CHAPTER TWO Review of Literature
2.28 Organisational Culture Theory Framework
89 contribute to improvement of organisational learning capacity and outcomes (Argyris and Schön, 1996).
This study utilises all three constructs of Argyris and Schön (1978). The Data Collection constructs plays a vital role in KM. The Interpretation construct will epitomise KM in the sense that data collected becomes meaningful. Lastly, the Learning construct signifies what has been learnt and what actions have been taken based on the knowledge gained throughout the process.
90 can be used or taught as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.
There are three main constructs in the model, that being Artifacts, Espoused Values and Basic Underlying Assumptions (Schein, 1985). The Artefacts construct is difficult to measure (hard to decipher) and deals with organisational attributes that can be noticeably observed. Schein labels technology as an artefact. The Values construct deals with the espoused goals, strategies, ideals and objectives of the organisation. The underlying assumptions construct deals with perceptions and beliefs that are and taken for granted. This is the source of the values, motives and actions that causes an organisation to be inclined to the way it operated or functioned (Schein, 1985). The main dependent constructs of this model are performance, organisational effectiveness, and employee commitment and satisfaction. The main independent constructs are organisational culture type, organisation culture strength, and culture congruence.
2.28.1Literature supporting the use of the Framework
An organisation’s culture is viewed as its key competitive advantage to being successful, Serrat (2009). Organisational culture represents the shared ideas of an organisation, taking into account the external and internal environment (Park, Ribeire and Schulte, 2004).
Organisational culture is strong when employees are aligned to organisational values and objectives. However, weak culture is when there is little or no alignment to organisational values and when control is exercised via extensive measures and bureaucracy, Serrat (2009).
This indicates that where there is effective alignment of the organisation’s human resources with organisational goals, then organisational culture is strong.
According to Boisnier and Chatman (2002), a strong culture provides organisations with significant advantages and organisations that foster strong cultures had clear values that give employees a reason to embrace the culture. Some of the benefits of having a strong organisational culture include better alignment of the organisation towards achieving its vision, mission and goals and improved cohesiveness among the various departments.
Organisational efficiency is an added benefit (Boisnier and Chatman, 2002). There are an abundance literature that illustrates the impact of organisational culture from a technology
91 and Information Systems perspective (Park, Ribeire and Schulte, 2004; Alavi, Kayworth and Leidner, 2006; Iivari and Huisman, 2007; Jackson, 2011) as well as its impact on overall organisational performance (Skerlavaj, et al., 2007; Gregory, et al., 2009; Serrat, 2009;
Zheng, Yang and McLean, 2010; Huang, 2012).
It was argued by Leidner and Kayworth (2006) that the understanding of culture is very important as culture at various levels in an organisation influences the successful implementation and use of IT. Iivari and Huisman (2007) analysed the relationship between organisational culture and staff perceptions about the use, support and impact of systems development methodologies (SDMs). They believed that SDMs formed an integral part of an organisation and could add value in terms of IS strategy. However, despite the efforts devoted to the development of SDMs, there was minimal adoption and usage of it. By applying the Schein (1985) theory, it was shown that organisational culture did play a crucial role in the adoption and usage of SDMs (Iivari and Huisman, 2007). Organisations with strong culture that focused on efficiency, productivity and goal achievement were more prone to adopt SDMs and utilise them strategically to benefit the organisation. Organisations with weak or varied culture showed less enthusiasm in adoption and failed to see value in SDMs implementation (Iivari and Huisman, 2007).
Similarly, Alavi, Kayworth and Leidner (2006) highlighted how organisational culture impacted KM strategy, practice and usage in a large global information services company.
Overall, it was shown that organisational culture has a multifaceted relationship to KM and doesn’t just only influence knowledge sharing behaviours, but also influences various other factors that are critical to KM adoption, use and strategy. These factors include KM technology selection and adoption, knowledge migration within the organisation, KM evolution, the role of KM leaders, and the estimated outcomes from strategic KM use (Alavi, Kayworth and Leidner, 2006). Furthermore, strong KM leadership plays a pivotal role in establishing a strong KM culture which resulted in strong KM practice. This is further supported by Leidner and Kayworth (2006) who emphasises the significant role that culture plays in managerial processes that directly impact on KM and IS adoption.
Similarly Jones, Cline and Ryan (2006) examined eight dimensions of culture and their impact on knowledge sharing during complex enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems implementations. The authors conducted a multi-site case study of organisations that were in
92 the process of implementing ERP systems. Some of the 8 dimensions of cultures examined included motivation, control and responsibility, truth and rationality, orientation to collaboration and orientation to change (Jones, Cline and Ryan, 2006). Based on this they developed a cultural configuration that outlined the cultural dimensions that effectively promoted knowledge sharing in ERP implementation. Furthermore, a model was developed (Jones, Cline and Ryan, 2006) that showed the link between culture and knowledge sharing.
Leidner and Kayworth (2006) also showed the linkage between IT and organisational culture using Schein (1985) framework and presented six themes of IT-organisational culture research highlighting the positive impact of organisational culture on IT adoption, implementation and strategy.
Relating to the preceding study, Shao, Feng and Liu (2012) showed how transformational leadership, knowledge sharing and ERP success is directly related to organisational culture.
They examined 4 types of organisational cultures which included development, group, hierarchical and rational culture. Development culture had a clear influence on ERP success, while group and rational culture primarily influenced knowledge sharing. They found that an analysis of these cultures by top management could enhance ERP knowledge sharing and achieve business benefits (Shao, Feng and Liu (2012). Omerzel, Biloslavo and Trnavčevič (2011) examined the effect of Organisational Culture on KM from a HE context in a central European country. It was found that different organisational culture dimensions did influence the adoption of KM systems and methods for knowledge creation and transfer among academic staff. Similarly, Park, Ribeire and Schulte (2004) investigated the impact of organisational culture in KM technology adoption and found that the success of KM technology is facilitated by organisational culture. Furthermore, strong culture has a positive association with successful KM technology implementation, use and strategy.
This study will draw out the Espoused Values and Basic Underlying Assumptions Constructs from the theory. Espoused Values deal with strategies, goal and objectives and seeing that this study is examining strategy development through KM, hence makes this specific construct valuable to the study. Basic Underlying Assumptions also adds a unique angle as these are concretised beliefs that exist within an organisation. Hence, it can be established what beliefs exist regarding KM in general and the beliefs that occur after benefits are derived or observed from KM. The authors Park, Ribeire and Schulte (2004) related to organisational culture and KM technology, found that organisational culture promoted the
93 success of KM systems and technology and that positive culture had a positive correlation with the success of KM technology implementation.