Content uploaded by Robert A. Cooke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert A. Cooke on Oct 08, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management Success:
Assessing The Behavior–Performance Continuum
Pierre A. Balthazard
Arizona State University
School of Management
pb@asu.edu
Robert A. Cooke
Human Synergistics/
Center for Applied Research, Inc.
rcooke@hscar.com
Abstract
Traditionally, culture has been assessed by qualita-
tive methods. However, quantitative approaches such
as culture surveys offer important advantages for both
cross-sectional organizational research and knowl-
edge-based cultural change initiatives. The Organiza-
tional Culture Inventory© (OCI), an instrument de-
signed for such uses, profiles the culture of organiza-
tions and their sub-units in terms of behavioral norms
and expectations. Following a review of seminal con-
cepts relevant to organizational culture, this paper
presents a framework depicting the relationship be-
tween culture and outcomes that are consistent with
successful KM environments. An examination of the
data provided by approximately 60,000 OCI respon-
dents indicates that the inventory is a powerful indica-
tor of outcomes, which are related to both individual
and organizational criteria.
1. Introduction
A number of authors (e.g., [1, 2, 3]) have stressed
that competitive advantage through knowledge man-
agement is realized through identifying the valuable
tacit knowledge possessed by organizational members
and making that knowledge explicit. Once made ex-
plicit, the knowledge can be mined, organized, stored,
and perhaps most importantly, shared throughout the
organization to spur innovation. But whether within an
organizational subunit or across a multiple partner
global enterprise, the initial processes of knowledge
management depend on harvesting knowledge, both
tacit and explicit. Are the holders of this knowledge
predisposed to support this harvest or not?
A nine-year study of NASA's standard operating
procedure regarding risky-decision making —in which
technical anomalies were repeatedly considered "ac-
ceptable risk"— showed that the organizational culture
created a structure where conformity to the rules led to
the fatal errors [4, 5]. The causes of the Columbia and
Challenger disasters are not due to intentional manage-
rial wrongdoing, safety rule violations or conspiracy.
Rather, NASA's organizational structure is such that
the decision to launch Challenger and land Columbia
were inevitable mistakes. NASA's organizational cul-
ture, routines and systems are designed to allow for a
process of normalizing signals of potential danger.
Thus, known technical problems become an operating
norm and do not prevent NASA managers from giving
the go-ahead to proceed with operations [4, 5].
Examining the multi-organization system that
oversees the air travel industry, a Gannet company
investigation of the American Airlines Flight 587 crash
has found widespread cultural and structural impedi-
ments at Airbus Industrie, the National Trans-portation
Safety Board, and American Airlines. Although these
IT intensive organizations are components of the na-
tion’s aviation safety system designed to prevent
crashes by learning from close calls, the system is de-
pendent on airlines and jet manufacturers sharing their
knowledge and experience with federal regulators [6].
While astute information technology developers
can create various systems to support KM once the
knowledge is available, the availability, the source and
flow of information is very much a product of human
processes. Optimal communication and knowledge
flow between intra and inter-organizational partners,
can be supported by information technologies, but it is
not assured by them. IT, then, is necessary but not
sufficient for successful knowledge management,
whether at the sub-unit level or across and multi-
partner enterprise.
The other complimentary factor for ensuring opti-
mal information flow in global business processes such
as knowledge management is a supportive and harmo-
nized culture shared by all organizational constituents.
In this paper we present useful perspectives on organ-
izational culture and knowledge management, along
with research that uses cutting-edge information tech-
nology-based tools designed to support organization
development. These tools can assess the cultures of
work groups and entire organizations, and thus give the
organizational and information technology leaders in-
sight into how to better understand and support the
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 1
various cultures, and how to diagnose the true causes
of underutilization of information technology re-
sources, sub-optimal knowledge flow, and lack of co-
operation and collaboration that often occur when vari-
ous organizational
2. Organizational Culture
Organizational culture has been characterized as the
“glue that holds organizations together” [7] and “isn’t
just one aspect of the game íit is the game” [8]. Cul-
ture can support linkages between technology adoption
and organizational growth [9], it can be a critical suc-
cess factor in manufacturing strategy [10] and play a
crucial role in determining the success or failure of
mergers and acquisitions [11, 12]. On a more micro
level, researchers have found significant relationships
between the “fit” of employees and the prevailing or-
ganizational culture and a number of important out-
comes such as job commitment and turnover [13]. As
we would expect, organizational culture has also been
found to play a significant role in a number of IT man-
agement processes [14]. These can include technology-
driven change [15], E-business initiatives [16], group-
ware development and deployment [17], new technol-
ogy and adoption [18], computer-based monitoring
[19], and management of new systems development
[20].
But many unanswered questions remain regarding
the meaning and content of organizational culture [21,
22], the methods by which it should be measured [23,
24] and, more fundamentally, the feasibility of cultural
management and change [25], especially when at-
tempting to operationalize specific organizational
goals. While debates around these issues continue,
culture has been accepted as a "fact of organizational
life" by managers and has become an integral aspect of
many organizational development programs. Previous
work on organizational cultures has focused on de-
scriptors of culture, and frequently resulted in dimen-
sions of culture, or a typology of culture [26, 27, 28,
29, 30]. Certain types of organizational cultures, or
certain styles of cultures have been associated with
either positive or negative outcomes for both the effec-
tiveness of the organization and for individual employ-
ees within the organization [30, 31]. Positive out-
comes for individuals might include motivation and
satisfaction [13, 32] while negative outcomes for indi-
viduals might include job insecurity and stress [33, 34].
In contrast, our work attempts to link organizational
culture to individual and organizational outcomes that
are consistent with organizational learning and tenets
of knowledge management.
3. Quantitative Assessment Methods
The concept of organizational culture is derived
from research in the field of organizational behavior
characterized by use of qualitative methods. To an ex-
tent, the use of these methods derives from the issues
of interest to scholars who have studied culture in or-
ganizations: symbolism, sense-making, and socializa-
tion (e.g., [21, 35]), issues involving unique individual
perspectives highly amenable to qualitative study. Yet,
one of the most powerful strategies for organizational
development is knowledge-based change, an approach
that generally relies on the use of quantitative measures
(e.g., [36, 37]). Qualitative and quantitative methods
are complementary approaches to the study and as-
sessment of organizational processes and attributes.
The advantages of qualitative methods include the use
of the focal unit's own terms to describe itself, the in-
tensive and in-depth information that can be obtained
about a unit, and the amenability of the method for
exploratory research on issues and processes about
which little information exists. Alternatively, the ad-
vantages of quantitative methods include the ease of
cross-sectional assessments and comparisons (across
individuals, organizations, or sub-units), the replicabil-
ity of the assessment in different units and by other
researchers or organizational development profession-
als, and a common, articulated frame of reference for
interpreting the collated information. Although both
methods share the potential for producing cumulative
bodies of information for assessment and theory test-
ing, quantitative approaches may be more practical for
purposes of knowledge-based approaches for organiza-
tional development generally, and assessing cultural
prerequisites for organizational learning and knowl-
edge management specifically. For instance, different
subgroups within an organization, such as departments
or units, may have the organizational culture in com-
mon, but also experience a sub-culture unique to the
individuals within the sub-group [38, 39]. Values and
expectations within these groups exert pressure to cre-
ate a variation of the organizational culture for group
members, and ultimately affect the organizational cul-
ture as a whole. A greater understanding of what con-
stitutes culture and the factors and values that affect
intra-organizational cultural variations can only pro-
vide a richer picture of how to optimize organizational
systems to promote knowledge management initiatives.
4. Organizational Culture Inventory©
At the core of our study is the Organizational Cul-
ture Inventory© (OCI), a normed and valid commer-
cial product from Human Synergistics International of
Plymouth, Michigan [40]. Since its introduction, the
inventory has been used by thousands of organizations
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 2
and completed by almost three million respondents
throughout the world. The instrument has been trans-
lated into French (Canadian and Parisian), Spanish
(Castillian and Latin American), German, Japanese,
Icelandic, Dutch, and Swedish and is, arguably, the
most globally used organizational culture assessment
instrument in the world. It has been used for a variety
of purposes, including to direct, evaluate, and monitor
organizational change (e.g., [41]); identify and transfer
the cultures of high performing units [42]; study and
enhance system reliability and safety [43]; facilitate
strategic alliances and mergers [44]; promote collabo-
rative relations within and across units [45]; and test
hypotheses on the relationship between culture and
antecedent variables [46]. This wide range of applica-
tions has produced an extensive information base re-
garding the ways in which culture operates in different
types of organizations. However, it has yet to be exam-
ined as a predictor of individual and organizational
outcomes that are consistent with organizational learn-
ing and the tenets of knowledge management.
The OCI measures 12 distinct but interrelated sets
of behavioral norms and expectations that describe the
thinking and behavioral styles that might be implicitly
or explicitly required for people to "fit in" and "meet
expectations" in an organization or sub-unit. The be-
havioral norms measured by the OCI are defined by
two underlying dimensions, the first of which distin-
guishes between a concern for people versus a concern
for task. The second dimension distinguishes between
expectations for behaviors directed toward fulfilling
higher-order satisfaction needs versus those directed
toward protecting and maintaining lower-order security
needs. Based on these dimensions, the twelve sets of
norms measured by the OCI are categorized into three
general "clusters" or types of organizational cultures:
Constructive, Passive / Defensive, and Aggressive /
Defensive. Empirical support for these clusters, and
therefore the construct validity of the inventory, is pro-
vided by the results of principal components analyses
presented elsewhere (e.g., [32, 39, 47]).
This focus on behavioral norms distinguishes the
OCI from other questionnaires that measure more
global aspects of culture such as shared beliefs and
values (e.g., [27, 31, 48]). While norms and expecta-
tions are both closely related to beliefs and values, the
former have a more direct impact on the day-to-day
activities and work situation of organizational mem-
bers than do the latter. Thus, norms also have a rela-
tively great impact on individual and organizational
outcomes and are potentially indicative of environ-
ments that support organizational learning and knowl-
edge management. In short, by measuring norms and
expectations, the OCI makes the concept of culture
somewhat less abstract and easier for organizational
members to understand and manage.
Figure 1. The Human Synergistics Circumplex
The 12 styles measured by the OCI are graphically
represented using a circumplex (above), a circular dia-
gram on which the distance between behavioral norms
reflects their degree of similarity and correlation. The
collection of styles generates a cultural profile of the
respondent's organization [49]. The styles measured by
the OCI were identified and positioned around the cir-
cumplex on the basis of the interpersonal personality
system proposed by Leary [50] and research on per-
sonality by McClelland, et al. [51], and others [51, 52,
53]. Developmental work was especially influenced by
research on human needs (e.g., [54]) and the growing
body of literature on leadership styles. Behavioral
norms on the right side of the OCI Circumplex reflect
expectations for behaviors that are people-oriented;
those on the left side reflect expectations for behavior
that are relatively task-oriented. Norms toward the top
of the OCI Circumplex promote behaviors that are di-
rected toward the fulfillment of higher-order satisfac-
tion needs; those near the bottom promote behaviors
directed toward the fulfillment of lower-order security
needs.
The statistically-normed OCI Circumplex also al-
lows members of an organization to compare their re-
sults to those of others who have completed the inven-
tory. The bold center ring on the OCI profile reflects
the median score for each of the twelve styles. More
specifically, the concentric circles (from the center of
the profile outward) represent the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th,
90th and 99th percentiles, or progressively stronger
norms along each of the twelve styles.
5. Impact of Culture and KM
The culture of an organization is shaped by many
factors —some of which can be changed, and some of
which are intractable. Organizations adapt to their
external environments by designing responsive struc-
tures and systems, adopting relevant technologies, and
harvesting appropriate skills and qualities. Though
constrained by its environment, an organization makes
© HSI
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 3
a number of "choices" which, collectively, eventually
define its culture. These choices are influenced by the
philosophy of the organization, the values of top man-
agement, and the "assumptions" of founding principals
and succeeding generations of organizational leaders.
Ultimately, the choices will also define the success or
failure of KM initiatives.
Figure 2. The culture-KM relationship
Our model of the role of organizational culture
(see Figure 2 above) proposes a relation between cul-
ture and outcomes consistent with, for example, the
work of Kotter and Heskett [55]. Their description of
the effects of adaptive versus non-adaptive cultures on
organizational performance, problem solving, enthusi-
asm, and innovation suggests that Constructive (as
opposed to Defensive) norms should lead to organiza-
tional effectiveness. Our model, however, introduces a
number of different outcomes –such as organizational
adaptability, role clarity, and communication quality–
that would more directly foster organizational learning
and KM environments.
Though organizational effectiveness is influenced
by a myriad of factors, we posit that the norms quanti-
fied by the OCI are expected to have an impact that is
discernable and significant. Specifically, strong norms
for Constructive behaviors should lead to desirable
outcomes and should minimize undesirable out-
comes—using measures pertinent to the individual and
to the organization. Conversely, expectations for De-
fensive behaviors, should have the opposite impact
according to our model of how culture affects out-
comes. Specifically, targeting outcomes affecting in-
dividuals we predict:
H1a: A Constructive culture will be positively related
with the types of individual outcomes (such as role
clarity, communication quality, organizational fit, crea-
tivity, and job satisfaction) that promote KM success.
H2a: A Defensive (Passive and Aggressive) culture
will be negatively related with individual outcomes
that promote KM success.
Similar relationships targeting the individual have
been reported with respect to the relationship between
culture and stress [34] and that between culture and
member satisfaction [56, 57, 58, 59]. Further insight
into the impact of operating cultures on employees is
provided by other studies that have incorporated the
OCI instrument directly. For example, Haley found
that Constructive norms were positively associated
with affective commitment (that is, commitment based
on emotional attachment to the organization) [59]. On
the other hand, Lahiry [60] found that Defensive norms
(particularly Passive/Defensive) were positively related
to continuance commitment (that is, when people stay
with their organizations because they feel that the costs
of leaving are relatively great). Finally, Weidner [61]
reported a positive relationship between Constructive
norms and the trust of hospital personnel in their su-
pervisors and the organization.
If these hypotheses are confirmed, it would
suggest that the organizational members have achieved
a relationship with their environment conducive to
sharing knowledge, an important antecedant to KM
success. In concert, we predict several outcomes
affecting the organization consistent with a knowledge
management environment:
H1b: A Constructive culture will be positively related
with organizational outcomes (such as quality of prod-
ucts and services, quality of customer service, organ-
izational adaptability, limited turnover, and quality of
the workplace) that promote KM success.
H2b: A Defensive culture (Passive and Aggressive)
will be negatively related with organizational outcomes
that promote KM success.
Quality of customer service is a commonly meas-
ured organizational outcome in KM studies, and stud-
ies of culture. The need for organizations to gain
greater knowledge of their customers in order to not
only improve customer service and preserve customer
loyalty but also to increase revenue streams has never
been stronger. Klein, Masi, and Weidner [46] analyses
suggest that a positive outlook, combined with em-
ployees' perceptions of control led to improved cus-
tomer service. Quality of customer service has also
been considered in a number of cultural analyses of
health care organizations (e.g., [59, 62]). Haley's study
is particularly interesting in that it included patient
satisfaction data and other quality indicators (e.g., "un-
toward events" such as medication error rates and pa-
tient falls). Consistent with Haley's hypotheses, patient
INDIVI DUAL OUTCOMES
Role Clar ity
Communication Qual ity
“Fit” with Organi zation
Behavioral Confo rmity
Job Satisfac tion
ORGANIZAT IONAL OUT COMES
Quality of Product s/Services
Commitment to Customer Service
Organizational Adaptability
Turnover
Quality of Workplace
ANTECEDENTS
Structures
Systems
Technology
Skills/Qualities
+
-
-
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
PROCESSES
CONSTRUCTIVE
PASSIVE/
DEFENSI VE
AGGRESSI VE/
DEFENSIVE
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 4
satisfaction was positively related to Humanistic (Con-
structive) norms and negatively related to Dependent
(Passive/Defensive) norms. In contrast, rates of medi-
cation errors and patient falls appeared to be higher in
units with Constructive cultures and lower in units with
Defensive cultures. Based on qualitative data collected
on the units and previous research on the discrepancies
between the number of untoward events that actually
occur in hospitals and the number that are reported,
Haley proposed that Constructive norms encourage and
permit nurses to report problems; in contrast, Defen-
sive norms may impede organizational transparency by
forcing members to look good and please those in posi-
tions of authority. Although not examined with a
knowledge management perspective, the case clearly
links organizational culture to the tenets of KM.
Beyond quality of service, cross-sectional studies
on culture have considered a number of other
organizational-level outcomes. A post-hoc analysis of
OCI data on supermarkets [42] showed that
Achievement (Constructive) norms were positively
related to sales per square foot of selling space as well
as to subjective measures of store effectiveness. Klein
found a significant relationship between the
Constructive norms and sales growth in a study of
apparel stores [63]. Thornbury's study of 17 units of 4
European companies showed that effectiveness in
dealing with change was positively related to
Constructive norms and negatively related to
Passive/Defensive norms [64]. Rousseau's study of
multiple units of a large fund-raising organization
demonstrated that Passive/Defensive norms were
negatively related to the generation of revenues [65].
Evidence that the norms measured by the OCI are
causally related to organizational performance is also
provided by cultural change programs that have been
evaluated longitudinally [66, 67]. Such programs were
designed to bring about cultural change and perform-
ance improvements by means of interventions directed
at systems, structures, technologies, and/or skills.
Although not based on controlled experimental de-
signs, these practitioner led field studies lend support
to the notion that culture has an impact on effective-
ness. To test our hypotheses, we conduct a secondary
data analysis of actual respondents from the field and
provide a case study comparison of 4 state government
departments that completed an organizational change
initiative prior to deploying a KM initiative.
6. Method
Sample. We examined the responses of 60,900
OCI questionnaires scored by the publisher of the in-
ventory between 1999 and the second quarter of 2002.
These responses represent a small but significant sub-
set of OCI respondents in the field: specifically those
requesting from the publisher a comprehensive com-
puter-generated report analyzing the corporate culture
of their companies (most users self-score their inven-
tory). The broad sample represents the demographics
of organizations in America in terms of gender, age,
ethnicity, education, organizational type, profes-
sions/occupations of respondents, and managerial
level.
Independent variables. The OCI contains 96 items
designed to produce 12 scales of 8 items each. Each
item describes a behavior or personal style that respon-
dents feel should be expected of individuals in an or-
ganization. On a scale of 1 to 5, respondents are asked
to indicate the extent to which each behavior should be
expected and encouraged in their organization in order
to maximize its effectiveness. As stated earlier, empiri-
cal support for these styles and the three clusters, and
therefore the construct validity of the OCI, is provided
by the results of principal components analyses pre-
sented elsewhere (e.g., [32, 39, 47]). Means, standard
deviation, and Cronbach alphas for each scale are of-
fered in Table 1.
The table subtly indicates that the mean scores for
the Constructive styles (Achievement, Self-Actu-
alization, Humanistic-Encouraging, and Affiliative) are
higher than the mean scores for the two Defensive
styles. Since the social desirability bias (i.e., the ten-
dency to endorse positive or desirable items and de-
scriptions) can operate on such responses, circumplex
profiles are normatively scaled to correct for such bi-
ases.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 5
Table 1. Scales, reliabilities, and example items
Dependent variables. The OCI instrument contains
a supplemental questionnaire that assesses some of the
outcomes of an organization’s culture. Data generated
by these items provide initial insights as to whether
culture change should be considered and in what direc-
tion such change should take place. The items assess 5
outcome areas that pertain to individuals and 5 out-
come areas pertaining to organizations. The outcomes
promote KM success.
At the individual level, the most immediate out-
comes are the thinking and behavioral styles exhibited
by organizational members. Although it is imperative
for all members to be socialized into the culture to op-
timize a knowledge management environment, when
organizational norms and expectations are weak or
inconsistent, their impact on members' personal styles
will be minimal. Nevertheless, organizations with
strong cultures and/or effective cultural change pro-
grams reinforce the targeted behaviors. People who "fit
in" will become a node on the network and gain influ-
ence; and those who do not will be disconnected from
the network and will eventually leave. Those who do
not fit in but stay will experience "person/norm con-
flict," a source of stress resulting from inconsistencies
between personal predispositions and the demands of
the situation. The following individual level measures
were collected (response options ranged along a five-
point Likert scale from (1) not at all to (5) to a very
great extent):
•Role Clarity: The extent to which organiza-
tional members know what is expected of them.
•Communication Quality: The extent to which or-
ganizational members exchange clear messages.
•“Fit” with organization: The extent organiza-
tional members comfortably “fit in” the organi-
zation.
•Behavioral Conformity: The extent organiza-
tional members are required to think and be-
have differently than otherwise would be the
case.
•Job Satisfaction: The extent organizational
members report positive appraisals of their
work situation.
Outcomes at the organizational or sub-unit level,
while less direct and more difficult to establish, are
nevertheless important to consider. Some of these out-
comes are due to the aggregated effects of norms and
expectations on individual members. For example,
"quality of workplace" should be higher in organiza-
tions with Constructive cultures than in those with De-
fensive cultures. Similarly, turnover (based on mem-
bers' intentions to leave) should be lower in the former
organizations than in the latter. This translates into
members exercising more control at various levels of
the organization, making better decisions, and more
effectively implementing decisions and solutions. The
following organizational level measures were collected
(response options ranged along a five-point Likert
scale from (1) not at all to (5) to a very great extent):
•Quality of Products/Services: The extent to
which organizational members appraise the
quality of their organization’s products.
•Commitment to Customer Service: The extent to
which the organizational members make sure
customers feel good about the service the or-
ganization has provided.
•Adaptability: The extent to which the organiza-
tion responds effectively to the changing needs
of its customers.
•Turnover: The extent to which organizational
members expect to leave the organization within
two years.
•Quality of Workplace: The extent to which or-
ganizational members appraise their organiza-
tion as a good place to work.
7. Findings
As shown in the correlation analysis (Table 2),
Constructive norms are positively associated with
members’ reports regarding role clarity, “fit,” and job
satisfaction. Constructive norms are also negatively
related to members’ reports of communication ambigu-
ity and behavioral conformity. Conversely, expecta-
tions for Defensive behaviors (Passive and Aggressive)
are negatively associated with role clarity, “fit,” and
job satisfaction and are positively associated with
communication ambiguity and behavioral conformity.
Examining organizational outcome measures (Ta-
ble 3), Constructive norms are positively associated
with quality of products & services, quality of cus-
tomer service, adaptability, and the quality of the
workplace. Constructive norms are also negatively
related to turnover. Conversely, expectations for De-
n Cronbach Mean Standard
Alpha Deviation
Constructive
Culture
(CC1) Humanistic-Encouraging scale
(e.g., "help others to grow and develop") 59,878 0.91 3.28 1.30
(CC2) Affiliative scale
(e.g., "use good human relations skills") 60,690 0.91 3.53 1.26
(CC3) Achievement scale
(e.g., "work on self-set goals") 60,323 0.85 3.41 1.21
(CC4) Self-actualizing scale
(e.g., "emphasize quality o ver quantity") 60,00 5 0.80 3.00 1.32
Passive
Culture
(PC1) Approval scale
(e.g., "switch priorities to please others") 59,985 0.80 2.71 2.01
(PC2) Conventional scale
(e.g., "rules more important than ideas") 60,24 6 0.84 3.10 1.36
(PC3) Dependent scale
(e.g., "do what is expect ed") 60,391 0.83 3.23 1.36
(PC4) Avoidance scale
(e.g., "take few chances") 59,869 0.86 2.36 1.40
Aggressive
Culture
(AC1) Oppositional scale
(e.g., "look for mistakes") 59,589 0.73 2.40 1.17
(AC2) Power scale
(e.g., "use the authority of their position") 59,829 0.85 2.61 1.51
(AC3) Competitive scale
(e.g., "turn the job into a contest") 59,946 0.85 2.51 1.51
(AC4) Perfectionistic scale
(e.g., "never make a mistake") 60,199 0.77 3.01 1.34
Measurement Items/First-Order ConstructsConstructs
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 6
fensive behaviors are negatively related to quality of
products & services, quality of customer service,
adaptability, employee retention, and the quality of the
workplace.
Table 2. Correlations, individual outcomes
Table 3. Correlations, group outcomes
The results presented in Tables 2 and 3 clearly in-
dicate the relationships that exist between the styles
measured in OCI and outcomes. Although correlations
do not imply causation, it does suggest that impacting
on one variable may cause another to alter. This is a
key underlying tenet of any cultural change initiative
targeting the creation of an environment appropriate
for KM initiatives. As our culture-outcome framework
suggests, “alignment” is the key. If the organization’s
structure, systems, technology, and skills/qualities are
in alignment with goals and direction, then it is highly
likely that KM success will follow. However, it is
more likely for this alignment to be lacking, resulting
in difficulties for KM initiatives.
These figures alone provide the importance of col-
lecting this type of information prior to attempting the
implementation of a KM initiative.
8. Discussion
Results of this study illustrate how the OCI can be
used to gauge efficiency, effectiveness, and potential
for KM success. The relationships between organiza-
tional culture and a comprehensive set of outcomes
were consistent with our predictions. More generally,
results of the study indicate that normative beliefs and
shared behavioral expectations are quantifiable and are
consistent with the focal organization's management
style. In contrast to the traditional use of qualitative
assessments in the study of culture (e.g., [21]), quanti-
tative methods facilitate large-scale studies of organi-
zations and their sub-units, replication, and triangula-
tion of other forms of assessment. Results of this study
further suggest that quantitatively assessed behavioral
norms and expectations can supplement the qualitative
study of more semiotic facets of organizational culture
to indicate a propensity for organizational learning and
knowledge management processes.
Beyond facilitating the research process, quantita-
tive devices such as the OCI have important advan-
tages for organization development interventions and
other programs directed toward system-wide change,
including creating a transparent environment for
knowledge management. Culture interventions based
solely on qualitative data collection techniques tend to
be broad, and from the focal organization's perspective,
possibly somewhat vague. By bringing significantly
more structure to the assessment, survey instruments
like OCI can reduce uncertainty on the part of the focal
organization and possibly decrease resistance among
members to activities promoting knowledge manage-
ment processes.
From the perspective of a practitioner seeking to
oversee or manage the change processes that accom-
pany the development and deployment of a project
such as global enterprise-wide knowledge manage-
ment, quantitative assessments of culture such as those
made possible by the OCI can be extremely valuable.
An OCI analysis can identify distinct differences
across sub-units and levels, and offer specific informa-
tion on features of corporate culture, especially sub-
group norms and behavior patterns, not readily avail-
able from more global assessments. The opportunity
for extensive surveys enhances not only broad scale
participation but also the representativeness of the data
obtained. In our experience, participants in culture as-
sessments respond very favorably to the self-scoring
feature of the OCI, which allows them to get immedi-
ate feedback on how they as individuals perceive the
behavioral norms of their organization or sub-unit.
This feedback not only facilitates the process of de-
briefing participants, but also involves them in discus-
sion and interpretation of their profiles in comparison
to those of other respondents, a feature useful in both
validating and making sense of the data the OCI pro-
vides. In this manner, cultural assessment and interpre-
tation can be both public and participative, thereby
promoting perceived legitimacy and commitment to
change.
9. Conclusion
Political and social realities shape all forms of
human conduct within and between organizations and
Communicat ion "Fit" with Behavioral Job
Role Clarity Quality organization Conformity Satisfaction
Constructive Humanistic-Encouraging .43** .33** .48** -.25** .53**
Affiliative .43** .29** .45** -.23** .50**
Achievement .42** .28** . 43** -.20** .48**
Self-Actualization .42** .28** . 46** -.20** .52**
Passive Approval -.16** -.31** -.20** .31** -. 20**
Conventional -.17** -.37** -.27** .33** -.29**
Dependent -.16** -.35** -.25** .30** -.27**
Avoidance -.36** -.45** -.39** .40** -.42**
Aggressive Oppositional -.13** -.27** -.17** .29** -.17**
Power -.24** -.38** -.31** .37** -.33**
Competitive -.15** -.29** -.20** . 31** -.19**
Perfectionistic -.03** -.26** -.11** .26** -.14**
Number of respondents: 60,742 60,693 60,615 60,531 60,670
Quality of Quality of
Products/ C ustomer Quality of
Services Service Ad aptability Turnover W orkplace
Constructive Humanistic-Encoura ging .46** .40** .42** -.31** .54**
Affiliative .46** .41** .40** -.30** .50**
Achievement .46** .39 ** .4 0** -.29** .48**
Self-Actualization .44** .41** .42** -.30** .52**
Passive Approval -.14** -.08** -.12** .13** -.20**
Conventional -.19** -.12** -.18** .14** -.30**
Dependent -.17** -.12** -.16** .13** -.29**
Avoidance -.37** -.28** -.33** .25** -.42**
Aggressive Oppositional -.17** -.09** -.10** .12** -.17**
Power -.26** -.20** -.23** .20** -.34**
Competitive -.13** -.08** -.11** .14** -.19**
Perfectionistic -.04** .00 -.04** .08** -.14**
Number of respondents: 60,334 60,391 60,578 60,532 60,651
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 7
their partners. Regardless of professionalism and joint
“enrollment” of a professed common goal, organiza-
tional collaborators may be reluctant to contribute or
exchange knowledge if doing so is inconsistent with
their reference prevailing culture. Within any organi-
zation there may be a variety of cultures, shaped by
characteristic differences in professional orientation,
status, history, power, visibility, or other factors. In
this paper we have shown that understanding these
cultures in terms of expected behaviors can explain
why some organizational units (or the entire organiza-
tion) exhibit behaviors that are counter to the organiza-
tion’s expressed values or mission. On a more practi-
cal level, behavior expectations can also drive the level
of cooperation in a group or team. Thus, culture creates
expectations of behaviors, some of which can result in
non-constructive interactions that hamper knowledge
exchange and ultimately, knowledge management. We
have also presented a proven technology for cultural
assessment and shared some insights from our research
with this tool.
For those planning a global knowledge manage-
ment strategy, understanding the cultures of partner
stakeholders can spell the difference between project
success or failure. This fact transcends both the flow
of knowledge fundamental to this type of initiative, as
well as harnessing the complete cooperation and com-
mitment of those enterprise members involved in the
effort.
10. References
[1] Nonaka, I. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Know
ledge Creation," Organization Science, 5(1), 1994, 14-37.
[2] Teece, D. (1998). "Capturing Value From Knowledge
Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-how, and
Intangible Assets," California Management Review, Vol.
40(3), pp. 55-79, 1998.
[3] Spender, J-C. (1996). “Organizational knowledge, learn-
ing and memory: three concepts in search of a theory.” Jour-
nal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 63-78.
[4] Vaughn, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision:
Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
[5] Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd
ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
[6] USA Today. (2003). Investigation of the crash of Flight
587. 27 May 2003.
[7] Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1996). “What holds the modern
company together?” Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 133-
149.
[8] Gerstner Jr., L.. V. (2002). Who says elephants can’t
dance? New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
[9] Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). “Assessing the
relationship between industry characteristics and organiza-
tional culture: how different can you be?” Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 37(3), 522-554.
[10] Bates, K. A., Amundson, S. D., Schroeder, R. C., &
Morris, W. T. (1995). “The crucial interrelationship between
manufacturing strategy and organizational culture.” Man-
agement Science, 41(10), 1565-1581 .
[11] Weber, Y., Shenkar, O., & Raveh, A. (1996). “National
and corporate cultural fit in mergers/acquisitions: an explora-
tory study.” Management Science, 42(8), 1215-1228.
[12] Javidan, M. (2001). The Impact of National Culture on
Cross-Border Mergers: The Lessons from GLOBE, presenta-
tion at the Fifth International Management Conference of
The Carnegie Bosch Institute for Applied Studies, Berlin,
Germany, October 4-6.
[13] O’Reilly, C. (1989). “Corporations, culture, and com-
mitment: Motivation and social control in organizations.”
California Management Review, 31, 9-25.
[14] Prager, K. P. (1999). “Organizational culture and the IT
professional.” Information Systems Management, 16(2), 12-
18.
[15] Cabrera, A, Cabrera, E. F., & Barajas, S. (2001). “The
key role of organizational culture in a multi-system view of
technology-driven change.” International Journal of Infor-
mation Management, 21(3), 245.
[16] Schuette, D. (2000) “Turning E-Business Barriers Into
Strengths,” Information Systems Management, 17(4): 20-25.
[17] King, W. R. (1996). “Strategic issues in groupware,”
Information Systems Management, 13(2), 73-75.
[18] Hoffman, N., & Klepper, R. (2000). “Assimilating New
Technologies: The Role of Organizational Cul-
ture.” Information Systems Management, 17(3), 36-42.
[19] George, J. F. (1996). “Computer-Based Monitoring:
Common Perceptions and Empirical Results (Part 4 of 4
parts).” MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 475-480.
[20] Newman, M., & Sabherwal, R. (1996). “Determinants of
Commitment to Information Systems Development: A Lon-
gitudinal Investigation.” MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 43-47.
[21] Martin, J. and Siehl, C. (1983). “Organizational culture
and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis.” Organi-zational
Dynamics, 12 (Autumn), 52-64.
[22] Louis, M. R. (1983). “Organizations as culture-bearing
milieux.” In L. R. Pondy, P. Frost, G. Morgan, and T. C.
Dandridge (eds.), Organizational Symbolism. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 8
[23] Schein, E. H. (1984). “Suppose we took culture seri-
ously.” Academy of Management Newsletter, Summer, 2-3.
[24] Sashkin, M. and Fullmer, R. M. (1985). “Measuring
organizational excellence.” Presented at the national meeting
of the Academy of Management, San Diego.
[25] Uffal, B. (1983). “The corporate culture vultures.” For-
tune, October 17.
[26] Hanges, P.J. & Dickson, M.W. (In Press). “The devel-
opment and validation of scales measuring societal culture
and culturally-shared implicit theories of leadership.” In R. J.
House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta
(Eds.). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE
study of 62 culture. Sage Publications.
[27] House, R.J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P.J., & Dorfman,
P.W. (2002). “Understanding Cultures and Implicit Leader-
ship Theories Across the Globe: An Introduction to Project
GLOBE.” Journal of World Business, 37, 3-10.
[28] Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1998). Organizational Be-
havior (4th ed). Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
[29] Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luk, C. (1993). “Individ-
ual perceptions of organizational cultures: A methodological
treatise on levels of analysis.” Organization Studies, 14, 4,
483-503.
[30] Schein, E. H. (1996). “Culture: the missing concept in
organization studies.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,
229-240.
[31] Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cul-
tures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading, MA:
Irwin.
[32] Cooke, R. A., & Szurnal, J. L. (1993). “Measuring nor-
mative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organi-
zations.” Psychological Reports, 72, 1299-1330.
[33] Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek. J.D., &
Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in
Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
[34] van der Velde, M., & Class, M. D. (1995). “The rela-
tionship of role conflict and ambiguity to organiza-tional
culture. In S. L. Sauter, & L. R. Murphy (Eds.),” Organiza-
tional risk factors for job stress. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. 53-59.
[35] Smircich, L. (1983). “Concepts of culture and organiza-
tional analysis.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-
358.
[36] Huse, E. and Cummings, T. (1985). Organizational
Development and Change. St Paul, MN: West.
[37] Nadler, D. A. (1998). Champions of change: How CEOs
and their companies are mastering the skills of radical
change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[38] Trice, H. M., (1993) Occupational subcultures in the
workplace. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press.
[39] Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). “A quantita-
tive approach to the assessment of organizational culture.”
Group and Organization Studies, 13, 245-273.
[40] Cooke, R. A. (1995). Organizational Effectiveness In-
ventory. Arlington Heights, IL: Human Synergistics/Center
for Applied Research.
[41] Gaucher, E., & Kratochwill, E. (1993). “The leader's
role in implementing total quality management.” Quality
Management in Health Care.
[42] Human Synergistics (1986). Improving store manage-
ment effectiveness. Atlanta GA: Coca--Cola Retailing Re-
search Council.
[43] Haber, S. B., O'Brien, J. N., Metlay, D. S., & Crouch, D.
A. (1991). Influence of organizational factors on perform-
ance reliability. (Report to the Division of Systems Research,
U.S. Nuclear Regularly Commission). Upton NY: Brook-
haven National Laboratory.
[44] Slowinski, G. (1992). “The human touch in successful
strategic alliances.” Mergers & Acquisitions, 27, 44-47.
[45] Leeds, C. (1999). The effects of communications trai-
ning and mentoring on individual communication self-
efficacy, job performance, and normative beliefs. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation: University of Illinois at Chicago.
[46] Klein, A. S., Masi, R. J., & Weidner, C. K. (1995). “Or-
ganizational culture, distribution and amount of control, and
perceptions of quality.” Group & Organization Management,
20, 122-148.
[47] Xenihou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). “A correlational
and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of
organizational culture.” Human Relations, 49, 349-371.
[48] Sashkin, M. (1983) Pillars of excellence-The Organiza-
tional Beliefs Questionnaire. King of Prussia, PA: Organiza-
tional Design and Development.
[49] Guttman, L. (1954). “A new approach to factor analysis:
The radex.” In P. Lazerfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thin-king in
the social sciences. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 258-348.
[51] McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A. &
Lowell, E. L. (1953). The Achievement Motive. New York:
Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
[52] Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Thera-
pist's View of Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
[53] Horney, K. (1954). Our Inner Conflicts. New York:
Norton.
[54] Maslow, A.H. (1959). New Knowledge in Human Val-
ues (Ed.) New York:Harper & Bros, South Bend,
IN:Regnery/Gateway.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 9
[55] Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture
and performance. New York, NY: Free Press.
[56] McDaniel, C. & Stumpf, L. (1995). “The organizational
culture: Implications for nursing service.” Journal of Nursing
Administration, 23, 54-60.
[57] Rousseau, D. (1990b). “Assessing organizational cultu-
re: The case for multiple methods.” In Schneider, B. (Ed.)
Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
[58] Klein, R. L., Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1995).
“Organizational culture in high reliability organizations: An
extension.” Human Relations, 48, 771-793.
[59] Haley, B. R. (1998). The relationship of unit culture and
RN and client outcomes. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation:
University of Illinois at Chicago.
[60] Lahiry, S. (1994). “Building commitment through or-
ganizational culture.” Training and Development Journal, 48,
50-52.
[61] Weidner, C. K. (1997). Trust and Distrust at work:
Normative and dyad-exchange influences on individual and
subunit performance. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation: Uni-
versityof Illinois at Chicago.
[63] Klein, M. I. (1992). Corporate culture and store per-
formance: Differences among high performance and low
performance stores. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Temple
University.
[64] Thornbury, J. E. (1994). The relationship between be-
havioral norms, organizational culture and the ability to
assimilate change. London: KPMG Management Consulting.
[65] Rousseau, D. M. (1990a). “Normative beliefs in fund-
raising organizations: Linking culture to organizational per-
formance and individual responses.” Group & Organization
Studies, 15, 448-460.
[66] Dale, M.(1997). “Connecting performance with culture:
A case example of change within Procurement at British
Aerospace Airbus.” Focus on Change Management,
July/August.
[67] Sarkis, H. D., Sanders, W., & Pattillo, J. (1992). “How
to ensure success in safety and operating reliability.” Pro-
ceedings of the Forest Industries Clinic, Portland Oregon.
[68] Vaughn, D.(2003). “NASA Culture, Shuttle Losses may
be linked.” Broadcast Press Briefing. 24 April 2003
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE 10
