ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS JUNE 2013 VOL 5, NO 2

Transcription

1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING CULTURE Sharareh Momeni,Mahmood Zohoori,Happy Andira Musriyama Musram,Seyed Jafar Hosseinipour 1 Master of project management, Limkokwing university, Faculty of business and globalization, 2 Master of environmental technology management, Faculty of engineering, UPM, 3 Master of Business Administration, Multimedia university, Malaysia, 4 PhD student of Policy Study Perdana school, UTM, Malaysia, Abstract In organizations which are based on knowledge the knowledge sharing is crucial. Many scholars decided to mention the important elements that impact culture of knowledge sharing. Many studies were examined in this research related to the elements that impact knowledge sharing. Finally, this study will formulate a framework. This framework focuses on the relationship existed between knowledge sharing culture and organizational structure. Keywords: Organizational Structure, Knowledge sharing, Knowledge Management 1. Knowledge Management The knowledge management rule copes with value creation process from an intangible property of organization (Wigg, 1993, P. 54). Originally, the knowledge management does not include the information production but it also captures data at source as well as the analysis and transmission of data. It also provides information based on communication or it derived from data for the ones that can work on it (Davenport and Prusak, 1998, P. 48). When the internal knowledge is captured by the organization the knowledge management is involved. Its proper thinking on customers, products, processes, competitors as well as sharing them is clear (DiMattia and Oder, 1997, P. 34). Therefore obtaining the goals of the firm is related to knowledge management which is done by motivation from strategy and also worker knowledge facilitation for developing, increasing and using their interpretation capability of data and the information (by means of existed sources of experience, information, culture, skills, feeling and personality) by a procedure for providing meaning for these data and information (Beijerse, 1999, P. 111). As a result, knowledge management is known as a key method to solve issues in organization for instance innovation and competitiveness. Having a sustainable competitive advantage is related to exploiting and making core competency. For having competitive advantage, the idiosyncratic resources and so scarce are hard to transfer or to be replicating (Grant, 1991, P. 128). A view based on knowledge from the firm defined knowledge as an organizational property that provides sustainable competitive advantage mostly in contexts with hyper competition (Alavi, 1999, P. 5; Davenport and Prusak, 1998, P. 48). If knowledge wants to bring some sustainable competitive advantage for the firm then this knowledge inside the firm needs to be obtained by organization s process, system, rules, products and culture. Based on the statement from Havens and Knapp (1999, P. 6) the knowledge management is known as art. They mentioned that knowledge management is about participation of individuals behavior and attitude that is about modifying their value paradigm shifting from my information is power into the sharing is power. It is related to big scale cultural changes, new systems which COPY RIGHT 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 518

2 are incentive and also performance metrics as well as education and learning. It is about the reforming of behavior and attitude from people so they can make sure that there is resolute application and ready availability from both institutional and personal knowledge. By providing proper knowledge for the proper user in the proper time and assisting them to share and bring information to more action for making the performance of organization better are the explained process of knowledge management by Svenja et al. (2003, P. 67). In other words, knowledge management is considered as an approach or solution that capable the firm to structure and capture its assets of knowledge. Therefore it is a method for making organizational learning. The organizational learning is explained as the improving process of the actions by better understanding and knowledge (Fiol and Lyles, 1985, P. 19). Learning organization is the degree to which it is accomplished for obtaining purposes of organization, it is distributed or shared between organization members and learning results are available in system of firm as well as culture and structure (Snyder and Cummings, 1998, P. 883). According to Tkach in 1999 there are three main components for knowledge management which are knowledge discovery, knowledge sharing and knowledge organization. The knowledge can be discovered in a place that it exists and also resides in organization and also on site, individual process, experiential knowledge form and the enterprise knowledge. It can be managed based on the preferred classification of firm or the framework. The way of organizing knowledge inside a firm is different from other irrespective about if they come by the similar discipline and may be otherwise (personalized and categorized). The other aspect of knowledge management says that the knowledge must be shared between the top managers and the employees who are permitted to have knowledge related to it and also use it and take advantage from its availability (Faridah Yusuf and Mustafa Samad, 2001, Paper 10). As Rosenberg (2001, P. mentioned, by having knowledge management we can support the making, sharing and archiving of the information that has value and also insight and expertise inside people s cross communication and the firm that have same needs and interests. Originally, knowledge management assists the knowledge to be spread from groups and individuals inside the firm in a way that straightly impacts performance, by the goal to get the correct information inside the proper environment for the proper person in the proper time and with the right objective. It can be said that, sharing knowledge is known as an interactive process for providing the proper information for individuals in the proper time with a good manner to make them able to act correctly in order to empower the base of knowledge in the whole mechanism. It an be concluded that it needs a lot of human cooperation. The key element would be the modification of culture inside the firm for developing knowledge management inside a defined organization. The nature of knowledge management is related to organizing, discovering as well as sharing knowledge in all the building communities that need more effort and also suitable management. 2. Knowledge Sharing Culture The management of knowledge is not only having tacit knowledge that is altered into explicit form. It is not also related to only providing big repositories from knowledge and the best practices. Firms which are successful in managing knowledge are mainly see knowledge as a property for developing values and norms inside the organization that support the sharing and creation of the knowledge. COPY RIGHT 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 519

3 The knowledge sharing definition was narrowed down by knowledge management concept as the process that mainly is a capturing process of firm and person expertise while it distribute and reside it to the place that it can assist to produce the hugest returns for the firm and people as well (Krogh, 2000, P. 29). By mans of sharing knowledge among the coming and leaving person there might be a huge difference for the firm. The reason is that sharing knowledge is very crucial for the knowledge management as to capture, store and also distribute the ideas, information, knowledge and the experiences. Sharing knowledge is not just an exchange of information that can impact the working relations, power distribution, and influential patterns and also changing the way people describe their duties and responsibilities (Willett, 2002, P. It is also refereeing to transfer activities or knowledge dissemination from one individual or organizational group to other ones (Lee, 2001, P. 329). In this process, the knowledge is assumed as a production resource part that should be shared, improved and also applied for providing good ideas for a defined challenge or issue (Wang, 1999, P. 218). In 1999 Wang mentioned that knowledge sharing can be assumed as a conversion among tacit and explicit knowledge and also opposite when the knowledge moves from people to firm and comes back. He argues that organization knowledge mainly relates to every people inside the firm. The individuals in their daily interactions and also activities share explicit and tacit knowledge and the original knowledge will be distributed. The knowledge acquisition and sharing is not just a spiraling shape that people not just obtain knowledge by socialization but also becomes better by combination of knowledge. Also, the only way for understanding knowledge inside the firm is checking the degree of knowledge sharing presence. Measurement of knowledge sharing level will bring an opportunity for the firm to redefine ongoing the process of organization that capable the people to use the proper cognition in process of their knowledge sharing. It also makes sure that the management will know that which knowledge is more crucial for developing suitable approach of knowledge sharing to persuade the members to learn and also share. In order to knowledge sharing work properly, firm at first point have to provide a culture which is open and also accepts the sharing. 3. Organization s Structure The culture of knowledge sharing and its scope shows how firm s knowledge property is shared and structured between the producers and potential users. For structure, by diffusion facilitation of the knowledge sharing culture of firm it can assist the size expansion of the information that it can be shared. This field is consisted of agents for processing data and the relevant information items (Max, 1998, P. 120). In order to provide a culture for knowledge sharing I the firm, the knowledge infrastructure is considered as a crucial part of firm structure. The infrastructure of the knowledge brings the organization framework and also the pattern for management that makes the learning easier inside the firm. Therefore, the objectives of the organization will be achieved efficiently (Gareth, 2004, P. 51). It would be the sum of different ways that by them the work is dividable into some tasks which are separate and also the path that they are coordinated to each other. Therefore, the culture of firm impacts the structure of it and also the operational systems (Armstrong, 1995, P. 84). The operational system of the firm is about the regulations and rules COPY RIGHT 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 520

4 and also the adopted policy by the managers that influence the value and performance of the organization. While redesigning, the firm has to define the main levers of change for instance responsibilities and roles (Bixler, 2001, P. The structure of organization and the operation process need to be redesigned in a way that persuades sharing knowledge between members by means of teamwork. The process of operation is derived from work division and the responsibilities and tasks in both vertical and horizontal form. For having effective teamwork the ability and skills of the members are related and the shared values are important as well (Shattow, 1996, P. 53). By means of culture sharing, there will be encouragement for employees to take part in corrective actions and working together with managers in order to share ideas and knowledge or information for solving the daily business issues. By considering the impact of organizational culture on the structure, some values for instance freedom, flexibility and the cooperative teamwork as well can bring and enhance innovation and creativity (Arad et al., 1997, P. 49). Flexibility means the adaption ability and working effectively inside different contexts with many employees. As the situation changes so the firm does as well and the market rise and fall, for having success in the firm for sharing knowledge the flexibility is important as well as other contexts (Elliot and O Dell, 1999, P. 34). As Arad stated in 1997 the extent to which the members have authority and freedom for participating in making decision for solving issues will define the empowering level. The reason is that the extent, to which people have enough freedom to take a part in the work, increases their effort to share and learn. Additionally, the empowering of employees means giving them enough authority at all levels inside the firm for making vital decisions and also be responsible for the results (Gareth, 2004, P. 56). Each person of the team that has power to be accountable and responsible for the actions that does must be persuaded by the managers to apply his or her skill, creative talent and knowledge effectively for giving benefit and advantage to the whole project. So the empowerment concept is about initiatives valuing, taking responsibility encouragement for fulfilling the objectives of the firm by bringing resource and information for the members to act (Judge et al., 1997, P. 79). For providing authority for the employees to make decisions, knowing about their specific knowledge and its level is important for the management of organization. The reason is that making decision is in nature problematic because decisions are about people and made by them that are related to the future which is concerned for using not sufficient knowledge and information. Also, having measurement for performance is very important and also some compensation programs for bringing self interested people who make decision with the goal to use the knowledge for decision making for enhancing and creating value of organization (Brickley et al., 2003, P. 43). For linking the specific knowledge and decision authority there should be ensuring of members that authority of decision needs the important knowledge or decision authority can be granted to members that already have that needed knowledge (Brickley et al., 2003, P. 43). There is both decentralized and centralized decision making inside the firm. In the centralized context, the top COPY RIGHT 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 521

5 management will make all of the important decisions but in the decentralized firm all of the members are participating for making decision. Inside the decentralized firm the ideas and knowledge are shared and discussed before making final decisions (Robbins, 2003, P. 24). For having culture of knowledge sharing inside the organization, the strategy of the firm should be supported by organization structure by means of strategic level post for modifying the strategy. The proposition s list below is provided under the structure element and also its practices that will promote the knowledge sharing culture development. 4. Proposed Framework Based on the earlier statements, a new framework was formulated for this research that focuses on the existed connection between culture of knowledge sharing and organization strategy. (See Figure 1). Figure 1: Proposed Framework Organization s Structure Knowledge Infrastructure Team Working Flexibility Freedom Empowerment Decision Making Knowledge sharing Culture 5. Conclusion In knowledge based firms the knowledge sharing is considered as vital. Many scholars decided to mention the important elements that affect culture of knowledge sharing. Five elements have been highlighted in this study as the structure of organization which are flexibility, team working, empowerment, freedom and also making decisions. As the study for future it is suggested to have a quantitative research according to the developed framework. COPY RIGHT 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 522

6 References Alavi, M., Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges and Benefits. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 1(5). Ann Walmsley (1993). The Brain Game. Globe and Mail Report on Business. April: 38. Asgharian R., Zohoori, M., Malakouti, M., Attarnezhad, O., (2013), Factors Influencing Knowledge sharing toward Innovation: A study of Electronic Industry of Iran,, IJCRB, Issue, May, Vol. 5(2): Beijerse (1999). Questions in Knowledge Management: Defining and Conceptualization a Phenomenon. Journal of Knowledge Management. 3(2): Chowdhury S. The role of affect- and cognitions-based trust in complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues 2005;17(3): Cook J, Wall T. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology 1980;53: Davenport, T.H. and L. Prusak (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. P. 48. DiMattia, S. and Order, N. (1997). Knowledge Management: Hope, Hype or Harbinger? Library Journal. 122(15): Douglas, N. and Wykowski T. (1999). Beyond Reductionism: Gateway for e-learning and Change. New Jersey: St Lucie Press. P. 22 & 70. Ellis, K. (2001). Dare to Share. Training. 32(2): Faridah Yusuf and Mustafa Samad (2001). Application of Knowledge Management in the Construction Industry. Proceeding of Seminar on Future Trends in Construction and Manufacturing: Towards A Borderless World October Frances H. (1999). Managing Knowledge Workers: New Skills and Attitudes to Unlock the Intellectual Capital in Your Organization. Canada: John Wiley & Sons Canada Limited. P. 30, 78, 111, 122, 185 & 212. Fiol, M. and Lyles M. (1985) Organisational learning. Academy of Management Review. 4(2): Gareth, R. Jones (2004). Organizational Theory, Design and Change. Fourth Edition. New Jersey, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc. P. 51 & 56. Gilbert Probst, Steffen Raub and Kai Romhardt (2000). Managing Knowledge: Building Block for Success. England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. P. VII & 173. Geoffrey, C. (1997). The Changing Art of Becoming Unbeatable. Fortune. November 24. P Goman, K. C. (2002). Five Reasons People Don t Tell What They Know, Destination KM: Viewpoint (June). Available at: Grant, R. (1991). The Resource Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review. 33(3): Havens, C., Knapp, E. (1999). Easing into Knowledge Management. Strategy Leadership. 27(2): 4-9. Krogh, V. G., Kazuo Ichijo and Ikujiro Nonaka (2000). Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. P. 25 & 29. Lee, J. (2001). The Impact of Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Capacity and Partnership Quality on Outsourcing Success. Information and Management COPY RIGHT 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 523

7 Luhmann N. Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley; Lewis DJ, Weigert A. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 1985;63(4): Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoormann FD. An integrative model of organisational trust. Academy of Management Review 1995;20: McAllister DJ. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 1995;38(1): Nonaka I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company How Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. P. 65. Rempel JK, Holmes JG, Zanna MP. Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985;49(1): Robbins, S.P. (2003). Organizational Behavior. 10th Ed. San Diego State University: Prentice Hall. P. 24, 32 & 107. Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the DigitalAge. Available at: Sonnenberg, F. K. (1994). Managing with a Conscience: How to Improve Performance through Integrity, Trust and Commitment. United States of America: McGraw- Hill Inc. P. 74, 183 & 189. Svenja, F., Alfred, J. B. and Daniel D. (2003). Knowledge Management and Networked Environments: Leveraging Intellectual Capital in Virtual Business Communities. American Management Association (AMACOM). P. 67 & 78. Snyder, W., Cummings, T. (1998). Organization Learning Disorders: Conceptual Model and Intervention Hypotheses. Human Relations. 51(7): Tkach, D. (1999). Advances in Knowledge Management The Pillars of Knowledge Management (An IBM Report). IBM and Lotus are trademarks of International Business Machines, IBM Corporation. P Wang F. H. (1999). Knowledge Management. China: Economy Shan Xi Publisher. P Wasko MM, Faraj S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly 2005;29(1): Wigg, K. (1993). Knowledge Management Foundations. Arlington, VA: Schema Press. P. 54. Willett, C. (2002). Knowledge Sharing Shifts the Power Paradigm. Applied Knowledge Group. Available at: COPY RIGHT 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 524