Organizational culture, climate and IC: an interaction analysis

Nazari, Jamal A.; Herremans, Irene M.; Isaac, Robert G.; Manassian, Armond; Kline, Theresa J. B.

doi:10.1108/14691931111123403

Cited by 39 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Liu and Fellows, 2008;Nazari et al, 2011). Nevertheless, the relationship between organisational culture and knowledge management processes, and their link with organisational performance, has been ignored in previous knowledge management research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Positioning organisational culture in knowledge management research

Saifi

2015

Journal of Knowledge Management

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540409 [] For AuthorsIf 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.comEmerald 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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Positioning organisational culture in knowledge management research

Saifi

2015

Journal of Knowledge Management

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Innovative culture 6 Rogers, 1983;Anand et al, 2003;Naidoo, 2010 Inter-functional coordination 6 Hult and Hurley, 1998;Slater and Narve, 1995;Song et al, 1997 Organisational climate 13 Nazari et al, 2011;Patterson et al, 2005;Bock et al, 2005 Socialisation 3 Nonaka andTakeuchi, 1995;Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001;Chou and Ηe; Internalisation 4…”

Section: Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The central role of knowledge management in business operations

Chatzoudes

Chatzoglou

Vraimaki

2015

Business Process Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – Knowledge Management (KM) is a contemporary research field of high interest for both academics and practitioners. For more than 15 years, successful companies have used KM as their most valuable source of competitive advantage. The purpose of this paper is attempt to extend the existing empirical approaches (research models), by focusing on the process of KM and its diffusion throughout the organisation. Design/methodology/approach – The present study proposes a newly developed conceptual framework that adopts a four-step approach, highlighting four areas of interest that have never been simultaneously examined before: knowledge antecedents, KM process, KM outcomes (satisfaction from the KM process) and individual (employee) outcomes. The proposed conceptual framework is tested, using a structured questionnaire, in a sample of 211 bank employees. The reliability and the validity of the questionnaire were thoroughly examined, while research hypotheses were tested using the “Structural Equation Modelling” technique. Findings – The results revealed that companies with enhanced innovative culture and an organisational climate that facilitates cooperation between employees tend to promote and ultimately maximise knowledge diffusion. Moreover, a contribution of the present study is the empirical confirmation of the relationship between the proposed factor “satisfaction from the knowledge management process” and both organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Research limitations/implications – A limitation stemming from the adopted methodology is the use of self-report scales to measure the factors (constructs) of the proposed model. Moreover, the present paper lacks a longitudinal approach, since it provides a static picture (snapshot) of the application of KM within enterprises. Practical implications – The paper highlights-specific areas (factors) that companies should enhance in order to harvest the potential benefits of KM. According to the empirical findings, organisations should focus on their human capital when managing their knowledge processes. After all, employee satisfaction from the KM process is found to be crucial for enhancing their job satisfaction and job performance. Originality/value – The paper proposes an enhanced conceptual framework that incorporates critical issues concerning the successful implementation of KM, thus, providing valuable tools for decision makers and academics. Its originality lies in the nature of its approach. More specifically, the present study examines the impact of KM on individual-level (employee), something that rarely appears in the relevant literature. Additionally, it incorporates “satisfaction from the knowledge management process” as a significant outcome of the KM process, thus, enriching the literature of the field. Finally, it investigates the impact of three contextual factors (innovative culture, organisational climate, inter-functional coordination) on KM process (externalisation, internalisation, socialisation, combination), adopting an approach that acknowledges KM as a function (factor) that transmits contextual influence onto individual effectiveness. The results of the study may be generalised in other sectors with similar characteristics (knowledge-intensive and learning organisations, service sector companies, etc) and in other developed countries whose financial institutions face similar challenges as the ones in Greece.

show abstract

“…Para llegar a esta versión se inició con la técnica traducción-retraducción de dos cuestionarios de capital intelectual en idioma inglés (Huang & Jim Wu, 2010;Nazari, Herremans, Manassian, & Kline, 2011). Ante su incompatibilidad con el contexto de las universidades mexicanas, se procedió a la elaboración de la escala de capital intelectual bajo la dinámica de discusión en grupo con expertos.…”

Section: Instrumentounclassified

Validez Inicial de una Escala de Medición del Capital Intelectual en Universidades

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

r e S u M e n Problema: la dificultad para medir el capital intelectual en universidades latinoamericanas acentúa su poco interés, a pesar de su relevancia en la economía del conocimiento. Objetivo: construir y validar una escala de medición del capital intelectual de universidades a partir de la teoría de recursos y capacidades y un modelo de tres componentes (capital humano, capital estructural y capital relacional). Método: esta escala fue elaborada por un grupo de expertos utilizando análisis de contenido. La prueba empírica se hizo con una muestra de conveniencia (n=742) de académicos, mandos medios y directivos de universidades mexicanas. Resultados y conclusiones: con el análisis factorial exploratorio se detectaron cuatro factores (capital humano, capital estructural, capital relacional y capital tecnológico) que explican el 66.74% de la varianza. El Alpha de Crobach fue mayor a 0.85. Se concluyen avances en la calidad métrica y estabilidad, pero queda en el tintero replicar el estudio para generar modelos de medida y estructural.Palabras clave capital intelectual; escala de medición; universidades. Código JEL: I2, M1 a b S t r a c t Problem: The difficulty to measure the IC in Latin American universities highlights its little interest even though its relevance to the knowledge economy. Purpose: Design and validate a survey for measure Intellectual Capital in universities from a Resource-based Theory perspective and a three components model (human capital, structural capital and relational capital). Method: A subject matter expert panel technique was used to generate the items. It was empirically tested with a convenience sample (n=742) of academics, middle managers and principals of institutions of higher education in México. Results and Conclusions: With exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis methods, four factors were detected (human capital, structural capital, relational capital and technological capital) explaining total variance of 66.74%. All subscales obtained Cronbach's Alpha higher to 0.80. There were advances on the measure quality and stability of the questionnaire. In order to generate measure and structural models this study could be replicated.

show abstract

Organizational culture, climate and IC: an interaction analysis

Cited by 39 publications

References 47 publications

Positioning organisational culture in knowledge management research

Positioning organisational culture in knowledge management research

The central role of knowledge management in business operations

Validez Inicial de una Escala de Medición del Capital Intelectual en Universidades

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About