, 2009). The characteristics and implications of each culture type are
summarized as below.
The clan culture (upper left quadrant), referred to as the human relation perspective, is
characterized by values that highlight internal, organic focus and flexibility (Cameron et al.,
n.d.). The emphasis is on information sharing, teamwork, collaboration, talent management,
empowerment, interpersonal relationships, and participative decision-making (Cameron,
n.d.). Members are part of a common social system or clan and are bonded together
through development of a sense of affiliation and belonging (Cameron et al., n.d.; Cameron
and Quinn, 1999). According to Wilkins and Ouchi (1983), the growth of clan culture is
encouraged by conditions such as a relatively long history and stable membership, absence
of institutional alternatives, frequent interactions among members, etc.
The adhocracy culture (upper right quadrant), referred to as the open systems perspective,
is characterized by values that highlight external, organic focus and flexibility (Cameron
et al., n.d.). The emphasis is on innovation, creativity, articulating future vision, adaptation,
transformation change, growth, entrepreneurship, external support, and resource
acquisition (Cameron, n.d.). Members are part of adjusting adhocracies and are bonded
together through being motivated, enthused and challenged (Cameron et al., n.d.; Cameron
and Quinn, 1999). The adhocracy culture is like a temporary institution, which is dissolved or
which ceases to exist whenever the organizational tasks are ended, and reemerges quickly
whenever new tasks arise (Yu and Wu, 2009).
The market culture (lower right quadrant), denoted as the rational goal perspective, is
characterized by values that highlight predictability, external focus, and control (Cameron
et al., n.d.). The emphasis is on competitiveness, fast response, decisiveness, productivity,
goal clarity, driving through barriers, efficiency, and goal achievement (Cameron, n.d.).
Members are part of market type organizations and are united together through goal
orientation and competition (Cameron et al., n.d.; Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Instead of
focusing on the internal management, the emphasis of market culture is on the
businesses/dealings/communications with the environment outside the organization
(Ouchi, 1979, 1984; Yu and Wu, 2009). The organizational goal is to earn profits through
market competition (Ouchi, 1979, 1984).
The hierarchy culture (lower left quadrant), referred to as the internal process perspective or
hierarchy culture, is characterized by values that highlight predictability, control, and internal
focus (Cameron et al., n.d.). The focus is on routine and predictable work processes,
structuring, documentation, assessment and measurement, centralization, controlling
processes, stability, efficiency improvement, and continuity (Cameron, n.d.). In
organizations typified by hierarchical culture, members are united together through
internal controls mechanisms such as rules, guidelines, policies, and procedures (Cameron
et al., n.d.; Cameron and Quinn, 1999). These organizations have clear organizational
structure, standardized rules and procedures, strict control, and well defined responsibilities
(Weber, 1947; as cited in Yu and Wu, 2009).
In the real world, organizations are rarely typified by a single culture type; an effective
organization may need to perform well on all four sets of criteria, and organizations having all
the four quadrants adequately represented are considered to be balanced and perform
well (Yu and Wu, 2009). Leaders in such organizations are able to balance inconsistent and
competing demands, suggesting that high performance requires concurrent mastery of
seemingly contradictory or paradoxical abilities (Yu and Wu, 2009). In contrast, cultures
considered imbalanced tend to underline values linked with rational goals (market) and
internal process (hierarchy) cultures at the expense of values that characterize other
cultures, thereby resulting in comparatively poor organizational performance (Denison and
Spreitzer, 1991). Though organizations have propensity to develop an overriding
organizational culture over time as the organization adapts and responds to the
challenges and changes in the environment (Cameron and Quinn, 1999), at any given
time there are likely to be tradeoffs between the criteria (Yu and Wu, 2009). Quinn and
Cameron (1983) suggested that organizations are often confronted with contradictory
functional requirements that are linked with the formation of mutually antagonistic
arrangement that function to meet these requirements. Furthering this contention, they
also suggested that at certain thresholds, these conflicts might become particularly
overstated; often resulting in major reconfigurations of the coalitional structure (Quinn and
Cameron, 1983). Nevertheless, ignoring the criteria in any of the models would tantamount to
having incomplete view of organizational performance (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983a, b).
Modifying the competing value framework
Although the competing values framework provides a comprehensive model for
organizational culture analysis, of late some researchers are of the view that the two
dimensions envisaged in the competing values framework do not encompass all the
possible dimensions of organizational culture, for example, ethical and trusting culture
dimension (Brown and Woodland, 1999; Curry and Stancich, 2000; Rastogi, 2000). The
origin of the concept of ethics can be traced back to Aristotles (1952) Nicomachean Ethics
according to which collective ideals of engagement such as friendship are possible only
when the fundamental conditions of trust and ethical conduct towards each other are met.
Jones (2003, p. 237) read the implications of Immanuel Kants work for business ethics
the ethical business exceeds expectations and demonstrates that it is worthy of trust.
Wortuba et al. (2001) called for such ethics based trust to be translated into a formal code of
ethics which ensures that members know what is expected of them. For the purpsoe of this
paper, trusting and ethical culture in the context of business is defined as the prevalence of
social relationships in the form of formal codes and informal expectations that people hold
from each other in an organization (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2008).
Thus, management commitment to ethics is an important determinant of corporate social

performance (Muller and Kolk, 2010) indicating that the nature of the organization is
dependent on the cultural commitments prevailing in the organization. When organizations
establish processes that support collective moral agency, then they can gain benefits in the
form of increased effectiveness (Heugens et al., 2008). Managerial decision making draws
more from ethical values embedded in peer dynamics than from the clarity of corporate
policy (Jackson, 2000). This indicates that the nature of ethics that is practiced in the
organization is an important determinant of the ways in which decisions are made and has
implications for effectiveness. Decision making methods are embedded in the knowledge
management systems prevailing in an organization, and issues of trust, collective moral
agency and peer dynamics are thus important constituents of effective knowledge
management systems.
Thus, ethical and trusting culture is an important and critical dimension for sharing created
and converted knowledge and knowledge management in organizations (Brown and
Woodland, 1999; Curry and Stancich, 2000; Rastogi, 2000). Sincerity, honesty and high
degree of mutual trusting culture are basic cultural values for knowledge management in any
organization (McDermott and ODell, 2001). Since sharing of knowledge is an unnatural
act, in an absence of climate of munificence and mutual trust among the members of the
organization, knowledge sharing will be diminished (Brown and Woodland, 1999; Curry and
Stancich, 2000; Rastogi, 2000). Members of an organization, who have the fear of unjust or
disrespectful treatment, or who do not have other means of power and authority, often use
knowledge as a control and defense mechanism to maintain their relevance and importance
in the organization (Brown and Woodland, 1999). Thus, climate of mutual trust, compassion
and concern for others in an organization is essential prerequisite for sharing of knowledge
(Brown and Woodland, 1999; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Rastogi, 2000; VonKrogh, 1998).
Hence, while the competing values framework effectively captures internal versus external
focus or flexibility versus order, none of its four quadrants specifically addresses and
captures the important values of ethics and trust. The author, therefore, asserts that so far as
knowledge creation and conversion through sharing mechanism is concerned, regardless
of the internal/external focus or flexibility/order values, ethical and trusting culture is a
predominant concern for all members of an organization. Therefore, in addition to the
dimensions of the competing values framework, i.e. internal versus external focus or
flexibility versus order, the author uses the dimension of ethics and trust in this paper as this
study would be less comprehensive without the third dimension highlighting the
significance of the culture for ethics and trust for knowledge creation and conversion in
organizations. The conceptual illustration of the modified competing values framework
with the dimension of ethics and trust is illustrated in Figure 4.
Theorizing an integrative framework for knowledge management system

According to (Davenport and Prusak, 2000), environment plays a critical role in creation,
conversion and transfer of knowledge in organisations as it facilitates communication,
examination and experimentation. As discussed earlier, the context or ba in which
knowledge is shared generated/created, and utilized provides the energy, quality and
place to perform the individual conversions and to move along the knowledge spiral
Figure 4 Modified competing values framework with ethical culture dimension
Ethical culture
Flexibility and discreon

Human relaons
Open systems
Adhocracy
Clan
Internal focus
and
integraon
External focus
and
dierenaon
Hierarchy
Market
Internal process
Raonal goals
Stability and control

Sources: Adapted from Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983b), and Ruppel and
Harrington (2001)
(Nonaka et al., 2000, p. 14). The integration of Nonaka et al.s (2000) knowledge creation
and conversion framework with the modified Quinn and Rohrbaughs (1983a, b)
competing values framework gives an opportunity to expound the effect of
organizational culture in the knowledge creation and conversion process.
It is important to appreciate that several conceptual similarities underpin the two
frameworks: both present analytical models, which endeavor to explain organizational
effectiveness. While the competing values framework attempts to explain organizational
effectiveness in terms of the deep structure of organizational culture (Quinn and Rohrbaugh,
1983a, b), the knowledge creation and conversion framework endeavors to explain that
the creation, conversion and transfer of knowledge is fundamental to organizational
effectiveness (Nonaka et al., 2000). In addition, both the frameworks endeavor to capture the
dynamic processes linked with internal operations and the organizational interactions with
the external environment. The comparison between the characteristics of the four quadrants
of the competing values framework and the various components (modes of knowledge
creation, ba, and knowledge assets) of the knowledge creation and conversion framework
represented in Figure 5 clearly shows that both frameworks have conceptual similarities.
Human relations culture and socialization process

The fundamental premise which underlines both frameworks is the significance of human
relations and socialization processes for knowledge sharing. The competitive values
framework lays emphasis on the significance of managerial leadership behaviors, which
develop sense of affiliation, trust and belongingness in a common social system or clan
culture to facilitate information sharing (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Similarly, socialization
processes in the knowledge creation and conversion framework (Nonaka et al., 2000) are
essential for tacit knowledge accumulation. Thus, both frameworks acknowledge that even
in organizations with well-developed knowledge management systems, people need to
collaborate with others to provide answers to problems. Organizations characterized by
human relations culture are viewed as effective if they are changing, adaptable, and organic
for instance, neither the product mix nor the organizational form stays in place very long at
firms such as Microsoft or Nike since agility and volatility typify their performance and are
keys to their success. Such organizations, for, e.g. 3-M, Microsoft, or Amazon.com, in order
to create value in and for themselves, need to create new ideas, self-organize, and
collaboratively learn to cope up successfully with the rapidly changing environment
Figure 5 Mapping the CVF (culture) with knowledge creation and conversion framework
Numbers correspond to the proposions in the text
P6
Internal Process
P4
Conguring
work rounes
Internalizaon
Explicit to
Tacit
Combinaon
Explicit to
Explicit
ETHICAL CULTURE
Raonal Goal
P3
Relaonships &
formal exchanges
Open System
P2
Openings for
intuion & ingenuity
Externalizaon
Tacit to
Explicit
Socializaon
Tacit to
Tacit
ETHICAL CULTURE
Human Relaons
P1
Organizational Culture
Relaonship &
informal exchanges
Ba
Knowledge Process
Creation and Transfer of Knowledge
P5
Conversion
Source: Adapted from Gray and Densten (2005)
because half-life of most of the technology in the twenty-first century is not more than six
months.
The competitive values framework and the knowledge creation and conversion
framework both recognize that informal interactions among individuals facilitate shared
experiences to influence organizational effectiveness and knowledge generation,
conversion and transfer. As such, it is expected that the creation and conversion of
knowledge in organizations characterized by human relation culture will be mostly through
socialization processes:
P1.
Organizations characterized predominantly by clan culture are likely to focus on

knowledge creation and conversion through socialization process.
Open system and externalization process

The open systems perspective in the competing values framework, characterized by
flexibility, innovation, transformation change, growth and creativity, and based on the
improvement of external relationships, is similar to the externalization processes concerning
the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge in the knowledge creation and conversion
framework. Takeuchi and Nonaka (2004) suggested that externalization occurs when
individuals use discursive consciousness and try to rationalize and articulate the world
that surrounds them. The tacit knowledge produced by the externalization processes
should be concretized and shared with others to create new explicit knowledge (Byosiere
and Luethge, 2004). Organizations characterized by open system (adhocracy culture) are
viewed as effective if they focus on innovation, creativity, articulating future vision,
transformation change, or entrepreneurship. Such organizations create value by focusing on
external opportunities such as acquisitions, identifying future trends, pursuing innovative
ideas. For instance, Toyota and Honda are known for thinking globally but acting locally, or,
for having units which adopt the attributes of local environments instead of a centrally
prescribed approach.
In this case also, equivalent concepts are apparent as proposed in the open systems culture
and the externalization processes, which acknowledge the importance of providing
opportunities for innovative manifestation by individuals. Thus, it is expected that the
creation and conversion of knowledge in organizations characterized by open system
relation culture will be mostly through externalization processes:
P2.
Organizations characterized predominantly by open system (developmental

culture) are likely to focus on knowledge creation and conversion through
externalization process.
Rational goals and combination process

The market culture perspective in the competing values framework is based on rational
goals which lay emphasis on competitiveness, fast response, decisiveness, productivity,
goal clarity, efficiency, and accomplishment. The clarity in the direction enables the
individuals in the organization to easily comprehend how their hard work has significant
impact on the organizational effectiveness and performance. In the same way, in the
combination mode of knowledge creation and conversion framework, rationalism is
referred to as an effective method to combine, edit, and break down explicit knowledge to
operationalize corporate knowledge (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). Organizations
characterized by market culture are viewed as effective if they are competitive, fast in
response, and decisive, drive through barriers and strive to achieve their goals. These
organizations focus on maintaining objectivity, gathering and analyzing data, and carefully
monitoring progress as they require predictability and reliability to produce lasting value.
Companies that consistently outperform the market over time are those that have stable
cultures, consistent visions, and dependable processes, including firms such as
Harley-Davidson, Rubbermaid, and Walgreens (Collins and Porras, 1998).
Thus, the market culture in the competing values framework and the combination mode in
the knowledge creation and conversion framework are conceptually consistent as far as
appreciation of the significance of acquiring, operationalizing, synthesizing, and
disseminating knowledge through the conversion of explicit to explicit knowledge is
concerned. Thus, it is expected that the creation and conversion of knowledge in
organizations characterized by rational goals will be mostly through combination processes:
P3.
Organizations characterized predominantly by market culture goals are likely to

focus on knowledge creation and conversion through combination process.
Internal process and internalization process

The hierarchy culture perspective in the competing values framework focuses on the
internal processes of an organization and lays emphasis on assessment and
measurement, documentation, controlling processes, stability, routinization, structuring,
centralization, efficiency improvement, continuity, and control (Cameron, n.d.). The
hierarchy culture perspective lays emphasis on development of work routines and
practices because it facilitates individuals to modify knowledge to solve practical
problems. The focus on the internal processes and the emphasis on routine, rules and
regulations are similar to the internalization mode in the knowledge creation and
conversion framework where knowledge is applied and used in practical situations and
becomes the base for new routines (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003, p. 5). The process
involves the conversion of explicit into implicit knowledge through information
management, assessment and measurement, documentation, controlling processes,
stability, routinization, structuring, centralization, efficiency improvement, continuity, and
control (Nonaka et al., 2000). Organizations characterized by hierarchal culture are viewed
as effective if they are stable, predictable, and mechanistic. For instance most universities,
government agencies, and conglomerates such as the London Stock Exchange and
Boeing are characterized by longevity and steadiness in both design and output so
performance is consistent and even.
Therefore, the internal process perspective in the competing values framework and the
process of internalization in the knowledge creation and conversion framework have
significant theoretical similarities, which acknowledges the significant of knowledge

homogeny. Thus, it is expected that the creation and conversion of knowledge in
organizations characterized by internal process will be mostly through internalization
processes:
P4.
Organizations characterized predominantly by hierarchical culture are likely to

focus on knowledge creation and conversion through internalization process.
In addition, both the frameworks also recognize that for effective organizational
performance, members of the organization are required to balance conflicting and
competing demands. For instance, the competing values framework proposes that high
performance requires concurrent adeptness of seemingly opposing or inconsistent
capabilities (Yu and Wu, 2009). Similarly, the knowledge creation and conversion
framework suggests that knowledge is created in a spiral that integrates seemingly
opposing concepts such as order and chaos, micro and macro, part and whole, mind
and body, tacit and explicit, etc. (Nonaka et al., 2000). The competing values
framework also entails that improvement and development of capabilities to successfully
fulfill the competing roles required in all the four quadrants is a must for an effective
managerial leadership (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991). Similarly, though the knowledge
creation and conversion framework suggests a sub-sequential process of knowledge
conversion, all four modes envisioned in the framework are envisaged to function
concurrently in a spiral of knowledge conversion (Byosiere and Luethge, 2004; Nonaka
et al., 2000).
There are some firms that have pursued a multi-pronged approach to create value and
remain competitive. On the one hand these firms have created value by focusing on external
opportunities such as acquisitions, identifying future trends, pursuing innovative ideas, and
competing for market share and growth. On the other hand, they have also created value
through an emphasis on internal capability, or on systems, culture, cost reduction,
continuous quality improvement, and human development. General Electric is a good
example of such an organization it has remained one of the worlds most successful firms
by constantly engaging, acquiring, and competing with entities outside its traditional market
niches (Tichy and Sherman, 1994). It has also created enormous value by adopting an
internal six sigma quality initiative and a wholesale adoption of the internet as a way of doing
business:
P5.
Organizations which adapt themselves in creation, conversion and transfer of

knowledge simultaneously through all the four modes envisaged in the SECI
framework are likely to have more efficient and effective knowledge management
systems regardless of the predominant culture in the organization.
Ethical culture and knowledge management

In addition to mapping various dimensions of the competing values framework with the
corresponding modes of the knowledge creation and conversion framework, the ethical
and trusting culture has an overarching concern for all members of the organization. Hence,
the ethical and trusting culture dimension is common to all, regardless of the
internal/external focus or flexibility/order values or the modes of the knowledge creation
and conversion process. Unless the environment of mutual trust, compassion and concern
for others persists in an organization, creation, conversion and sharing of knowledge will not
take place in the organization. These assertions are consistent with the findings of the earlier
studies (Orlikowski, 1993; Inkpen, 1996; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). Thus, organizations that
encourage a compassionate and trusting climate are more likely to create, convert, share
and manage knowledge successfully:
P6.
Ethical and trusting culture (e.g. integrity, competence, honesty, commitment, trust,
concern for others, etc.) will facilitate effective and efficient knowledge
management in organizations.
Discussion
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Nonaka et al. (2000) offered a guiding framework in
knowledge management research. Similarly, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983a, b) provided a
framework for organizational effectiveness, which can also be used to understand
organizational culture because of its ability to tap into the aspects of organizational
effectiveness via different values, assumptions, and interpretations that define an
organizations culture. While Quinn and Rohrbaughs (1983a, b) competing value
framework described values often used for decision making, it did not include specific
measures for trust and an ethical work environment, which is critical for knowledge
creation and knowledge management. Hence, the author has modified the competing
values framework by adding the dimension, which represents ethical and trusting
culture. Based on the congruity between the modified competing values framework and
the knowledge creation and conversion framework, the author has formulated six
propositions about the propensity of organizations of different dominant cultural styles to
engage in the four processes of knowledge creation and conversion. The resulting
organizational knowledge management framework is depicted in Figure 6. Exploring and
understanding the relationships between characteristics of organizational culture and
Figure 6 The organizational knowledge management framework

Competing Value
Framework
Culture
Clan Culture
information sharing,
teamwork,
collaboration,
talent management,
empowerment,
interpersonal
relationships, and
participative decisionmaking
Adhocracy Culture
innovation,
creativity,
articulating future
vision,
adaptation,
transformation change,
growth,
entrepreneurship,
external support, and
resource acquisition
Market Culture
competitiveness,
fast response,
decisiveness,
productivity,
goal clarity,
driving through
barriers,
efficiency, and
goal achievement
Hierarchical Culture
routine & predictable
work processes,
structuring,
documentation,
assessment &
measurement,
centralization,
controlling processes,
stability,
efficiency
improvement
Knowledge Creation and Conversion Framework

Mode
Socialization
Individuals share
experiences with each
other, which also
includes
creation and sharing
of mental models,
world views, and
mutual trust
Externalization
Conversion of tacitly
held knowledge, such as
specialized
knowledge held by
customers or
specialists, into an
explicit, readily
understandable form
basis for creation of
new knowledge
Combination
Existing explicit
knowledge is articulated,
shared, and reconfigured
into more complex and
systematic sets of explicit
knowledge
databases,
computerized
networks
documents,
manuals
Internalization
Explicit knowledge is
embodied and
internalized through
knowledge interpretation
and is converted into tacit
knowledge
exists in the form of
shared mental
models or
technical know-how

Ba
Originating
provides context for
socialization
interact face-to-face
share their experiences,
feelings, emotions and
mental models
care, love, trust, and
commitment
Dialoguing
externalization
collective and face-toface interactions
individuals mental
models and skills are
shared, and converted
into common terms, and
expressed as concepts
Systemizing
combining
existing explicit
knowledge is transmitted
through
on-line or network
modes of
communication,
groupware,
documentation, and
databanks
Exercising
offers a context for
internalization
individuals embody
explicit knowledge that
is communicated through
manuals
documents, or
simulation programs
Knowledge assets
Experiential
Tacit knowledge shared
through common
experiences
skills and know-how
of individuals
care, love, trust
security
Energy, passion and
tension
Conceptual
Explicit Knowledge
articulated through
images, symbols and
language
product concepts
design
brand equity
Systemic
Systemized and packaged
explicit knowledge
documents,
specifications,
manuals
database
patents and licenses
Routine
Tacit knowledge
routinized and embedded
in actions and practices
know-how in daily
operations
organizational
routines
organizational
culture
knowledge management in an organization has numerous theoretical as well as

managerial implications.
Theoretical and managerial implications
Existing literature provides indications of how cultural aspects like collectivism have a
positive impact on knowledge management while aspects like power distance have a
negative effect (Wang et al., 2011). Research also indicates that organizational culture
influences tacit knowledge sharing behavior (Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011). The theoretical
contribution of this paper is that it moves away from analyzing culture only in terms of its
positive and negative influences on knowledge management. Instead it suggests a typology
of the kind of knowledge management processes that organizations are likely to focus on
depending on the culture that prevails in an organization. It is also suggested that
organizations will have to focus on all processes of knowledge management if knowledge
management is to be efficient and effective. Further, the impact of an ethical and trusting
culture in knowledge management is also suggested.
The proposed theoretical integrated framework for organizational knowledge management

is likely to improve our understanding of the social processes, which determine
organizational effectiveness. The integration of the two frameworks complement each
other: while Nonka and Takeuchis (1995) and Nonaka et al.s (2000) framework offers a
theoretical framework for knowledge management in an organization and proposes that the
processes take place concurrently within an organization, the modified Quinn and
Rohrbaughs competing values framework with an additional ethical and trusting culture
dimension underlines the significance of managing with intricate and competing demands.
The integration of both models may help members of organizations to understand the
intricacy of knowledge management systems where numerous functions are being
undertaken at the same time.
Building on the knowledge creation and conversion framework and superimposing it on
the modified competing values framework having ethical and trusting value dimension
could improve our comprehension and appreciation of managerial leadership behavior that
enables knowledge management. Denison et al. (1995) suggested that less effective
managers, who focus more on roles linked with rational goals and internal process cultures
and overlook roles linked with human relations, may cause adverse consequences for
knowledge management resulting in poor organizational performance. Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995) also contended that less effective managers would be constrained to use a
narrow range of knowledge creation and transfer modes, and that their lack of focus on roles
related with human relations and open systems may be linked to poor socialization and
externalization of knowledge, which would ultimately result into poor conversion of tacit
knowledge to explicit knowledge. Buttressing this assertion further Boal and Whitehead
(1992) (as cited in Tuttle, 1997) contended that managers who perform only a few roles are
likely to fail, except in an extremely stable and secured environment. Thus, ineffective
managerial leadership and the related restraining knowledge management processes are
the reasons due to which some organizations may find it difficult, and struggle to survive in
unstable and turbulent environments.
Leaders face enormous challenges as the harbingers of change in bringing about
organizational development. This process has been portrayed as endeavoring to move
deep-rooted bureaucracies and control systems in the direction of human relations and task
achievement in order to adjust to the environment (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991). The
suggested integrative framework for organizational knowledge management would help in
identification of suitable managerial leadership roles. The proposed integrative framework
underpins the criticality of the ethical and trusting values prevalent in the organization, and
suggests that organizational leaders should strive to develop an environment of openness,
honesty, mutual trust, compassion and fairness in the organization to facilitate sharing of
knowledge among the members of the organization.
The proposed integrative framework may be used as a foundation for managerial leadership
development, which would help leaders to intentionally and purposefully select behaviors to
enhance creation, conversion, sharing and transfer of knowledge, which underlines the most
critical aspect for successful organizational transformation. Additionally, the proposed
framework could aid in the analysis of insufficient knowledge management processes, for,
e.g. where a culture of knowledge hoarding[3] creates hindrances in knowledge sharing
(Ardichvili et al., 2006; Hurley and Green, 2005). Such a situation is not uncommon in an
extremely competitive organization, which aggressively focuses on a market culture (Hurley
and Green, 2005).
Recent studies on knowledge transfer between units of MNCs, JVs, etc. highlight various
factors, including cross-cultural differences, which create obstructions in smooth knowledge
sharing patterns (e.g. Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). The
proposed integrative framework could aid organizational leaders to recognize that creation
and transfer of knowledge across cultural boundaries creates additional challenges, and
further suggests that any introduction of a knowledge management system in a new country
or region should be made to fit to values and cultural preferences of members of the
organization of the respective country or region. In other words, any introduction of
country-specific knowledge sharing systems based on the cultural requires assessment,
and identification of culture-specific barriers to knowledge exchange.
Thus, the proposed theoretical framework helps managers to understand the linkages
between culture and knowledge management and thus empowers them to consider the
cultural interventions that may be needed to focus on specific knowledge management
processes. It also outlines a need to focus on all knowledge management practices without
being handicapped by prevalent culture in implementing processes. Further, it provides an
opportunity for managers to understand ethical practices in different levels of the
organization and their implications for knowledge management. When employees trust and
ethically care for each other, and the organization facilitates such an ethical climate, then
employees share important information with each other, thus improving the efficacy of
knowledge management practices. Also, this fosters a sense of collective belongingness
and employees collaborate with each other instead of competing with each other to make
the knowledge management practices more effective.
Limitations
The limitations of this paper are that while developing the integrative framework, the author
has not taken into account the shortcomings in Nonaka and Takeuchis (1995) and Nonaka
et al.s (2000) knowledge creation and conversion framework. For instance, according to
Essers and Schreinemakers (1997), although the Nonakas framework recognizes that the
capacity for corporate action depends on ideas and beliefs as well as on scientific
knowledge, its subjectivism tends towards a dangerous relativism as it makes justification a
matter of managerial authority, and neglects to consider how scientific criteria relate to
corporate knowledge. Besides, this framework also fails to recognize that the commitment of
different groups to their ideas and the resulting need to resolve this conflict by managerial
authority cannot augur good for ingenuity and innovation (Essers and Schreinemakers,
1997). Moreover, this framework neither explains how new ideas are produced nor explains
how depth of understanding (necessary for expertise) develops (Bereiter, 2002; as cited in
Gourlay, 2006).
In view of the above limitations, further theoretical conceptualization is required not only to
elucidate the processes by which tacit knowledge becomes explicit but also to provide
explanation for the shortcomings in the knowledge creation and conversion framework.
More importantly, such conceptualization could provide the foundation for the identification
of the conceptual, interpersonal, and technical skills that managers and leaders require for
facilitating knowledge management.
There exists vast amount of contemporary literature on various schools of thought in respect
of organizational culture, which posits different but compelling views to understand
organizational culture (for details see Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984; Alvesson, 2002). In
addition, there is also an emerging school of thought, which highlights the orientation as
another dimension to study organizational culture. But the author has restricted this study to
Quinn and Rohrbaughs (1983a, b) competing values framework with an additional

dimension of ethical and trusting culture to develop the integrative organizational knowledge
management framework since in addition to being simple, the resultant modified
competing value framework is able to capture almost all the important aspects of
knowledge creation, conversion and its management in organizations.
Implications for future research
In order to test the propositions and further develop the theoretical ideas presented in this
paper, the author encourages researchers to engage in first hand-observation of knowledge
creation patterns in various organizations. In particular, qualitative studies that examine
knowledge creation, conversion and transfer processes within organizations of different
cultures offer the potential to gain deeper insight on the phenomenon that have been
presented in this paper. Future studies that draw on archival data, such as company
websites, publications and news reports, to assess knowledge creation processes and
outcomes would offer an opportunity to discern variations among organizations with different
predominant cultures. The dynamic nature of the framework presented in this paper also
points to the importance of longitudinal research design to understand the effects of
organizational culture on organizational knowledge management systems in the
organization. Comparative research in the field of knowledge management is somewhat
limited. Hence, studies comparing pattern of knowledge creation in diverse organizations in
different contexts can further scholarly understanding of how external environments and
cultural difference contribute to the creation, conversion and transfer of knowledge.
Conclusion
The competing values framework originally emerged from empirical research to explain
the intricate and paradoxical nature of organizational effectiveness. Nonaka and Takeuchis
(1995) and Nonaka et al.s (2000) knowledge creation and conversion framework
endeavored to elucidate knowledge creation and conversion in organizations. Integrating
the two frameworks the competing values framework with an additional dimension of
ethical and trusting culture and the knowledge creation and conversion framework can
provide the means to understand how organizational culture impels or improves the
expansion of organizational knowledge.
Despite the limitations discussed above, the proposed integrative framework provides an
elegant conceptual model with an integrated set of techniques and tools to understand the
linkages between organizational culture and knowledge management in an organization.
The author, however, does not claim universal applicability or generalizability of the
proposed integrative framework; it only suggests a possible diagnostic or normative
prescription. The proposed integrative framework may be used to conduct further empirical
studies whose results will provide clearer evidence with regard to the nature of normative
statement implied by the proposed integrative framework. In conclusion, by suggesting the
integration of organizational culture and knowledge management theory, the author expects
to develop organizational interventions facilitating improved knowledge management, to
promote development of theory, and to encourage further empirical research into these very
important facets of organizational behavior.
Notes
1. Ba is defined as a shared context in which knowledge is shared, created, and utilized. Ba is the
concept that was originally proposed by the Japanese philosopher (Nishida, 1921; as cited in
Nonaka et al., 2000) and later further developed by Shimizu (1995); as cited in Nonaka et al. (2000).
However, the concept of place has also been talked about by such philosophers as Plato, Kant,
Husserl and Whitehead also (Nonaka et al., 2000).
2. The competing values framework was developed initially from research conducted by University of
Michigan faculty members on the major indicators of effective organizational performance. It has
been found to be an extremely useful model for organizing and understanding a wide variety of
organizational and individual phenomena, including theories of organizational effectiveness,

leadership competencies, organizational culture, organizational design, stages of life cycle
development, organizational quality, leadership roles, financial strategy, information processing,
and brain functioning. The robustness of the framework is one of its greatest strengths. In fact, the
framework has been identified as one of the 40 most important frameworks in the history of business.
3. Knowledge acquired during the course of ones job belongs to the organization rather than the
individual. However, some individuals perceive this as their personal intellectual property and hence
do not share it with others in the organization. This phenomenon of not sharing information is defined
as knowledge hoarding (see Bansal et al., 2009).
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundation and research issues, MIS Quaterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36.
Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M.E. (1984), Theories of organizational culture, Organization Studies, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 193-226.
Alvesson, M. (1987), Organization, culture and ideology, International Studies of Management and
Organizations, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 4-18.
Alvesson, M. (2002), Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage, London.
Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R. (2003), Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative
framework and emerging themes, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 571-82.
Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T. and Stuedemann, R. (2006), Cultural influences on
knowledge sharing through online communities of practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 94-107.
Aristotle (1952), Nicomachean ethics, in Ross, W.D. (Ed.), The Works of Aristotle, Chicago University
Press, Chicago, IL.
Ashforth, B.E. (1985), Climate formation: issues and extensions, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 837-47.
Bansal, G., Malani, P. and Popli, S. (2009), Knowledge hoarding, Indian School of Business Insight,
Winter, pp. 33-5, available at: www.eiu.com/report_dl.asp?mode fi&fi 927257077.PDF&rf 0
(accessed 12 August 2010).
Berrio, A.A. (2003), An organizational culture assessment using the competing values framework:
a profile of Ohio State university extension, Journal of Extension, Vol. 41 No. 2, available at: www.joe.
org/joe/2003april/a3.php (accessed 14 August 2010).
Bhagat, R.S., Kedia, B.L., Harveston, P.D. and Triandis, H.C. (2002), Cultural variations in the
cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 204-21.
Bock, F. (1999), The intelligent approach to knowledge management: viewing KM in terms of content,
culture, process and infrastructure, Knowledge Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 22-5.
Bojnord, N.H. and Afrazeh, A. (2006), Knowledge management in project phases, pp. 67-72,
proceedings of The 5th WSEAS Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems,
Madrid, Spain, available at: www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2006madrid/papers/512-171.pdf
Brown, R.B. and Woodland, M. (1999), Managing knowledge wisely: a case study in organizational
behavior, Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 175-98.
Byosiere, P. and Luethge, D.J. (2004), Realizing vision through envisioning reality: strategic leadership
in building knowledge spheres, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Leading in Turbulent Times:
Managing in the New World of Work, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 243-58.
Cameron, K.S. (n.d.), An introduction to competing value framework, available at: www.haworth.com/
en-us/Knowledge/Workplace-Library/Documents/An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Competing%
20Values%20Framework.pdf (accessed 29 August 2010).
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagonising and Changing Organizational Culture,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., DeGaff, J. and Thakor, A.J. (n.d.), The competing values framework:
creating value through purpose, practices, and people, available at: http://competingvalues.com/
competingvalues.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Competing-Values-Leadership-Excerpt.pdf
Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2008), Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management,
7th Ed., South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Cohen, D. (1993), Creating and maintaining ethical work climates: Anomie in the workplace and
implications for managing change, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 343-58.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1998), Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Random
House, London.
Curry, A. and Stancich, L. (2000), The internet: an intrisic component of strategic management,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 249-68.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what They
Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.
Denison, D.R. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991), Organizational culture and organizational development:
a competing values approach, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, pp. 1-21.
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R. and Quinn, R.E. (1995), Paradox and performance: toward a theory of
behavioral complexity in managerial leadership, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 524-40.
Dion, M. (1996), Organizational culture as matrix of corporate ethics, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 4, pp. 329-51.
Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R. and Gherardi, S. (1998), Organizational learning: diverging communities
of practice?, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 259-72.
Essers, J. and Schreinemakers, J. (1997), Nonakas subjectivist conception of knowledge in corporate
knowledge management, Knowledge Organization, Vol. 24, pp. 24-32.
Frederick, W.C. (1995), Values, Nature, and Culture in the American Corporation, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Glisby, M. and Holden, N. (2003), Contextual constraints in knowledge management theory: the cultural
embeddedness of Nonakas knowledge-creating company, Knowledge and Process Management,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
Gray, J.H. and Densten, I.L. (2005), Towards an integrative model of organizational culture and
knowledge management, International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 594-603.
Gourlay, S. (2006), Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonakas theory, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1415-36.
Gummer, B. (1998), Social relations in an organizational context: social capital, real work, and structural
holes, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 87-105.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), Knowledge managements social dimension: lesson from
nucor steel, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Hatch, M.J. (1993), The dynamics of organizational culture, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 657-93.
Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., Kaptein, M. and Oosterhaut, J.H.V. (2008), Contracts for communities:
a processual model of organizational virtue, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 100-21.
Hurley, T.A. and Green, C.W. (2005), Knowledge management and the nonprofit industry: a within and
between approach, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, available at: www.tlainc.com/
articl79.htm (accessed 14 August 2010).
Inkpen, A.C. (1996), Creating knowledge through collaboration, California Management Review,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-40.
Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998), Knowledge management processes and international joint
ventures, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 454-68.
Jackson, T. (2000), Management ethics and corporate policy: a cross-cultural comparison, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 349-69.
Jones, C. (2003), As if business ethics were possible, within such limits. . ., Organization, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 223-48.
Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A. and Kakabadse, A. (2001), From tacit knowledge to knowledge
management: leveraging invisible assets, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 137-54.
King, W.R. (2000), Playing an integral role in knowledge management, Infromation Systems
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 59-61.
Knapp, E. and Yu, D. (1999), Understanding organizational culture: how culture helps or hinders the
flow of knowledge, Knowledgement Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 16-21.
Lemken, B., Kahler, H. and Rittenbruch, M. (2000), Sustained knowledge management by

organizational culture, proceedings of the HawaiI International Conference On System Sciences,
January 4-7, 2000, Maui, Hawaii, IEEE, available at: www.iai.uni-bonn.de/,prosec/virto/HICSS2000.pdf
McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
McIntyre, S.G., Gauvin, M. and Waruszynski, B. (2003), Knowledge management in the military
context, Canadian Military Journal, Spring, pp. 35-40.
Magnier-Watanabe, R. (2009), Congruent knowledge management behaviors as discriminate sources
of competitive advantage, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 109-24.
Malhotra, Y. (1997), Knowledge management in inquiring organizations, proceedings of 3rd Americas
Conference on Information Systems, available at: http://km.brint.com/km.htm (accessed 28 August
2010).
Malhotra, Y. (1998), Knowledge management, knowledge organizations and knowledge workers:
a view from the front lines, available at: http://km.brint.com/km.htm (accessed 28 August 2010).
Martin, B. (2000), Knowledge management with in the context of management: an evolving
relationship, Singapore Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 17-37.
Muller, A. and Kolk, A. (2010), Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance: evidence
from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.
Naicker, N. (2008), Organizational culture and employee commitment: a case study, available at:
http://ir.dut.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10321/475/Naicker_2008.pdf?sequence 1 (accessed 29 August
2010).
Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), The concept of ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation,
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2003), The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a
synthesizing process, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 2-10.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000), SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Noordina, A. and Hassanb, S. (n.d.), Knowledge management model for UUMs golf club, available at:
www.eg2 km.org/articles/Adapting%20Nonakas%20SECI%20Model%20in%20developing%20KMS%
20for%20UUMs%20Golf%20Club.pdf (accessed 14 August 2010).
OReilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwel, D.F. (1991), People and organization culture: a profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 487-516.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1993), Learning from notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation,
The Information Society, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 237-51.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979), A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms,
Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 833-48.
Ouchi, W.G. (1984), The M-Form cociety: lessons from business management, Human Resource
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kenan Paul, London.
Popadiuk, S. and Choo, C.W. (2006), Innovation and knowledge creation: how are these concepts
related?, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 302-12.
Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (1983), Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness:
some preliminary evidence, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983a), A competing value framework approach to organizational
effectiveness, Public Productivity Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-40.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983b), A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing
values approach to organizational analysis, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 363-77.
Rastogi, P.N. (2000), Knowledge management and intellectual capital: the new virtuous reality of
competitiveness, Human Systems Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 19-49.
Ribere, V.M. and Sitar, A.S. (2003), Critical role of leadership in nurturing a knowledge supporting
culture, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 39-48.
Ruppel, C.P. and Harrington, S.J. (2001), Sharing knowledge through intranets: a study of
organizational culture and intranet implementation, IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 33-52.
Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Smircich, L. (1983), Concepts of culture and organizational analysis, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-58.
Suppiah, V. and Sandhu, M.S. (2011), Organisational cultures influence on tacit knowledge sharing
behaviour, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 462-77.
Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. (2004), Hitotsubashi on knowledge management: knowledge creation and
dialectics, available at: http://140.78.61.8/born/mpwfst/05/0507hitotsubashi.pdf (accessed 14 August
2010).
Trevino, L. (1990), A cultural perspective on changing organizational ethics, in Woodman, R. and
Passmore, W. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 195-230.
Trevino, L. and Brown, M. (2004), Managing to be ethical: debunking five business ethics myths,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, pp. 69-83.
Tichy, N.M. and Sherman, S. (1994), Control Your Own Destiny or Someone Else Will, Harper Business,
New York, NY.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-76.
Tsoukas, H. (2003), Do we really understand tacit knowledge?, available at: http://webcache.
googleusercontent.com/search?q cache:UBNHatJPFLwJ:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi%3D10.1.1.18.8864%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf Do we really understandtacit
knowledge?&hl en&gl in (accessed 14 August 2010).
Tuttle, D.B. (1997), A classification system for understanding individual differences in temporal
orientation among processual researchers and organizational informants, Scandinavian Journal of
VonKrogh, G. (1998), Care in knowledge creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 134-53.
Walsh, I.J., Bhatt, M. and Bartunek, M.J. (2009), Organizational knowledge creation in the Chinese
context, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 261-78.
Wang, D., Su, Z. and Yang, D. (2011), Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 363-73.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice learning as a social system, available at; www.co-i-l.com/
coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml (accessed 24 July 2010).
Wilkins, A.L. and Ouchi, W.G. (1983), Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and
organizational performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 468-81.
Wortuba, T., Chonko, L. and Loe, T. (2001), The impact of ethics code familiarity on manager
behaviour, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 33, pp. 59-69.
Yu, T. and Wu, N. (2009), A review of study on the competing values framework, Internatiional Journal
of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 37-42.
Zhou-Sivunen, P. (2005), Organizational culture impact in ERP implementation in China, available at:
www.pafis.shh.fi/graduates/peizho03.pdf (accessed 29 August 2010).
About the author

Rajnish Kumar Rai is a senior police officer of the Indian Police Service, an elite constituent of
the Indian Civil Services. The author has a Bachelors degree in Technology in Electronics
and Telecommunication, a Post Graduate Diploma in Personnel Management and Industrial
Relations, a Post Graduate Diploma in Patents Law from National Academy of Legal Studies
and Research (NALSAR), University of Law, Hyderabad, India, and a Post Graduate degree
in Public Policy and Management from the Indian Institute of Management (IIMB),
Bangalore, India. The author is presently pursuing a doctoral program in Business Policy
Area at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Rajnish Kumar Rai can be contacted
at: rajnishrai@gmail.com
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:

1. Changiz Valmohammadi, Mohsen Ahmadi. 2015. The impact of knowledge management practices on organizational
performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 28:1, 131-159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Ajay K. Jain, Ana Moreno. 2015. Organizational learning, knowledge management practices and firms performance. The
Learning Organization 22:1, 14-39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Sunita Rega Kathiravelu, Nur Naha Abu Mansor, T.Ramayah, Norhalimah Idris. 2014. Why Organisational Culture Drives
Knowledge Sharing?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 129, 119-126. [CrossRef]
4. Kreeson Naicker, Krishna K. Govender, Karunagaran Naidoo. 2014. Knowledge creation and transfer among postgraduate
students. SA Journal of Information Management 16. . [CrossRef]
5. Peyman Akhavan, Majid Ramezan, Jafar Yazdi Moghaddam, Gholamhossein Mehralian. 2014. Exploring the relationship
between ethics, knowledge creation and organizational performance. VINE 44:1, 42-58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Taegoo Terry Kim, Gyehee Lee, Soyon Paek, Seunggil Lee. 2013. Social capital, knowledge sharing and organizational
performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:5, 683-704. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Peyman Akhavan, Majid Ramezan, Jafar Yazdi Moghaddam. 2013. Examining the role of ethics in knowledge management
process. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China 5:2, 129-145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Tim Jacks, Steve Wallace, Hamid Nemati. 2012. Impact of Culture on Knowledge Management: A Meta-Analysis and
Framework. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 15, 8-42. [CrossRef]
9. Paul M. Williams. 2012. Integration of health and social care: a case of learning and knowledge management. Health & Social
Care in the Community 20:5, 550-560. [CrossRef]
10. Knowledge Management 169-199. [CrossRef]

Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture A Theoretical Integrative Framewor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture A Theoretical Integrative Framewor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Knowledge Management

Knowledge management and organizational culture: a theoretical integrative framework

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Knowledge management and

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

Rajnish Kumar Rai is based

Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper. It modifies the competing value

n the era of globalization, knowledge creation and knowledge management have

Received May 2011

The organizational culture is considered to be a critical factor in building and reinforcing

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

Knowledge creation and knowledge management: a theoretical framework

PAGE 780 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

Knowledge, its creation and conversion

VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 781

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), an organization creates knowledge through

Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of the SECI process

Note: I = Individual; G = Group; Org = Organization

PAGE 782 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011

such as specialized knowledge held by customers or specialists, into an explicit, readily

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 783

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

Sharing & creang tacit

Source: Adapted from Nonaka et al. (2000)

PAGE 784 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011

Systemizing & applying

(tacit knowledge shared)

(tacit knowledge embedded

(systemazed and packaged

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

Understanding organizational culture

VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 785

Several scholars have developed integrative frameworks of organizational culture (Allaire

Competing value framework of organizational culture

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

PAGE 786 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 787

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

Thus, management commitment to ethics is an important determinant of corporate social

Theorizing an integrative framework for knowledge management system

PAGE 788 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011

Figure 4 Modified competing values framework with ethical culture dimension

Flexibility and discreon

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

Stability and control

Human relations culture and socialization process

VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 789

Creation and Transfer of Knowledge

Source: Adapted from Gray and Densten (2005)

Organizations characterized predominantly by clan culture are likely to focus on

Open system and externalization process

PAGE 790 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 5 2011

Organizations characterized predominantly by open system (developmental

Downloaded by SEGi International Bhd At 19:01 17 January 2015 (PT)

Rational goals and combination process

Organizations characterized predominantly by market culture goals are likely to

Internal process and internalization process