Role of leadership in knowledge
management: a study
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Sanjay Kumar Singh is
based at the Institute of
Management Technology,
Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad,
India.
DOI 10.1108/13673270810884219
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship as well as the impact of leadership
styles on knowledge management practices in a software firm in India.
Design/methodology/approach – The research involved collection of quantitative data on leadership
styles and knowledge management practices by using two psychometric instruments, namely
organizational leadership questionnaire and knowledge management assessment tool. The survey
consisted of 331 knowledge workers working for a software firm in India who had a minimum of one year
of working experience in the organization. The data which were collected underwent statistical treatment
to obtain the results for the stated objectives of the study.
Findings – The research findings indicate directive as well as supportive styles of leadership to be
significantly and negatively associated with the art of knowledge management practices. It also depicts
that consulting and delegating styles of leadership are positively and significantly related with managing
knowledge in a software organization. Finally, only the delegating mode of leadership behaviors was
found to be significantl in predicting creation as well as management of knowledge for competitive
advantage in software firms in India.
Research limitations/implications – There are a few limitations which may affect the scope of the
study. First, the study was conducted in only one software firm situated in the national capital territory of
India. Hence, blanket generalization of the findings of the study to each and every software firm in India
should be done with caution. Second, it was leadership styles alone more than any other variable which
was taken to study its impact on knowledge management processes and practices. Therefore, it is
suggested that future research, if any, in the area of knowledge management should take note of these
two important limitations for the benefits of the industry as a whole.
Practical implications – The research investigation offers several recommendations/suggestions for
helping knowledge workers as well as top management to design and implement knowledge
management architecture for organizational excellence.
Originality/value – The paper offers unique empirical directions to manage knowledge in a software
company in India. As there is a dearth of empirical research in the area of knowledge management in
India, the empirical evidence obtained in this paper will be of use to organizations wanting to become
knowledge management companies.
Keywords Leadership, Knowledge management, India
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the present day liberalized world economy that India is an integral part of, the competitor
of an organization is not local but global in character. In other words, if any significant
change takes place in the socio-politico-economic arenas of the western world, its impact is
likely to be felt in terms of organizational health of the firms in the eastern part of the world.
Therefore, it is unlikely for an organization to perfectly anticipate the rate as well as kind of
changes taking place in its external environment which extends up to A million miles. But
every organization has a firm aspiration to grow and that by strategically giving tough
competition to its competitors, whether local, national, or may be global. Such a goal of an
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008, pp. 3-15, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 3
 ‘‘ The productivity of an organization depends to a larger extent
upon management of valid knowledge through suitable styles
of management. ’’

organization can be realized if it maximizes upon creating and managing knowledge

through tested organizational mechanisms. There may be quite a good number of
organizational mechanisms used to this objective but the most important among them are
the leadership practices of the firm. Hence, it has been a common understanding among
behavioral thinkers that if the firm has the best of best leadership practices in operation,
other organizationally-desired mechanisms will automatically fall in line. Therefore, the
productivity of an organization depends to a larger extent upon management of valid
knowledge through suitable styles of leadership.
The role of leadership in managing knowledge in organization has been lucidly highlighted by
Cleveland (1985) in his book, The Knowledge Executive. He has stressed the need for use of
teams, communities of people, and other such networks as the role of leaders in managing
information and knowledge. This role of leader in managing information and knowledge is
accomplished through the two broad routes evidently, through technology and through social
networks. Wetlaufer (1999) in a study observed importance of internal customers and role of
leaders in managing information to and from these internal customers. One thing is very clear,
that the long tradition of leadership theory and research has not addressed adequately the
role of leaders in managing information and knowledge, despite their importance to the
organizations (Davenport et al., 1998; Hansen et al., 1999). Therefore, the study of the author
is a scientific attempt to quantitatively study the role of leadership, especially leadership
styles, in knowledge management. The author hopes that the findings of the study will be of
significant value in filling in the gaps that exist in the literatures to date.

Knowledge and knowledge management

Webster (1961) defines knowledge as a clear and certain perception of something – the act,
the fact, or the state of understanding. Knowledge involves both knowing how, which is
generally more tacit knowledge, and knowing about, which is more explicit knowledge
(Grant, 1996). To put it in other words, knowledge is basically an understanding of
information and their associated patterns (Bierly et al., 2000). Therefore, the author believes
that knowledge and information are different entities and these two constructs should not be
equated in both letter as well as spirit. Equating information and knowledge oversimplifies
and even confounds the already contentious division among biologists, cognitive
psychologists, sociologists, and organizational researchers regarding data, information
and knowledge (Miller, 1978). But at the same time, information should be considered as
building blocks of knowledge which in turn is used for creation of wisdom in the
organizational lives.
Knowledge as a construct seems to be an invisible entity and at the same time it drives the
bottom line of an organization (Pascarella, 1997). The value of knowledge is increased when
it has a key purpose and focuses on mission, core values and strategic priorities. Knowledge
assets, like money or equipment, exist and are worth cultivating only in the context of the
strategy used to apply them (Stewart, 1997). Knowledge management is a formal, directed
process of determining what information a company has that could benefit others and then
devising ways to making it easily available to all concerned (Liss, 1999). Therefore, the steps
in this process include how knowledge is captured, evaluated, cleansed, stored, provided,
and used (Chait, 1998). It is also to be asserted that unfortunately very few organizations
handle explicit and tacit knowledge effectively; exceptions are learning organizations which
are skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge and at modifying their behavior
to reflect new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1993).

j j
PAGE 4 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008
Knowledge management is a process that facilitates knowledge sharing and establishes
learning as continuous process within an organization. Therefore, knowledge management and
learning go hand in hand in organizations (Lopez et al., 2004). Davenport et al. (1998) defines
knowledge management as a process of collection, distribution, and efficient use of the
knowledge resource throughout an organization. O’Dell and Grayson (1998) believe knowledge
management is a strategy to be developed in a firm to ensure that knowledge reaches the right
people at the right time, and that these people should share and use information to improve
upon the organization’s functioning. In the same way, Bounfour (2003) defines knowledge
management as a set of procedures, infrastructures, technical and managerial tools, designed
toward creating, sharing and leveraging information and knowledge within and around
organizations. It is in this context that the author believes that the management of knowledge is
nothing but budgeting learning at an organizational level which could be used by an
organization and its members for self-renewal. In other words, for knowledge creation and
management to take place, organizational learning has to come first.

Explicit v. tacit knowledge

It is a fact that the knowledge in itself is a very complex entity (Clark and Rollo, 2001). Of
central importance is the kind of knowledge that organizations are forced to manage. If all
knowledge were codified and made formal, or explicit, then the function of knowledge
management would be little more than compliance and management (Crawford, 2005).
Therefore, knowledge can be broadly categorized into two parts – explicit as well as tacit
knowledge – and both of them work interdependently and in turn lead the organization to the
path of success. Explicit knowledge has been found to be increasingly being used as well as
emphasized in both practice and literature, as a management tool to be exploited for the
manipulation of organizational knowledge. Scarborough et al. (1999) note that groupware,
intranets, list servers, knowledge repositories, database management and knowledge
action networks are in use which allow sharing of organizational knowledge. Similarly, Pan
and Scarborough (1999) believe that explicit part of knowledge is systematic and easy to
communicate in the form of hard data or codified procedures. In other words, explicit form of
knowledge can be transmitted across individuals formally and easily.
On the other hand, tacit form of knowledge is subconsciously understood or applied, difficult
to articulate, developed through direct action and experience, and shared through
conversation, story-telling, etc. Blumentitt and Johnston (1999) contend that information can
be captured and stored in digital form whereas tacit knowledge repositories reside only in
intelligent systems, which are within individuals. Tacit knowledge needs to be considered as
‘‘knowledge-in-action’’ which presumes that this is a kind of knowledge that has not been
articulated as opposed to explicit knowledge which is readily accessible within the
organizational domain (Platts and Yeung, 2000). It is also said that tacit knowledge is the
antithesis of explicit knowledge, in that it is not easily codified and transferred by more
conventional mechanisms such as documents, blueprints, and procedures (Kreiner, 2002).
It is also to be noted that tacit knowledge is derived from personal experience; it is subjective
as well as difficult to formalize (Nonaka et al., 2000).
Researches on tacit knowledge have been motivated by the belief that much of what makes
people successful in their tasks is implicit knowledge, and implicit knowledge is difficult to
define scientifically but the study of it has connections with the field of anthropology. The
reality is that much of the information that an organization tries to manage is held within the
personal and collective experiences of the workforces; and this nothing but a tacit form of
knowledge. Tacit knowledge is unarticulated knowledge which resides in a person’s head
and is often difficult to describe and transfer. It includes lessons learned, know-how,
judgment, rules of thumb, and intuition, which are the key characteristics of a learning
organization (Bollinger and Smith, 2001). Further, knowledge is both produced and held
collectively rather than individually in tightly knit groups or ‘‘communities of practices’’ . . .
organizational knowledge is social in character (Lang, 2001). Tacit knowledge is an
important form of resource for organizations given that 42 percent of corporate knowledge is
held within employees’ minds (Clark and Rollo, 2001). There are successful companies
across the globe where the tacit part of knowledge is leveraged for competitive advantages.

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 5
 At Xerox Corporation, knowledge management is 90 percent social process and 10 percent
infrastructural, for instance; whereas Mckinsey & Company and Bain & Company use
personalization to manage tacit knowledge (Smith, 2001). Similarly, it is also believed that 90
percent of the knowledge in any organization is embedded in and synthesized in people’s
heads only (Wah, 1999; Bonner, 2000; Lee, 2000).
To sum up the discussion on explicit v. tacit knowledge and their management at the
workplace, it may be contended that both of them are important in their own ways and also
interdependent. If an organization is to excel then the top management has to give equal
importance to the management of explicit as well as tacit forms of knowledge being created
by its workforces while working on different tasks or assignments. In other words, it is
through the combination of both explicit and tacit approaches to knowledge management
that an organization can effectively compete against all others.

Generic attributes of knowledge leaders

The general beliefs of the 1980s and 1990s that organizations need only one knowledge leader
to make the process work successfully is erroneous in the context of present day global world
order. On the contrary, the thinking is such that the knowledge leadership should be evident
throughout the organization and it should operate at all hierarchical levels. To quote Hubbard
et al. (2002), effective organizations rely on leadership rather than leaders. The role of
knowledge leader is to provide strategic visions, motivate others, effectively communicate, act
as a change agent, coach others around, model good practices, and carry out the knowledge
agenda (Debowski, 2006). Moreover, it is also understood that knowledge leaders should
religiously explain the goals of knowledge management to all concerned so that people can
identify their roles in achieving those goals. They need to provide guidance on any change
taking place in the processes and also priorities needed to reach those goals (Debowski, 2006).
The knowledge leader’s strategic leadership behaviors operate from an understanding of
the core business issues and how they relate to the values of that organization (Maurik,
1999). Therefore, the visionary leadership needs to operate at two levels: tactical and
futuristic (Kouzes and Posner, 2002). The enthusiasm, drive, and energy of the knowledge
leaders play a major role in building commitment from others around. Goleman et al. (2002)
also notes that visionary leadership has a strong positive effect on organizational climates,
and is particularly important whenever a clear direction is needed. Hence, the nature of the
knowledge management practices requires continual support on the part of the leaders to
ensure that the value and outcomes of knowledge management are held firmly in
contributors’ minds. Hubbard et al. (2002) believe that knowledge leadership, apart from
possessing the ability to establish predictable and stable processes, needs to encourage
innovation and creativity. Therefore, the knowledge leaders must have a sound
understanding of people, processes, systems and business principles which shape
business decisions in the organization (Debowski, 2006).
Knowledge leadership is based on relationship building, with a need to constantly network,
listen and act on messages received from others around (Kouzes and Posner, 2002).
Moreover, the knowledge leaders encourage organization members to contribute through
ongoing contact with those members, relationship building, recognition of individual
contributions, and providing avenues of opportunities for growth and development (Ritchie

‘‘ To master the art of knowledge management practices in a

software organization, its people should be provided with a
kind of leadership style whereby every individual employee is
given sufficient power, authority as well as responsibility to
manage his/her own life at the workplace. ’’

j j
PAGE 6 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008
and Martin, 1999). Similarly, Kotter (1998) believes that leaders motivate people by ensuring
that the audience can relate to the corporate visions and also by involving them in the
developmental processes. It is also believed that knowledge leaders should encourage
others to take leadership roles, so that important messages are transmitted from multiple
sources (Debowski, 2006). Finally, knowledge leadership, like other forms of leadership,
relies on communication (Kotter, 1998) and they fulfill the important roles of both collaborator
and catalyst for those working with new concepts and strategies (Kouzes and Posner, 2002).

Role of leadership in knowledge management

It is true in every organization that leaders set the examples for others, therefore it is
assumed that leaders have direct impact on how the companies should approach and deal
with knowledge management processes as well as practices. Moreover, if knowledge
management does not permeate to all levels in the organization, beginning at the top, it is
unlikely that knowledge management programs will ever catch on or be effective (DeTienne
et al., 2004). In the same way, Kluge et al. (2001) point out that while leaders across all the
levels of organization have unique and important role to play in managing knowledge, it is
particularly important for the CEO to be involved in knowledge-sharing processes. Further,
they state that if the boss takes knowledge seriously, the rest of the company will follow
automatically. Stewart (1997) also asserts that even companies with promising cultures and
highly effective incentive programs will not succeed without having dedicated and
responsible managers. To quote Beckman (1999), the sole responsibility of top echelons of
the company in knowledge management process is to motivate all its employees, provide
them with equal opportunities and developmental avenues, and scientifically measure and
reward those performances, behaviors and attitudes that are required for effective
knowledge management. Therefore, the author notes that the management thinkers in the
area of knowledge management should give importance to leaders and especially to their
leadership styles in making things happen for knowledge management processes and
practices to flourish. It seems as if that leadership is a cardinal thread that runs through
whole gamut of the knowledge management initiatives in an organization.
It is also to be noted that there are quite a few scholars for whom the introduction of a knowledge
management program is a type of organizational change; therefore, the level of support by the
top management will determine its success or failure (Liebowitz, 1999). In this context, it is
essential to quote Von Krogh (1998), who believes that the commitment of high level executives
will determine the amount of resources allocated, and the amount of time that is allowed for
members to conduct the creation and sharing of knowledge for the knowledge management
programs. Greengard (1998) believes that senior managers need to understand the value of
knowledge management and be willing to support and play aggressive role in decision making.
Other management thinkers such as Davenport et al. (1998) and Storey and Barnett (2000)
conclude on the basis of their research findings that the support of the upper level management
should be ongoing and be delivered in a practical manner. Such observations about leadership
at the top in making knowledge management programs in the organization a success is true,
but the role of leaders in middle management positions are also equally important.
The role of middle level management for knowledge management initiatives in the
organization caught the attention of Takeuchi (2001) who believes that the middle managers
religiously mediate in-between ‘‘what ought to be’’ the mindset of the top and ‘‘what is’’ the
mindset of the front-line employees. In other words, there is a requirement for well-trained
middle managers who have got a critical role to play in bridging the gaps that may exist
between top managers and front-line workers. Moreover, it has generally been found that
there are times when employees get into conflicts of interest with knowledge management
practices; therefore, the role of a leader in organization is to help employees resolve those
conflicts when they occur (Brelade and Harman, 2000). Similarly, Eppler and Sukowski
(2000) emphasize the need for knowledge managers to achieve and maintain equilibrium
between motivating team members with urgency and providing them with time and space to
reflect. These viewpoints on leadership and its role in knowledge management programs in
organization provide a clear hint of the overarching influence of the leadership in knowledge
management practices of organization. In other words, these observations and research

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 7
 ‘‘ Delegating more than any other mode of leadership behaviors
is more suited for creation, storage, organization, application
and use of both tacit and explicit knowledge in a software
company. ’’

findings suggest that the pious goal of any organization to become a knowledge creating
and managing company depends a great deal on the kind of leader and leadership styles
that the organization has had.
On the basis of the findings of the researches conducted in the area of knowledge
management practices of organizations in different parts of the globe other than in India and
reviewed in this study, the author formulates the following hypotheses:
H1. The gender will significantly differ in their leadership styles and also in the art of
practicing knowledge management at workplace.
H2. The leadership styles of the people will be significantly related with organization’s
knowledge management practices.
H3. The leadership styles of people will significantly predict the art of knowledge
management practices in the organization.

In a nut shell, it may be stated that there is a general consensus among both practitioners as
well as academicians that the leadership plays important role in the creation as well as
management of knowledge in the organization. In other words, the organizational goal of
creating and managing knowledge for competitive advantage is hugely facilitated by the
kind of leadership practices that it has in place. But such a sweeping statement has to be
made with caution for organizations in India, as the author could not come across any
scientific study conducted so far in organizations in India or in the Indian subcontinent. In
other words, there is a real dearth of scientific enquiry on knowledge management practices
in organizations in India. Therefore, it is against this background that the present study has
been designed to investigate the relationships of leadership styles with knowledge
management practices and also to know the impact of leadership styles on knowledge
management practices in the Indian software organization.

Method

Sample and research design

This is a quantitative research investigation to find out the relationships as well as impact of
leadership styles on knowledge management practices in a software organization. In other
words, this study was designed to statistically investigate the role of organizational
leadership towards the management of knowledge in the firm is concerned. The
organization under study is a leading Indian software firm which caters to the needs of
clientele in India as well as abroad.
To start with, the author first obtained permission from the concerned authority of the
organization to conduct the study and then the employees of the organization were
approached individually with a request to participate in the research investigation.
Therefore, only those employees who volunteered to cooperate and participate in the study
were chosen as sample of the study. The present study had a sample size of 331 which
included 182 male and 149 female employees. In other words, the sample of the study
consisted of 57 percent male and 52 percent of the female software professionals. Further,
there was a conscious effort to select only those employees who had a minimum of one year
of work experience in the present organization. The reason being that one year of work
experience is sufficient for the employees/the sample under study to register their true

j j
PAGE 8 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008
 opinion/perception of the items/statements in the questionnaire which was administered to
them. In terms of the biographical information, the average age of the sample was 34.64
years and approximately 50 percent of them had post-graduation level of education. Further,
these respondents had approximately 6.38 years of work experience in the profession, and
to date they had two to three promotions in their professional lives.

Psychometric measures used

The following two psychometric instruments measures were used for data collection:
1. Organizational Leadership Questionnaire (OLQ). The OLQ was developed by Pareek
(2003) and it has 12 situations/statements to which the respondent is asked to respond.
This scale is based on Hersey and Blanchard’s (1982) conceptualization of leadership in
organizational context whereby they proposed four style of leadership. The Style 1 was
named ‘‘directive’’ and person displaying this leadership style is considered to be high on
regulating but low on nurturance behavior. The Style 2 was named ‘‘supportive’’ and is
characterized by leader to be high on both regulation and nurturance behavior. Similarly,
the Style 3 was named ‘‘consulting’’ and is characterized by leader’s behavior which is
low on regulation but high on nurturance. Finally, the Style 4 was named ‘‘delegating’’
which is characterized by leadership behavior that is low on both regulation and
nurturance. Pareek (2003) also provides norms of the scale to be used for interpretation of
the findings of the study. To know the internal consistency of the OLQ scale, the
investigator calculated Cronbach alpha coefficients for all the four styles of leadership
which varies from 0.744 to 0.801. These obtained alpha coefficients indicate that the
instrument used to measure leadership styles possesses relatively high amounts of
reliability coefficients and they have been depicted in Table I.
2. Knowledge Management Assessment Tool (KMAT). It was developed by Maier and
Mosley (2003) and consists of 30 statements to measure knowledge management
practices of the organization. The KMAT has altogether five dimensions such as,
Knowledge Identification and Creation (KIC), Knowledge Collection and Capture (KCC),
Knowledge Storage and Organization (KSO), Knowledge Sharing and Dissemination
(KSD), and Knowledge Application and Use (KAU). Further, the KMAT also has a
procedure to divide the obtained score into only two major dimensions as Explicit
Knowledge Management Practices (EKMP) and Tacit Knowledge Management Practices
(TKMP). To know the internal consistency of the items in the questionnaire, the Cronbach
alpha coefficients of all the dimensions of the KMAT have been calculated and they have
been depicted in Table I. It is mentioned that the calculated Cronbach alpha coefficient

Table I Mean, SD, t-value, and Cronbach alpha coefficient for male, female, and employee as a whole on dimensions of
knowledge management processes and leadership styles
Female
Total sample Male sample sample
Cronbach alpha coefficient n ¼ 331 n ¼182 n ¼ 149
n ¼ 331 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD t-value

Knowledge identification and creation 0.702 25.52 1.92 25.62 2.12 25.47 1.79 20.424
Knowledge collection and capture 0.904 22.71 2.58 22.95 3.09 22.59 2.03 20.743
Knowledge storage and organization 0.749 28.99 1.17 29.15 1.32 28.90 0.98 21.141
Knowledge sharing and dissemination 0.845 19.82 2.61 19.93 3.04 19.76 2.15 20.332
Knowledge application and use 0.772 26.40 2.31 26.61 2.75 26.33 1.83 20.634
Explicit knowledge management practices 0.930 3.98 0.42 3.98 0.46 3.97 0.35 20.238
Tacit knowledge management practices 0.901 4.24 0.26 4.27 0.31 4.21 0.22 21.238
Leadership styles
Directive style of leadership 0.764 4.79 0.60 4.76 0.68 4.82 0.48 0.621
Supportive style of leadership 0.744 2.89 0.37 2.83 0.47 2.90 0.30 0.993
Consulting style of leadership 0.801 3.20 0.62 3.33 0.85 3.16 0.37 21.373
Delegating style of leadership 0.793 1.11 0.40 1.09 0.39 1.12 0.38 0.466

Notes: * p , 0.05; ** p , 0.01

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 9
 values range in-between 0.702 to 0.930. Therefore, it may be said that the internal
consistency reliability coefficients of the scale (i.e. the KMAT) is quite high.

Statistics used
The following statistical instruments were performed on the data collected in the study:
B Arithmetic mean and SD.
B Student’s ‘‘t’’ test.
B Pearson’s product moment correlation.
B Multiple regression analysis – stepwise.
B Chronbach alpha coefficient.

Results and discussion

The study was an attempt to investigate the relationships as well as the impact of styles of
leadership on the knowledge management processes and practices. It was also designed
to find out which among the different leadership styles is preferred by the most knowledge
workers and also to gauge the relative importance given to five different knowledge
management practices in day-to-day life of an organization. To investigate all the above
mentioned objectives, the study was conducted in a software organization in India. Finally, to
study all these objectives, the data were collected on a fairly large sample with the help of
standard psychometric instruments. The results obtained in this study will be depicted as
well as discussed in this section.
Table I depicts alpha coefficients for the psychometrics instruments on knowledge
management and leadership styles, which were used in this study, as well as overall
perception of total sample and genders on all dimensions of knowledge management practices
and leadership styles used in their organization. The alpha coefficients for all dimensions of
knowledge management as well as leadership styles indicate that the instruments used in the
study have fair amount of internal consistency. In other words, the results obtained with the help
of these two psychometric instruments can be relied upon to a greater extent.
The obtained results in Table I, when compared with the norms of the scale on knowledge
management used in this study, depict that on all the dimensions of knowledge management
the organization does fairly well. In other words, it may be said that total sample as well as
genders in the study believe that every aspect of knowledge management, starting from its
identification and creation, collection and capture, storage and organization, sharing and
dissemination, and application and use is practiced relatively well in their organization.
Further, with regard to tacit and explicit form of knowledge management, the general
perception among the total sample as well as gender is such that both explicit as well as tacit
form knowledge management is being practiced in above average amount. On the other
hand, the results in Table I depict that it is the tacit rather than explicit form of knowledge
management practices which is emphasized in this organization. But overall, it may be said
that the knowledge management practices in the software organization, which has been
studied, is well above the satisfactory level but it needs to slightly improve upon its
knowledge management architecture so as to become a truly knowledge management
company. Finally, Table I also indicates no significant gender difference in perception
towards knowledge management practices of the firm. In other words, it may be said that
both the genders have more or less similar perception towards the existence of knowledge
management processes as well as practices in the organization.
The results for preferred mode of leadership styles in practice in the software organization
have also been depicted in Table I. It says that software professionals to a greater extent
practice directive style of leadership followed by consulting, supportive, and delegating mode
of leadership styles. It may mean that in the majority of situations in organizational lives, people
believe and practice high amount of control combined with low amount of nurturing behaviors
with fellow colleagues around. In other words, it is the task-orientation rather than
people-orientation mode of leadership behaviors which are in great use for achieving

j j
PAGE 10 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008
excellence at workplace in software organization in India. This may sound contrary to the
established leadership behaviors in knowledge producing companies of the western world
where knowledge workers are given a free hand to act and think on their assigned tasks. The
author attributes this significant difference to the cultural factors as people in the Indian
sub-continent generally possess a laid-back attitude. Though significant change has taken
place in terms of people’s work behaviors in the Indian sub-continent, still people get
overwhelmed by work-avoiding attitudes. Table I also shows that there is no significant
difference in perception between male and female software professionals with regard to
leadership behaviors at the work place. It may be interpreted that both the genders have more
or less similar perceptions towards practicing the art of leadership at the work place.
To sum up, the results in Table I state that the art of knowledge management in software firm
is perceived to exist at above average level by employees as whole as well as male and
female software professionals. The organization under investigation is a subsidiary of India’s
best IT company and the knowledge management architecture that they have is in well
shape and what they require is simply sustained support from top management. At the same
time, it is also to be asserted that to achieve the goal of becoming a knowledge creating
company, the organization under investigation uses directive combined with consulting
mode of leadership behaviors in majority of situations in organizational lives. Last but not the
least is that the findings of the study reject H1, as the gender do not differ significantly in
terms of managing knowledge and in practicing the art of leadership at the work place.
The results in Table II depict relationships of leadership styles with knowledge management
practices for the male, the female, and the software professionals as a whole. The overall
findings of the study are such that both directive and supportive styles of leadership have
been found to have significantly negative relationships with knowledge management
processes and practices at the work place. It may mean that as the knowledge workers of the
company are provided with close supervision, there is corresponding decrement in
identification, creation, collection, capture, storage, organization, sharing, dissemination,
application and use of knowledge for the overall growth of the organization. In other words, if
the knowledge workers’ job behaviors are controlled and regulated by their superiors, these
knowledge workers would not feel at home to contribute significantly to the organizational goal
of creating and managing knowledge for competitive advantages. On the other hand,

Table II Correlation coefficients between leadership styles and knowledge management

practices
KIC KCC KSO KSD KAU EKMP TKMP

Software professionals as a whole (n ¼ 331)

L1 20.47** 20.46** 20.33** 20.43** 20.37** 20.43** 20.38**
L2 20.13* 20.17** 20.03 20.09 20.04 20.09 20.17**
L3 0.077 0.12* 20.01 0.02 20.04 0.029 0.04
L4 0.74** 0.67** 0.56** 0.72** 0.70** 0.73** 0.69**
Male software professionals (n ¼ 182)
L1 20.43** 20.45** 20.33** 20.40** 20.34** 20.38** 20.42**
L2 0.02 20.07 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.03 20.10
L3 20.02 0.07 20.09 20.05 20.12 20.06 0.07
L4 0.74** 0.72** 0.70** 0.75** 0.74** 0.76** 0.84**
Female software professionals (n ¼ 149)
L1 20.60** 20.49** 20.29** 20.49** 20.44** 20.58** 20.22**
L2 20.58** 20.49** 20.30** 20.53** 20.52** 20.48** 20.36**
L3 0.46** 0.41** 0.32** 0.35** 0.34** 0.44** 0.17*
L4 0.76** 0.61** 0.30** 0.69** 0.63** 0.68** 0.40**

Notes: *p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; where KIC ¼ Knowledge Identification and Creation;
KCC ¼ Knowledge Collection and Capture; KSO ¼ Knowledge Storage and Organization;
KSD ¼ Knowledge Sharing and Dissemination; KAU ¼ Knowledge Application and Use;
EKMP ¼ Explicit Knowledge Management Practices; TKPM ¼ Tacit Knowledge Management
Practices; L1 ¼ Directive Style of Leadership; L2 ¼ Supportive Style of Leadership;
L3 ¼ Consulting Style of Leadership; L4 ¼ Delegating Style of Leadership

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 11
 consulting and delegating modes of leadership behaviors have been found to be significantly
as well as positively associated with creation, management, application, and use of
knowledge throughout the length and breadth of organization for achieving excellence. In
other words, the implication is that the top management of the firm should preach and reward
both consulting and delegating modes of job behaviors on the part of knowledge leaders.
Therefore, the learning is that to master the art of knowledge management practices in a
software organization, its people should be provided with a kind of leadership style whereby
every individual employee is given sufficient power, authority as well as responsibility to
manage his/her own life at workplace. In other words, management of knowledge in
organization can only be achieved if employees feel free to experiment and innovate with
facts and figures on their own rather than being constantly directed and supervised by the
boss. To elaborate it further, it may be said that directive as well as supportive styles of
leadership in a software organization are okay to a limited extent but sole reliance upon them
may result in a fiasco, especially when the goal is knowledge management. Finally, on the
basis of the results of the study, H2 is accepted.
The purpose of the study was also to know the overall impact of organization’s leadership
practices on to its tacit as well as explicit form of knowledge management. To this particular
objective of the study, the obtained results have been depicted in Table III. It says that the
delegating style of leadership has only been found to create variance in the total variance of
managing tacit as well as explicit knowledge for both the gender as well as for software
professionals as a whole. It may mean that delegating rather than any other mode of
leadership behaviors is more suited for creation, storage, organization, application and use
of both tacit and explicit form of knowledge in a software company.
To be specific, the results in Table III say that the delegating style of leadership creates 57.1
percent and 47.6 percent of variance in total variance of explicit and tacit knowledge
management practices respectively for software professionals as a whole. It may mean that
42.9 percent and 52.4 percent of the variance respectively in explicit and tacit knowledge
management practices for the software professionals as a whole are still to be explained. In
other words, there may be variables other than leadership styles which may be creating
unexplained variance in knowledge management practices of the software professionals as
a whole. On the other hand, the delegating style of leadership has been found to explain 57.1
percent and 70.1 percent of the variance in the total variance of explicit and tacit knowledge
management practices respectively for the male software professionals. Therefore, 42.9
percent and 29.9 percent of the variance in the total variance respectively in explicit and tacit
knowledge management practices of the male software professionals remains unexplained.
Finally, for the female software professionals, the delegating style of leadership has been
found to explain 46.5 percent and 16.2 percent of variance in the total variance of explicit
and tacit knowledge management practices, respectively. Here again, the remaining 53.6

Table III Impact of leadership styles on explicit and tacit knowledge practices
Independent variable/s Dependent variable R R2 DR b P

Total software professionals Delegating leadership Explicit knowledge

(n ¼ 331) style management practices 0.756 0.571 0.000 0.756 0.000
Delegating leadership Tacit knowledge
style management practices 0.690 0.476 0.000 0.690 0.000
Male software professionals Delegating leadership Explicit knowledge 0.756 0.571 0.000 0.756 0.000
(n ¼ 182) style management practices
Delegating leadership Tacit knowledge
style management practices 0.837 0.701 0.000 0.837 0.000
Female software professionals Delegating leadership Explicit knowledge 0.682 0.465 0.000 0.682 0.000
(n ¼ 149) style management practices
Delegating leadership Tacit knowledge
style management practices 0.402 0.162 0.000 0.402 0.003

j j
PAGE 12 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008
percent and 83.8 percent of variance in total variance of explicit and tacit knowledge
management practices, respectively, are still to be explained.
Therefore, it may be said in the case of both genders as well as software professionals as a
whole that there may be variables other than leadership styles which may be creating
unexplained variance in the art of practicing tacit and explicit mode of knowledge
management. Finally, on the basis of the obtained results, H3 is accepted as leadership
styles have been found to significantly predict knowledge management practices in a
software company.
To sum up, it may be said that though leadership styles explains significant percentage of
variance in the explicit as well as tacit form of knowledge management practices, the left out
percentage of variance in knowledge management practices needs to be explained.
Therefore, it may be said that it is not only the organizational leadership alone but also other
factors/variables which may play significant role in helping organization to have a well
developed knowledge management practices in place. In other words, the role of these
unknown variables/factors which affect significantly to the art of knowledge management in
organization has to be found out through scientific researches. Hence, the findings of the
present study have left some important questions to be researched scientifically by the
thinkers as well as practitioners in the field of knowledge management.

Conclusions
To conclude, it may be said that there are four main observations in the findings of the study.
First, there is above average level of efforts on the part of employees in the organization to
create, capture, organize, share, disseminate, and use knowledge for organizational
excellence. Second, the dominant mode of leadership style in software organization has
been found to be directive in nature where the utmost concern is to closely regulate job
behaviors of fellow knowledge workers. Third, all the dimensions of knowledge management
practices have been found to be negatively and significantly related with directive style of
leadership but positively and significantly associated with delegating style of leadership.
Finally, the fourth observation is that it is only delegating rather than any other form of
leadership style which has been found to predict variance in both explicit as well as tacit
form of knowledge management practices.

Implications of the study

Like any other research investigations, the present study is also not limitations free but the
findings of the study may be of great use for both academicians as well as practitioners. The
findings of the study imply that the best form of leadership style for managing knowledge in
organization is the delegating style wherein employees are given adequate power, authority,
and responsibility to experiment and innovate with facts and figures which they may come
across while working on any tasks. In other words, creation, storage, sharing, and
application of knowledge can only be fully realized if the organization starts preaching as
well as practicing leadership style which gives people freedom to think and act on any of the
organizationally relevant issues. Hence, the author hopes that this important implication of
the findings of the study can be utilized by the practicing managers both in letter as well as
spirit. At the same time, it is also important to state that the findings of this study are culture
specific and as a result may not be exactly applicable beyond the Indian sub-continent.
Further, even within the Indian sub-continent, the findings of the study have implications
especially for organizations belonging to the IT industry. Therefore, it is believed that the
managers of IT industry in India, who are involved in the project leading to implementation of
knowledge management, will be hugely benefited if they apply the crux of the findings
obtained in this study. It is also stated that as there are hardly any empirical research
investigations in the area of knowledge management in India, the Indian academia will also
find the present study adding value in their academic pursuits.

References
Beckman, T. (1999), ‘‘The current state of knowledge management’’, in Liebowitz, J. (Ed.), Knowledge
Management Handbook, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 1-22.

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 13
 Berlade, S. and Harman, C. (2000), ‘‘Using human resources to put knowledge to work’’, Knowledge
Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 26-9.

Bierly, P.E. III, Kessler, E.H. and Christensen, E.W. (2000), ‘‘Organizational learning, knowledge and
wisdom’’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 595-618.

Blumentitt, R. and Johnston, R. (1999), ‘‘Towards a strategy for knowledge management’’, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 11, pp. 287-300.

Bollinger, A.S. and Smith, R.D. (2001), ‘‘Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset’’,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-18.

Bonner, D. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge: from theory to practice to golden opportunity’’, American Society for
Training & Development, September-October, pp. 12-13.

Bounfour, A. (2003), The Management of Intangibles: The Organization’s Most Valuable Assets,
Routledge, London.

Chait, L. (1998), ‘‘Creating a successful knowledge management system’’, Prism, No. 2.

Clark, T. and Rollo, C. (2001), ‘‘Corporate initiatives in knowledge management’’, Education þ Training,
Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 206-41.

Cleveland, H. (1985), The Knowledge Executive, E.P. Dutton, New York, NY.

Crawford, C.B. (2005), ‘‘Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position on knowledge
management’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 6-16.

Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), ‘‘Successful knowledge management
projects’’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.

Debowski, S. (2006), Knowledge Management, John Wiley & Sons, Milton, QLD.

DeTienne, K.B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C. and Harris, S. (2004), ‘‘Toward a model of effective knowledge
management and directions for future research: culture, leadership, and CKOs’’, Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 26-43.

Eppler, M.J. and Sukowski, O. (2000), ‘‘Managing team knowledge: core processes, tools, and enabling
factors’’, European Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 334-41.

Garvin, D.A. (1993), ‘‘Building a learning organization’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-91.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002), The New Leaders: Transforming the Art of Leadership
into the Science of Results, Time Warner, London.

Grant, R.P. (1996), ‘‘Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, Winter, Special Issue, pp. 109-21.

Greengard, S. (1998), ‘‘How to make KM a reality’’, Workforce, Vol. 77 No. 10, pp. 90-2.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), ‘‘What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?’’,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-18.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1982), Management of Organizational Behaviour, Sage Publications,
Beverley Hills, CA.

Hubbard, G., Samuel, D. and Cocks, G. (2002), The First XI: Winning Organizations in Australia, Wiley,
Brisbane.

Kluge, J., Stein, W. and Licht, T. (2001), Knowledge Unplugged, Bath Press, Bath.

Kotter, J.P. (1998), John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2002), The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Kreiner, K. (2002), ‘‘Tacit knowledge management: the role of artifacts’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 112-23.

Lang, J.C. (2001), ‘‘Managerial concerns in knowledge management’’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-57.

Lee, J. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge management: the intellectual revolution’’, IIE Solutions, October, pp. 34-7.

j j
PAGE 14 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008
Liebowitz, J. (1999), ‘‘Key ingredients to the success of an organization’s knowledge management
strategy’’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 37-40.
Liss, K. (1999), ‘‘Do we know how to do that? Understanding knowledge management’’, Harvard
Management Update, February, pp. 1-4.
Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2004), ‘‘Managing knowledge: the link between culture and
organizational learning’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 93-104.
Maier, D.J. and Mosley, J.L. (2003), The 2003 Annual, Vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Maurik, J.V. (1999), The Effective Strategist: Key Skills for All Managers, Gower, London.

Miller, J.G. (1978), Living Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Nonaka, I., Totama, R. and Nagata, A. (2000), ‘‘A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective
on the theory of the firm’’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
O’Dell, I. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), If Only We Know What We Know, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Pan, S.L. and Scarborough, H. (1999), ‘‘Knowledge management in practice: an exploratory case study
of Buckman Labs’’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 359-74.
Pareek, U. (2003), Training Instruments in HRD and OD, TMH, New Delhi.
Pascarella, P. (1997), ‘‘Harnessing knowledge’’, Management Review, October, pp. 37-40.
Platts, M.J. and Yeung, M.B. (2000), ‘‘Managing learning and tacit knowledge’’, Strategic Change, Vol. 9
No. 6, pp. 347-56.
Ritchie, S. and Martin, P. (1999), Motivation Management, Gower, London.
Scarborough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1999), ‘‘Knowledge management: a literature review’’, Issues
in People Management, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Smith, E.A. (2001), ‘‘The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-21.
Stewart, T.A. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Doubleday/Currency,
New York, NY.
Storey, J. and Barnett, E. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 145-56.
Takeuchi, H. (2001), ‘‘Toward a universal management concept of knowledge’’, in Nonaka, I. and Tecce, D.
(Eds), Managing Industrial Knowledge, Sage Publications, London, pp. 315-29.
Von Krogh, G. (1998), ‘‘Care in knowledge creation’’, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 133-53.
Wah, L. (1999), ‘‘Making knowledge stick’’, Management Review, May, pp. 24-9.
Webster (1961), Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of English Language, Unabridged, The
Publisher’s Guild, New York, NY.
Wetlaufer, S. (1999), ‘‘Driving change: an interview with Ford Motor Company’s Jacques Nasser’’,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 76-88.

About the author

Sanjay Kumar Singh is an Assistant Professor, HRM, Institute of Management Technology,
Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, India. His area of research interests are emotional intelligence,
organizational learning, knowledge management, and organizational culture and
leadership. For the past seven years, he has been in academics and has been published
in national and international journals of high repute. He can be contacted at:
sanjaysinghdu@yahoo.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

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 15