Organisational culture's influence on tacit knowledge‐sharing behaviour

Abstract

PurposeThis research aimed at investigating the influence of organisational culture types on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour in Malaysian organisations.Design/methodology/approachSurvey data was collected from 362 participants from seven organisations. Multiple regression was used to assess the research model.FindingsThe research findings indicate that organisational culture types influence tacit knowledge sharing behaviour and that such influences may be positive or negative depending on the culture type.Research limitations/implicationsThe study only investigated seven organisations. A larger sample size may be necessary for a study of this nature. Aside from this the ipsative rating scale was not clearly understood by the respondents resulting in scoring errors by some.Practical implicationsKnowledge is considered the one and only distinct resource and is crucial for an organisation to sustain its competitive advantage. Determining the organisation's culture type will allow managers to implement, among the myriad knowledge sharing activities, the ones that would be more appropriate and relevant to the organisational culture.Originality/valueMost of the knowledge in organisations is in tacit form. There is a dearth of literature on the influence of organisational culture types on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. Aside from theoretical contributions, the findings of this study have the potential to assist organisations to unlock economic value from knowledge embedded in the minds of its employees.

The use of knowledge assets: modelling the potential effect of adding innovators to low-innovation and high-innovation SMEs

“…Nevertheless although Kotler and de Bes (2003) state; "Companies need to innovate if they are to grow and prosper" little has changed between the early work of Holmes and Zimmer (1994) who state "an operational framework that distinguishes growth from non-growth small businesses does not exist" to Atherton and Hannon (2001) who again remarked that there has been "a paucity of research on how innovation can arise and spread in small companies". Contemporary research (e.g., Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011) still do not fill this gap in our understanding. Let us think back to over 30 years ago when Porter (1980, p 74) stated that "companies achieve competitive advantage through acts of innovation" and again ten years after that when (Porter 1990) said that "much innovation is mundane and incremental, depending more on an accumulation of small insights than on a single major technological breakthrough".…”

Study of factors influencing knowledge transfer in family firms

“…Organizations need resources to carry out activities and produce goods and services (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011). This approach includes a set of inputs that have the common feature or point of departure the heterogeneity of resources between organizations and their imperfect mobility, which helps its survival to explain the sustained differences in the observed profitability (Barney, 2001;Ray, Barney & Muhanna, 2004).…”

“…Knowledge is recognized as the unique and exclusive distinctive resource and as the key and -1219-Intangible Capital -http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.405 crucial differentiator to any organization to maintain its competitive advantage (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011). …”

“…The type of dominant culture in the company will facilitate or hinder the knowledge sharing (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011).…”

“…Knowledge sharing is gaining increasing recognition by researchers because of its potential benefits both to individuals and organizations, and it is fundamental to the success of a -1218-Intangible Capital -http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.405 company (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011). However, most researches on knowledge are conducted at the organizational level, leaving a land fallow for the investigation of knowledge transmission at the individual level (Endres, Endres, Chowdhury & Alam, 2007).…”