Organisational culture’s influence on tacit
knowledge-sharing behaviour
Visvalingam Suppiah and Manjit Singh Sandhu
Visvalingam Suppiah is the
Managing Director of
Paradigm Systems,
Selangor, Malaysia.
Manjit Singh Sandhu is
Senior Lecturer at Monash
University, Sunway
Campus, Selangor,
Malaysia.
Received: 16 July 2010
Accepted: 20 December 2010
PAGE 462 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Abstract
Purpose – This research aimed at investigating the influence of organisational culture types on tacit
knowledge sharing behaviour in Malaysian organisations.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data was collected from 362 participants from seven
organisations. Multiple regression was used to assess the research model.
Findings – The 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/implications – The 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 implications – Knowledge 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/value – Most 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.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Tacit knowledge, Organisational culture, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Resources are central to the existence of any organisation. The Resource-Based View is
premised on this belief (Barney, 1991; Drucker, 2000; Grant, 1996; Penrose, 1959). Among
the many organisational resources, knowledge is recognised as the one and only distinct
resource (Drucker, 1993) and is recognised as the key differentiator, and crucial for any
organisation to maintain its competitive advantage (De la Vega and Stankosky, 2006; Halawi
et al., 2005). Knowledge can be broadly classified into two types; explicit and tacit (Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge that can be articulated and stored independently and is
constructible, expressible (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), and easily communicated (Grant,
1996) forms the explicit component of the knowledge dichotomy. Conversely, tacit
knowledge is ‘‘unarticulable’’ and intuitive and is part of an individual’s cognitive thought and
perception. Tacit knowledge is not easily shared (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Wang et al.,
2006) and attempts to share can be slow, costly and uncertain (Kogut and Zander, 1992).
However the volume (Buckman, 2004; Mooradian, 2005) and value (Davenport and Prusak,
1998; Reychav and Weisberg, 2010) of tacit knowledge makes it a knowledge sharing
imperative for organisations. Knowledge sharing is gaining more and more recognition from
researchers because of its potential benefits to individuals and organisations (Jonsson and
Kalling, 2007; Yi, 2009) and is critical to a firm’s success (Davenport and Prusak, 1998).
j VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011, pp. 462-477, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673271111137439
Although it is acknowledged that there are inherent benefits to knowledge sharing, people
are reluctant to share. Various reasons have been cited and among them scholars have
consistently identified organisational culture (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Davenport and Prusak,
1998; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001) as one of the main reasons. Schein (2004) posits that
culture is an abstraction but its behavioural and attitudinal consequences are concrete. The
usefulness of culture can only be realised if it is observable. Organisational culture can be
diagnosed effectively and understanding the schema of culture types in the organisation
would explain many otherwise unexplained organisational members behavioural patterns.
This study explores the influence of the various organisational culture types on tacit
knowledge sharing behaviour in organisations in Malaysia.

2. Problem statement
An organisation is a bundle of resources and among them knowledge has been recognised
as the most important resource. Management of knowledge within organisations has
become a critical activity (Kingston and Macintosh, 2000) and knowledge sharing is
acknowledged as the most common knowledge management (KM) activity (Ford cited in
Al-Alawi et al., 2007). Knowledge can be found in organisations in either tacit or explicit form.
The first research problem is that most past empirical studies on knowledge sharing took a
macro view of the knowledge construct. Scant attention was given to the fundamental
differences between explicit and tacit knowledge.
Scholars and practitioners have emphatically argued that a large part of knowledge in
organisations is tacit. Unlike explicit knowledge, that can be stored in external repositories
and is visible, tacit knowledge essentially resides in the minds of the knower. It is almost
impossible for tacit knowledge to be shared without the active participation and cooperation
of the knower (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Explicit
knowledge artefacts may confound the findings of a study that views knowledge as a single
dimension. Evidence of explicit knowledge sharing behaviour may result in a generalised
conclusion. This can be fatal. The problem becomes more acute when the high value and
volume of tacit knowledge in the organisation is considered (Buckman, 2004; Davenport and
Prusak, 1998; Mooradian, 2005; Smith, 2001). Therefore it is important that studies in
knowledge sharing discern accordingly. This study is on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour
and takes cognisance of the stated anomaly.
Among the myriad factors that facilitate or impede knowledge sharing, prior research has
consistently identified organisational culture as one of the most important (Abzari and
Teimouri, 2008; Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Chin-Loy and Mujtaba, 2007; McDermott and O’Dell,
2001; Román-Velázquez, 2005). Although there are limited studies on the influence of
organisational culture on knowledge sharing (Sackmann and Friesl, 2007) most of these
studies superficially describe organisational culture. Furthermore, very few have gone to the
extent of diagnosing organisational culture. There is also a dearth of literature on the
influence of organisational culture types on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour.
The mix of the research problems stated above gives birth to a potent combination of
challenging issues to the researcher. However, the benefits of such an under-investigated
area cannot be denied. This study is premised on these research gaps.

3. Literature review
Knowledge, knowledge management and knowledge sharing
To carry out activities and to produce goods and services, organisations need resources.
The importance of resources for the success and even existence of organisations has been
the focus of many studies (e.g. Barney, 1991; Grant, 1996; Penrose, 1959). Grant (1996)
postulates that the knowledge-based view of an organisation, an outgrowth of the resource
based view, focuses on knowledge as the most strategically important of the firm’s
resources. This view resonates with that of other scholars (e.g. Cantú et al., 2009; De la Vega
and Stankosky, 2006, Drucker, 2000).

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 463
 ‘‘ Although it is acknowledged that there are inherent benefits
to knowledge sharing, people are reluctant to share. ’’

What is knowledge? Although there is no singularly universal definition of the term

knowledge and this can give rise to diverse interpretations, we can take refuge in Guba’s
(1990, p. 17) argument about a similar problematic limbo revolving around the term –
paradigm. He posits that ‘‘having the term not cast in stone is intellectually useful’’ as the
possibility of reshaping according to our understanding of its implications improves. Alavi
and Leidner (2001, p. 107) further lend support to this argument when they describe
knowledge as a ‘‘broad and abstract notion that has defined epistemological debate in
western philosophy since the classical Greek era’’. Since time immemorial, people have
been implicitly managing knowledge as they went about their daily activities.
Mehrizi and Bontis (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of extant literature and concluded that
KM describes the following activities: knowledge assessment, knowledge acquisition/
absorption/assimilation, knowledge creation/processing/development/ transformation,
knowledge storage/retrieval, knowledge sharing/distribution/circulation/transfer,
knowledge utilization/application, active forgetting of knowledge, and the administrative
process of KM. The actual study of KM is quite recent. Drucker (1999) argues that KM is
based largely on the foundation laid by F.W. Taylor. Snowden (2002) describes the period
prior to 1995 as the first age in the management of knowledge. The primary focus then was in
the structure and flow of information to decision makers (Snowden, 2002) and promoting
best practices through the capture of collective intelligence (McElroy, 2000). Deliberate,
focussed and multi-disciplined KM commenced circa 1995 with the introduction of the SECI
model by Nonaka and Takeuchi. This heralded the commencement of the second age of KM.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) argued that social interactions among organisation members
has a vital role in knowledge creation and knowledge sharing; information and other
technologies act merely as enabling tools. This philosophical stance was in striking contrast
to the information technology based KM school of thought prevalent during that period
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Snowden contends that third generation KM emerged
around the year 2002. The evolutionary need to clearly separate context, narrative and
content management drove the need to relook at KM.
In general, knowledge sharing is the act of making knowledge available to others within the
organization (Abzari and Teimouri, 2008, p. 106). Previous research has unearthed an
interesting array of factors impeding or facilitating knowledge sharing in organisations.
Al-Alawi et al. (2007) suggest that trust, communication, information systems/technology,
rewards and organization structure are positively related to knowledge sharing in
organizations. Among the many dimensions that facilitate knowledge sharing, prior
research has consistently identified organisational culture as one of the most distinct (e.g.
Abzari and Teimouri, 2008; Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Chin-Loy and Mujtaba, 2007; McDermott
and O’Dell, 2001; Román-Velázquez, 2005). However, organisational culture is
multi-dimensional (Schein, 2009) and it has also been cited as the main reason for
people’s reluctance to share knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 1998).

Tacit knowledge
Most researchers and practitioners agree that a major part of knowledge in an organisation
is in tacit form (e.g. Buckman, 2004; Mooradian, 2005). Smith (2001, p. 311) reports that 90
percent of the knowledge in any organization is embedded and synthesized in people’s
heads. Tacit knowledge is personal, context specific, and difficult to formalise and
communicate (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Polanyi (1966, p. 4) concisely sums up tacit
knowledge with the phrase ‘‘we know more than we can tell’’. Tacit knowledge is the
antithesis of explicit knowledge. It not easily shared through conventional instruments, such

j j
PAGE 464 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
 as documents, databases, systems, and processes (Kreiner, 2002). Davenport and Prusak
(1998, p. 81) argue that codifying tacit knowledge is difficult but that its substantial value
makes it worth the effort. Notwithstanding the challenges cited by scholars and practitioners,
the decision to focus only on tacit knowledge instead of knowledge in general in this study,
can be justified by reasons that include but are not limited to, its substantial volume and
value to the organisation.

Organizational culture
Cameron and Quinn (2006) posit that attention to the concept of organisational culture
began seriously in the 1980s. They argue that taken-for-granted values, underlying
assumptions, expectations and definitions already in existence contributed to the reason for
ignoring organisational culture as an important factor. The argument that organisational
performance is intricately intertwined to certain organisational cultures has been the subject
of the interest of many researchers and practitioners (De Long and Fahey, 2000; McDermott
and O’Dell, 2001; Schein, 2004). Organisational behaviour is determined more by its culture
than directives from senior management and the implementation of strategies in many
organisations is affected if they are at odds with the organisation’s culture (Jarnagin and
Slocum, 2007).

Understanding and diagnosing culture, especially organisation culture, has been the
subject of much debate. Various theories and tools have been presented by scholars (e.g.
Cameron and Quinn, 2006; Schein, 2004). Among the various theories and models, is
Cameron and Quinn’s (2006) Competing Values Framework (CVF), which has been widely
used in research in organisational culture (e.g. Chin-Loy and Mujtaba, 2007;
Román-Velázquez, 2005). The fundamental premise of CVF is that organisations can
typically be diagnosed as having any one or a combination of four culture types:

1. clan;
2. adhocracy;
3. market; and
4. hierarchy.

Cameron and Quinn developed a tool, the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument
(OCAI), in conjunction with the CVF. They contended that though they developed a longer
version of the OCAI, the more parsimonious version was equally predictive of an
organisation’s culture. The CVF and OCAI have been used in more than 1,000 organisations
and have been found to predict organisational performance (Cameron and Quinn, 2006).
Most leaders recognise organisational culture as the most significant barrier to creating and
leveraging knowledge assets (De Long and Fahey, 2000). Milne (2007) posits that
employees, in general, are motivated to hoard instead of share knowledge to maintain a
competitive advantage; however researchers argue that an organisational culture that
encourages knowledge sharing can be developed with the right incentives (Al-Alawi et al.,
2007; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001; Milne, 2007; Smith, 2001), leadership (Jain et al., 2006;
Nayir and Uzunçarşili, 2008), and technology (Al-Alawi et al., 2007), among others.

‘‘ Clan culture has a positive influence on tacit knowledge

sharing behaviour; however, market and hierarchy cultures
have a negative influence. ’’

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 465
 4. Theoretical framework
Cameron and Quinn (2006) identified two major organisational effectiveness dimensions,
namely:
1. flexibility and discretion, and stability and control; and
2. internal focus and integration, and external focus and differentiation.
Together these two dimensions form four quadrants; clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market;
each representing a distinct set of organisational effectiveness indicators (Cameron and
Quinn).
Tacit knowledge sharing behaviour is intricately linked to the people in the organisation; the
employees, leaders, and managers. There is sufficient literature (e.g. Chin-Loy and Mujtaba,
2007; Román-Velázquez, 2005) to allow the researchers to infer that clan and adhocracy
cultures facilitate whereas market and hierarchy cultures impede knowledge sharing
behaviour; furthermore this stand can also be substantiated by the attributes of the culture
types adduced by Cameron and Quinn.
The theoretical model developed for this study is illustrated in Figure 1. The fundamental
premise of this model is that the various dominant culture types influence tacit knowledge
sharing behaviour differently; some positively and others negatively.

Tacit knowledge sharing behaviour

Tacit knowledge sharing behaviour is evidenced in this study by the following indicators:
B organisational communications (Yi, 2009);
B personal interactions (Yi, 2009);
B mentoring/tutoring (Román-Velázquez, 2005); and
B willingness to share knowledge freely (Davenport and Prusak, 1998).
Although Yi proposed four dimensions, the authors only selected two that were relevant to
this study. The exclusions are: ‘‘Written contributions’’, which was tagged by Yi as an explicit
knowledge sharing dimension and therefore irrelevant to this study, and ‘‘Communities of
Practice’’ (COP). Yi further described COP as a more tacit knowledge sharing indicator;
however, the authors were not convinced that such a generalisation can be made without
further investigation. Román-Velázquez’s study comprised a mix of dimensions measuring
KM systems, knowledge flows and among the indicators most were irrelevant to this study

Figure 1 Theoretical model

Organisational Culture

Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy

Influence

Positive Positive Negative Negative

Tacit Knowledge Sharing Behaviour

Organisational Communications

Personal Interactions

Mentoring/tutoring

Willingness to share knowledge freely

j j
PAGE 466 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
and were excluded accordingly, save for mentoring/tutoring. Although one-on-one
conversations, peer interaction and storytelling were relevant to tacit knowledge sharing,
they were already represented by some of the indicators adopted from Yi for this study.

Organisational culture types

In this study the OCAI was employed to diagnose organisational culture, and profile
organisations according to the dominant culture type in the respondents’ organisation.
Organisations were classified as:
1. Clan culture – a friendly place to work where people share a lot about themselves. Typical
characteristics of an organisation with a dominant clan culture orientation are; teamwork,
employee involvement programmes, high employee commitment to organisation and
co-workers, and high corporate commitment to employee.
B H1. Clan organisational culture type has a positive influence on tacit knowledge
sharing behaviour.
2. Adhocracy culture – organisations dominant in this culture type are generally organic and
not mechanistic, characterised by a dynamic, entrepreneurial and creative workplace.
Employees are empowered and risks taking encouraged. Effective leadership is
visionary, innovative and risk-oriented.
B H2. Adhocracy organisational culture type has a positive influence on tacit
knowledge sharing behaviour.
3. Market culture – the major focus of organisations in this culture type is to conduct
transactions with other stakeholders to create competitive advantage. Competitiveness
and productivity basically forms the foundation of market culture driven organisations.
Winning is everything in a market culture type organisation and this competitiveness is
expected to trickle down to the individual level. Knowledge becomes a proxy for power
and this destabilises knowledge sharing especially tacit knowledge.
B H3. Market organisational culture type has a negative influence on tacit knowledge
sharing behaviour.
4. Hierarchy culture – organisations dominated by this culture are generally characterised
by formalised and multiple hierarchical structures. Standardised procedures govern
people’s actions and there is minimal or no discretionary powers vested in employees.
Emphasis is on rule reinforcement and the long-term concerns of the organisation are
stability and predictability. The hierarchy culture nurtures the use of standard operating
procedures and best practices, and has multiple layers of vertical (position) and
horizontal (work units) silos operating relatively in isolation. The structures and power
relationships would act as barriers to tacit knowledge sharing in these organisations.
B H4. Hierarchy organisational culture type has a negative influence on tacit
knowledge sharing behaviour.
5. Organisations that do not have one dominant culture type – two or more culture types may
appear to be dominant at the same time – shall be termed as mixed organisational culture.
B H5. Mixed organisational culture types with evidence of a dominant clan and/or
adhocracy culture types has a positive influence on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour.
B H6. Mixed organisational culture types without evidence of a dominant clan and/or
adhocracy culture types has a negative influence on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour.

5. Data collection methods and measures

A survey based data collection method was employed in this study. There are basically two
dimensions that were studied, namely:
1. tacit knowledge sharing behaviour; and
2. organisational culture type.

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 467
 The survey on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour was conducted through a structured and
standardized close ended questionnaire and data collected using a Likert five-point scale.
Four indicators, that is: organisational communications, personal interactions,
mentoring/tutoring and willingness to share knowledge were measured and the aggregate
mean of these indicators was used as single-value scale representing tacit knowledge
sharing behaviour. The survey on organisational culture types was conducted through a
structured and standardized close-ended questionnaire segmented along six content
dimensions, and data collected using an ipsative rating scale. Respondents divide
100 points among the alternatives in each of the content dimensions. Although Cameron and
Quinn agree that the most common rating scale is the Likert scale, they deliberately selected
the ipsative alternative as its primary advantage is that it highlights and differentiates the
cultural uniqueness that actually exists in organisations (Cameron and Quinn, 2006). The
100-point rating scale results in more differentiation unlike the five or seven-point Likert
scale. Another drawback of the Likert scale highlighted by Cameron and Quinn is that
respondents tend to rate all quadrants high or all quadrants low, therefore, providing less
differentiation.
A total of ten organisations drawn broadly from both the public and private sectors, each
with a minimum of 100 knowledge workers were selected to participate in this study. Three
organisations withdrew due to various unavoidable reasons. Table I outlines a brief profile of
the organisations that participated in this study.
The questionnaire was divided into two sections. Section 1 contained demography related
questions, and section 2 asked participants to respond to questions related to
organisational culture and tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. A total of 540 survey
questionnaires were distributed and 408 were returned giving a response rate of 75.6 per
cent. 46 responses were rejected due to inconsistencies in scoring section 2. Although some
missing data was detected in section 1, the authors accepted the responses as they do not
impact the findings significantly.

6. Results
Demographic information
Table II exhibits the demographic characteristics of the participants in this study. The bulk of
the respondents (76.2 per cent) were between 21 to 40 years old. Overall females
outnumbered males by approximately 2:1. The job position of the respondents was like a
classical pyramid organisational pattern: 63.7 per cent from those below middle
management level, 32.4 per cent from the middle management group, and 3.9 per cent
from top management.

Reliability
Reliability, an essential characteristic of quantitative data, refers to the consistency of
collected data (Mertler, 2006). Though there are several different reliability coefficients,
Cronbach’s alpha is one of the most commonly used (Coakes et al., 2009). Nunnally (1978)
suggested that an alpha of 0.70 be the minimum acceptable standard for demonstrating
internal consistency; however Field (2005) suggested that when dealing with psychological

Table I Profile of organisations

Case Industry Core competency Sector

1 Agriculture Marketing Public

2 Agriculture Information services Public
3 Agriculture Research & Development Public
4 Financial Services Private
5 Tobacco Marketing Private
6 Information technology Services Private
7 Health care Services Private

j j
PAGE 468 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
Table II Demography of the respondents
Classification Band/Category Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender Male 112 31.5

Female 244 68.5
Age 21-30 143 40.2
31-40 128 36.0
41-50 46 12.9
Over 50 39 10.9
Position Below middle management 214 63.7
Middle management 109 32.4
Top management 13 3.9

constructs, values below even 0.7 can realistically be expected because of the diversity of
the constructs being measured. The reliability of the major factors was tested and yielded
high Cronbach’s alpha for tacit knowledge sharing behaviour (0.72), clan culture type (0.77),
and market culture type (0.80), and acceptable indicators for the adhocracy culture type
(0.63) and hierarchy culture type (0.65) (Table III).

Validity
Validity is an essential quality in research and it refers to the extent to which data, or data
collection instruments, measure what actually is desired to be measured. The critical factor
is whether the data collected is appropriate and accurate for the purpose of the research.
We determine the validity of the construct by relating the measures to our theoretical
framework. Two main dimensions form the basis of this research, that is, organisational
culture and tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. In order to obtain evidence of construct
validity, the authors used two approaches. The first is convergent validity using correlational
statistics, and the next is discriminant validity with factor analysis.
B Organisational culture. Cameron and Quinn (2006) cite Cameron and Freeman as having
produced evidence of the validity of OCAI. Notwithstanding this, the authors generated
correlational statistics based on the data collected in this study. With the exception of
correlation coefficients of items measuring the adhocracy culture type, almost all other
correlation coefficients were statistically different from zero (p , 0:01) and were
moderately correlated. These correlations are similar to that observed in other studies on
OCAI cited by Cameron and Quinn (2006).
B Tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. Correlation statistical analysis was also performed on
the indicators of tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. The results are laid out in Table IV. A
moderately high correlation between mentoring and tutoring, and willingness to share
knowledge was observed. The correlation between organisational communications and
the other three indicators is moderate and the correlation coefficients are almost similar
indicating consistency. Based on the correlation coefficients, the authors submit that the
indicators support the measure of tacit knowledge sharing behaviour quite adequately, as
the correlation coefficients are not too high (closer to 1) indicating that there is sufficient
depth and diversity in the construct, all correlations are positive, and as such
complementary, in the measure of tacit knowledge sharing behaviour.

Table III Descriptive statistics: tacit knowledge sharing behaviour and organisational
culture types
Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha

1 Tacit knowledge sharing behaviour 3.54 0.45 0.72

2 Clan culture type 32.01 23.09 0.77
3 Adhocracy culture type 24.87 16.24 0.63
4 Market culture type 32.37 16.84 0.80
5 Hierarchy culture type 31.93 17.33 0.65

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 469
Table IV Correlational matrix of tacit knowledge sharing behaviour
Organisational Personal Willingness to share Mentoring and
communications interactions knowledge tutoring

Organisational
communications 1
Personal interactions 0.411* 1
Willingness to share
knowledge 0.410* 0.298* 1
Mentoring and tutoring 0.394* 0.299* 0.562* 1

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The items in the instrument in this study were scrutinised using the factor analysis technique.
Table V lists the items and factor loadings extracted for the organisational culture types. Item
codes and their details can be found in the Appendix (Tables AI-AII). A loading of 0.40 and
above, was used, given the sufficient sample size in this study. None of the items were
eliminated as they hold a loading of 0.40 and above. These results resonate with that of
Cameron and Quinn (2006).
Table VI displays the summary of factor analysis for tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. The
principal component method was employed with varimax rotation. As with factor analysis of
organisational culture types, the authors also used a factor loading of 0.40 and above to
retain the items. These results corroborate the findings of Yi (2009) on the relevant indicators,
that is, organisational communications and personal interactions, and that of
Román-Velázquez (2005) on mentoring and tutoring.
Inferential analysis of the data gathered in this study was conducted using the multiple
regression method. In multiple linear regression a dependent variable (Y) is related to two or
more independent variables (X1 ; X2 ; . . . ; Xk ). Generally the model is represented as;
Y ¼ b0 þ b1 X1 þ b2 X2 þ . . . þ bk Xk ; where b0 is the Y-intercept, bi is the regression
coefficients (or slope parameters).

Table V Factor analysis for organisational culture types variables

Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading

B1 0.604 B2 0.599 B3 0.621 B4 0.580

C1 0.700 C2 0.750 C3 0.702 C4 0.555
D1 0.646 D2 0.605 D3 0.787 D4 0.530
E1 0.698 E2 0.509 E3 0.661 E4 0.698
F1 0.724 F2 0.599 F3 0.793 F4 0.746
G1 0.720 G2 0.424 G3 0.701 G4 0.527

Table VI Factor analysis for tacit knowledge sharing behaviour indicators

Organisational Willingness to share
communications Personal interactions knowledge Mentoring and tutoring
Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading

H1 0.771 I1 0.519 J1 0.736 K1 0.633

H2 0.782 I2 0.654 J2 0.782 K2 0.773
H3 0.807 I3 0.733 J3 0.787 K3 0.799
H4 0.759 I4 0.512 J4 0.602 K4 0.581
H5 0.607 I5 0.626
H6 0.462
H7 0.530
H8 0.609

j j
PAGE 470 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
All the variables displayed significance at p , 0:05, indicating that there is justification for
their inclusion in the model, save the adhocracy culture type that was eliminated
accordingly. The test for multicollinearity produced VIF values of 2.2 for Clan, 1.7 for Market,
and 2.4 for Hierarchy. The values were within the acceptable range (Field, 2005, p. 196) to
infer generalisablity. The coefficients (unstandardised) read as; clan (0.011), market
(20.005) and hierarchy (2 0.006) (Table VII).
The regression model: Tacit Knowledge Sharing Behaviour ¼ 3.535 þ 0.011(Clan OCAI
score) – 0.005(Market OCAI score) – 0.006 (Hierarchy OCAI score).

7. Discussion
Clan culture was found to have a positive influence on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour
(Table VIII). This finding supported our first research hypothesis. The standardised
coefficient of clan culture is higher than the combined standardised coefficients of the other
culture types in the model. It can be safely concluded that even a moderately significant
existence of clan culture in the organisation would contribute toward a positive change in
tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. The second research hypothesis could not be examined
as the data gathered was not statistically significant for analysis.
Both the market and hierarchy culture types contributed negatively to tacit knowledge
sharing behaviour. The third and fourth research hypotheses were accepted as a result. In a
mixed organisational culture environment, based on the regression coefficients there is
sufficient justification to infer that:
B where clan culture is dominant, the overall influence of organisational culture would be
positive; and
B where clan culture is not dominant, the overall influence on tacit knowledge sharing
behaviour would be negative.

Table VII Coefficients

Unstandardised coefficients Collinearity statistics
B Sig. Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 3.535 0.00

Clan 0.011 0.00 0.452 2.212
Market 20.005 0.01 0.601 1.664
Hierarchy 20.006 0.00 0.412 2.428

Table VIII Summary of analysis of hypothesis

Hypothesis Status

1. Clan organisational culture has a positive influence on tacit knowledge sharing Supported
behaviour
2. Adhocracy organisational culture has a positive influence on tacit knowledge Not
sharing behaviour analysed
3. Market organisational culture has a negative influence on tacit knowledge Supported
sharing behaviour
4. Hierarchy organisational culture has a negative influence on tacit knowledge Supported
sharing behaviour
5. Mixed organisational culture with evidence of a dominant clan culture type has a Supported
positive influence on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour
6. Mixed organisational culture without evidence of a dominant clan type has a Supported
negative influence on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 471
 8. Conclusion
Theoretical contributions
Scholars are of the view that there is limited research in the area of this study and among the
rare few such studies, most focussed broadly on organisational culture as a single dimension
and its influence on knowledge management practices. This research went much deeper into
both the realms; by diagnosing organisational culture, identifying organisational culture types
and studying their influence on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. The authors believe that no
previous research has done this. They satisfiedan important knowledge contribution criterion;
that is, penetrating into a deeper level to seek explanation, test predictions and to extend
understanding at the forefront of the discipline. The mutual dependence between originality
and contribution to knowledge is most evident in this research.
B Theoretical framework. The theoretical framework developed for this research proposes
that organisational culture types influence tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. This is an
important contribution to knowledge as there is a dearth of literature on research in this
area. Theory facilitates the formulation of predictions and hypotheses. The theoretical
framework presented in this research is novel. It allowed us to bring together known
elements; such as, organisational culture types, and tacit knowledge sharing behaviour;
that hitherto have been kept apart in past studies. The schema presented in the theoretical
framework raised a series of ontological debates culminating in the formulation of the
research questions, predictions and hypotheses. The eventual findings of the research
were relevant and this substantiates the validity and reliability of the theoretical framework.
B Research findings. Clan culture has a positive influence on tacit knowledge sharing
behaviour; however, market and hierarchy cultures have a negative influence. These
findings add to new knowledge in the area of organisational culture and knowledge
sharing, particularly tacit knowledge sharing. Most past empirical studies have not gone
to the depth of diagnosing organisational culture and studying the influence of the culture
types on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour.

Managerial implications
What can be measured can be understood; what can be understood can be controlled; and
what can be controlled can be improved. Without the tools to measure, practitioners cannot
understand let alone control and improve. This research has proposed a set of instruments
and models to measure and predict tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. Managers can make
informed decisions instead of relying on intuition or take things for granted. Much of the
knowledge in an organisation is in tacit form and obviously there is vast economic potential in
leveraging on this type of knowledge. The economic value to organisations as a result of this
study can possibly be immense.
The importance of leveraging on tacit knowledge in the minds of people in the organisation
cannot be overemphasised. This study shows that the clan culture type has a positive
influence; whereas the market and hierarchy culture types negatively influence tacit
knowledge sharing behaviour. Though these findings offer us an insight into the dynamics of
the interaction between the elements, they are not definitive. It would be prudent for
managers to embrace these findings in perspective.
Organisations with a dominant clan culture type have a positive influence on tacit knowledge
sharing behaviour. Top management should be aware of this advantage. Facilities should be
made available for more employee interactions as the advantage will be lost if people in the
organisation are not given the space. Story telling should be a mandatory training imperative
as people in the organisation may be willing to share knowledge voluntarily; however
explicating tacit knowledge may be beyond them.
Market culture contributed negatively to tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. This is not
surprising as looking at the characteristics of organisations with a dominant market culture,
the core values revolve around competitiveness and productivity. The glue that holds these
organisations is an emphasis on winning. It can be argued that to be competitive and

j j
PAGE 472 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
‘‘ Among all the culture types, organisations with a dominant
hierarchy culture have the most unenviable position in
developing tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. ’’

productive, knowledge sharing is absolutely necessary and as such organisations with a

dominant market culture should have a vibrant knowledge sharing culture. However, in reality
this may not be the case. Most of these organisations are fixated with results. The competitive
nature of the organisation generally rubs off onto its employees. They tend to work in silos.
Therefore, managers should implement human resource policies that would encourage tacit
knowledge sharing. Rewards and recognition may motivate people to share tacit knowledge.
The use of technology, like video conferencing, electronic forums, applications like twitter and
facebook can be implemented and their prolific use encouraged. Employees must be made
aware that sharing tacit knowledge is not a zero-sum game. Leadership by example is
important, and as such, all levels of the management must be involved.
Among all the culture types, organisations with a dominant hierarchy culture have the most
unenviable position in developing tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. The structures,
systems and processes, fixation on order and control, and all the other trappings of this
culture type make encouraging tacit knowledge sharing behaviour among employees an
enormous task. However managers may implement: team building initiatives, such as
cross-functional teams, cross-designation teams, self-managing teams; and social network
development initiatives, to mitigate the setbacks of this culture type.

Limitations
There were limitations during this research that the authors had taken cognisance of. The
small number of organisations in the study accentuated the possibility of drawing samples
from a narrow spectrum of organisational culture types. Another limitation revolved around
the ipsative rating scale. It was not clearly understood by the participants and as a result
some of responses were not reliable and had to be rejected.

Further research
The authors strongly believe that research is a journey and not a destination. In this respect,
they recommend further research in the following areas, although it must be noted that the
list is not exhaustive:
B investigate other culture types, aside from the four in this study, that may influence tacit
knowledge sharing behaviour;
B develop a taxonomy and scale for tacit knowledge sharing enabling conditions to
strengthen the dimensions in this research;
B investigate and include in the model other complementary predictors of tacit knowledge
sharing behaviour in organisations, and study their influence; and
B investigate sectoral differences at the public sector and private sector level, and between
industry sectors for more detailed analysis of the influence of the business environment on
organisational culture and tacit knowledge sharing behaviour.
From a macro perspective, most past empirical studies have argued that organisational
culture influences organisational activities. The findings of this study are aligned to this view.
However the authors took a more objectivist approach by diagnosing organisational culture
types and studied their influence on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. It is worth reiterating
that in the absence of measurable tools, organisations rely very much on a general idea of
what their organisational culture is. It can be fatal to oversimplify the assessment of culture
as one may end up gauging only its manifestations.

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 473
 References
Abzari, M. and Teimouri, H. (2008), ‘‘The effective factors on knowledge sharing in organizations’’,
The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 105-13.

Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y. and Mohammed, Y.F. (2007), ‘‘Organizational culture and knowledge
sharing: critical success factors’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 22-42.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36.

Barney, J.B. (1991), ‘‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’’, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Buckman, R.H. (2004), Building a Knowledge-Driven Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2006), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework, revised ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Cantú, F.J., Bustani, A., Molina, A. and Moreira, H. (2009), ‘‘A knowledge-based development model: the
research chair strategy’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 154-70.

Chin-Loy, C. and Mujtaba, B.G. (2007), ‘‘The influence of organizational culture on the success of
knowledge management practices with North American companies’’, International Business
& Economic Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 15-28.

Coakes, S.J., Steed, L. and Ong, C. (2009), Analysis without Anguish, John Wiley & Sons, Milton.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

De la Vega, A.F.R. and Stankosky, M. (2006), ‘‘Knowledge management and innovation: what must
governments do to increase innovation?’’, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 7 No. 4.

De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), ‘‘Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge’’, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.

Drucker, P.F. (1993), Managing for Results, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY.

Drucker, P.F. (1999), Management Challenges for the 21st Century, HarperCollins Publishers, New York,
NY.

Drucker, P. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge work’’, Executive Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 11-12.

Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage Publications, London.

Grant, R.M. (1996), ‘‘Toward a knowledge-based theory of a firm’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, Winter special, pp. 109-22.

Guba, E.G. (1990), ‘‘The alternative paradigm dialog’’, in Guba, E.G. (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Halawi, L., Aronson, J. and McCarthy, R. (2005), ‘‘Resource-based view of knowledge management for
competitive advantage’’, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 75-86.

Jain, K.K., Sandhu, M.S. and Sidhu, G.K. (2006), ‘‘Identifying and overcoming barriers to sharing’’,
Knowledge Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 6-7.

Jarnagin, C. and Slocum, J.W. Jr. (2007), ‘‘Creating corporate cultures through mythopoetic
leadership’’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 288-302.

Jonsson, A. and Kalling, T. (2007), ‘‘Challenges to knowledge sharing across national and
intra-organizational boundaries: case studies of IKEA and SCA packaging’’, Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, Vol. 5, pp. 161-72.

Kingston, J. and Macintosh, A. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge management through multi-perspective modelling:

representing and distributing organizational memory’’, Knowledge Based Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 121-31.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), ‘‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology’’, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-97.

j j
PAGE 474 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
Kreiner, K. (2002), ‘‘Tacit knowledge management: the role of artifacts’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 112-23.

McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), ‘‘Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.

McElroy, M.W. (2000), ‘‘Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational
learning’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 195-203.

Mehrizi, M.H.R. and Bontis, N. (2009), ‘‘A cluster analysis of the KM field’’, Management Decision, Vol. 47
No. 5, pp. 792-805.

Mertler, C.A. (2006), Action Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Milne, P. (2007), ‘‘Motivation, incentives and organisational culture’’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 28-38.

Mooradian, N. (2005), ‘‘Tacit knowledge: philosophical roots and role in KM’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 104-13.

Nayir, D.Z. and Uzunçarşili, U. (2008), ‘‘A cultural perspective on knowledge management: the success
story of Sarkuysan Company’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 141-55.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Penrose, E.T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Wiley, New York, NY.

Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Keegan Paul, London.

Reychav, I. and Weisberg, J. (2010), ‘‘Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge sharing’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 285-300.

Román-Velázquez, R. (2005), ‘‘An empiric study of organizational culture types and their relationship
with the success of a knowledge management system and the flow of knowledge in the US government
and nonprofit sectors’’, in Stankosky, M. (Ed.), Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.

Sackmann, S.A. and Friesl, M. (2007), ‘‘Exploring cultural impacts on knowledge sharing behavior in
project teams – results from a simulation study’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 142-56.

Schein, E.H. (2004), Organisational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Schein, E.H. (2009), The Corporate Culture Survival Guide, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

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.

Snowden, D. (2002), ‘‘Narrative patterns: uses of story in the third age of knowledge management’’,
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Wang, J., Ashleigh, M. and Meyer, E. (2006), ‘‘Knowledge sharing and team trustworthiness: it’s all about
social ties’’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 4, pp. 175-86.

Yi, J. (2009), ‘‘A measure of knowledge sharing behavior: scale development and validation’’,
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 7, pp. 65-81.

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 475
 Appendix. Item: codes and explanation.

Table AI
B1. The organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share
a lot of themselves
B2. The organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick
their necks out and take risks
B3. The organization is very results-oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done.
People are very competitive and achievement-oriented
B4. The organization is very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally
govern what people do
C1. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify mentoring,
facilitating, or nurturing
C2. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship,
innovation, or risk taking
C3. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense,
aggressive, results-oriented focus
C4. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify coordinating,
organizing, or smooth-running efficiency
D1. The management style in the organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus, and
participation
D2. The management style in the organization is characterized by individual risk taking,
innovation, freedom, and uniqueness
D3. The management style in the organization is characterized by hard-driving
competitiveness, high demands, and achievement
D4. The management style in the organization is characterized by security of employment,
conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships
E1. The glue that holds the organization together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this
organization runs high
E2. The glue that holds the organization together is commitment to innovation and
development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge
E3. The glue that holds the organization together is the emphasis on achievement and goal
accomplishment
E4. The glue that holds the organization together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a
smooth running organization is important
F1. The organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness, and participation
persist
F2. The organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges.
Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued
F3. The organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets
and winning in the marketplace are dominant
F4. The organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control, and smooth
operations are important
G1. The organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources,
teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people
G2. The organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest
products. It is a product leader and innovator
G3. The organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing
the competition. Competitive market leadership is key
G4. The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth
scheduling, and low-cost production are critical

j j
PAGE 476 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
Table AII
H1. I can freely express my ideas and thoughts in organisational meetings
H2. I feel comfortable and can freely participate in brainstorming sessions in my organisation
H3. I can freely suggest solutions to problems in my organisation
H4. I can freely answer questions posed to my colleagues during meetings in my organisation
H5. I ask questions during meetings and discussions and my colleagues and superiors take the
trouble to answer them to the best of their ability
H6. I share success stories that may benefit the organisation during meetings
H7. I declare my mistakes to my colleagues and superiors without worry of any adverse reaction
from them
H8. I have ample opportunities to make presentations in my organisation
I1. I support less experienced colleagues in their job related activities during my free time
I2. I spend time in personal conversation (e.g. discussion in hallway, over lunch, through the
telephone) with others to help them with their work-related problems
I3. I keep others in my organisation updated with important organisational information through
personal conversation
I4. I spend time in e-mail communication and/or via other electronic or mobile technologies
with colleagues to help them with their work-related problems
I5. I share my experiences with others in my organisation so that they may not repeat the
mistakes that I have made
J1. My co-workers commonly share their knowledge and experiences while working
J2. Most people in my organisation generally do not hoard knowledge but are willing to share
such knowledge freely
J3. Co-workers volunteer their knowledge and experiences even without being asked
J4. Most people in my organisation freely declare mistakes that they may have made while
performing their jobs, so that others can learn and not repeat them
K1. New employees undergo a period of orientation to familiarise them with the systems and
processes in the organisation
K2. Employees, irrespective of duration of service, are mentored in my organisation when they
take on new responsibilities
K3. The mentoring programme in my organisation is effective
K4. Most people in my organisation voluntarily mentor others with lesser experience and skills

About the authors

Visvalingam Suppiah is the Managing Director of Paradigm Systems, a company
specialising in IT and knowledge management solutions. He has over 30 years working
experience and has worked in various technical and management positions, encompassing
software development, sales and marketing and consulting. He developed Paradigm
Systems into a very successful company that is a market leader in Malaysia. In recognition of
his effort and contribution in developing the IT industry, Suppiah was recognized as a Key
Industry Leader by the Association of the Computer and Multimedia Industry of Malaysia –
PIKOM, on March 27, 2007. Suppiah actively participates in international conferences and
has presented papers on knowledge management in Malaysia (2008) and Australia (2009).
He is currently a PhD candidate in Monash University. Visvalingam Suppiah is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: svl@paradigm.com.my
Manjit Singh Sandhu joined Monash University Malaysian campus in 2007. Prior to this he
was the Head of the Centre for Teaching and Learning and a senior lecturer in the Faculty of
Business Administration, Tun Abdul Razak University, Malaysia. His research interest spans
a wide variety of international business and management related topics such as knowledge
economics/knowledge sharing, foreign direct investment, born global firms, international
entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility etc. Some of his research papers have
been published in refereed journals such as International Journal of Public Sector
Management, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Journal of
Workplace Learning, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, and Knowledge
Management Review (UK). He actively participates in international conferences and has
presented papers in Spain (2009), Romania (2008), Turkey (2006), Oman (2003) and
Indonesia (2002).

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. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 477