Journal of Knowledge Management

Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents

Julia Mueller

Article information:
To cite this document:
Julia Mueller, (2012),"Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16
Iss 3 pp. 435 - 447
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211238751
Downloaded on: 16 February 2015, At: 00:30 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 83 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1673 times since 2012*

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Gian Casimir, Karen Lee, Mark Loon, (2012),"Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and cost", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 16 Iss 5 pp. 740-753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781
Adel Ismail Al-Alawi, Nayla Yousif Al-Marzooqi, Yasmeen Fraidoon Mohammed, (2007),"Organizational culture and knowledge sharing:
critical success factors", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 22-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898
Shahla Ghobadi, John D'Ambra, (2012),"Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams: a coopetitive model", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 16 Iss 2 pp. 285-301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211218889

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 273599 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Knowledge sharing between project teams

and its cultural antecedents
Julia Mueller

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose The aim of this article is to provide insights into how knowledge sharing between project
teams takes place (if formal channels are not provided) and which cultural antecedents influence this
process.
Design/methodology/approach The author adopts a qualitative research design using a
triangulation of methods (interviews, observations, company data and group discussions) to receive
detailed results for one case study.
Julia Mueller is Assistant
Professor at the
Department of Strategic
Management,
Martin-Luther-University
Halle-Wittenberg, Halle,
Germany.

Findings The findings show that knowledge sharing between project teams takes place even though
top-management did not include these processes in the formal work organization. Project team leaders
as well as members share knowledge with other project teams by transferring boundary objects,
interchanging team members and directly interacting. Furthermore, this study confirms some elements
of a knowledge culture, but also discovers new cultural elements that are favorable and unfavorable to
knowledge sharing between teams, such as personal responsibility, intrinsic motivation,
top-managements trust in employees, and output orientation.
Research limitations/implications Despite the fact that only one case study could be researched
with this level of detail, the results provide insights into a research area neglected thus far and show that
not all knowledge processes depend on the same cultural antecedents.
Practical implications Managers and team leaders learn that knowledge sharing between project
teams enhances the efficiency of project work and organizational learning.
Originality/value This study addresses a specific knowledge process, namely knowledge sharing
between project teams, and discovers that specific cultural antecedents support and hinder this type of
cross-boundary knowledge sharing process.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Corporate culture, Organizational culture, Project teams
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Received July 2011

Revised December 2011
December 2011
Accepted December 2011
The research was funded by
grants received from the
Anniversary Fund of the
Austrian National Bank
(Jubilaumsfonds der
sterreichischen
O
Nationalbank).

DOI 10.1108/13673271211238751

Project-based industries, e.g. the construction and engineering industry with permanent
or semi-permanent project teams (Turner, 2006), regard knowledge management as
highly significant (Ajmal et al., 2009; Kale and Karaman, 2011). Knowledge resources
yield high returns because knowledge is rare and difficult to imitate or substitute
(Badaracco, 1991). Managing knowledge helps companies to develop skills and
competencies, sustain competitive advantages, and increase value (Kogut and Zander,
1992; Spender, 1996). As the work organization of project-based organizations often
distinguish groups from one another and create subgroups with subcultures (Trice and
Beyer, 1984), the challenges for project-based organizations regarding the effective
sharing of knowledge are even greater. This type of company needs to overcome the
organizational boundaries resulting from the project-based work organization (Ruuska
and Vartiainen, 2005; Ajmal et al., 2009) and focus on knowledge sharing across
organizational boundaries, such as between project teams.

VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012, pp. 435-447, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 435

Knowledge sharing processes are closely linked to cultural antecedents, as expressed in

the terms knowledge culture (Oliver and Kandadi, 2006) and knowledge-friendly culture
(Davenport et al., 1998). A knowledge culture as a framework of shared meanings and
norms can reduce the uncertainty for employees to engage in knowledge processes by
supplying assumptions and expectations to fill in the voids (Choo, 2002). Knowledge
processes become a natural part of employees daily business (McDermott and ODell,
2001). The absence of certain values, attitudes and beliefs, such as a lack of trust
(Mooradian et al., 2006; Levin and Cross, 2004; Holste and Fields, 2010), however, affects
knowledge sharing negatively (Bechky, 2003; Tagliaventi and Mattarelli, 2006; Davenport
et al., 1998).

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Most research that studies the elements of a knowledge culture (Zarraga and Bonache,
2005; Von Krogh, 1998; Levin and Cross, 2004; Renzl, 2008; Bock et al., 2005) focus on
knowledge processes in general without distinguishing between different knowledge
processes. Wang et al. (2011) have made a first attempt to focus knowledge culture studies
explicitly on the knowledge creation process. However, no research exists that focuses on
knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries. Although project teams are very
common in todays companies (Gardenswartz and Rowe, 1994), little research has analyzed
this level of cross-boundary knowledge sharing. Studies mainly focus on knowledge
management within project teams (Kasvi et al., 2003; Adenfelt and Lagerstrom, 2006; Fong,
2003).
The author aims to close this gap. After giving an overview of the existing research regarding
knowledge sharing between project teams and the elements constituting a knowledge
culture, the author studies cultural antecedents of knowledge sharing between project
teams in an Austrian engineering company. The results show that certain values and
manifestations enable and hinder this knowledge sharing process and that introducing and
living a knowledge culture is not only the responsibility of the management, but of all
employees.

2. Knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries

Knowledge sharing has received much attention (Eisenhardt and Santos, 2002) because
processes of innovation, organizational learning, and the development of new skills need
new knowledge from both inside and outside the company to increase the companys
productivity and maintain its competitive advantages (Senge, 2006; Von Krogh, 1998;
Mooradian et al., 2006; Chua and Pan, 2008; Leonard-Barton, 1995). The ability to share
knowledge with another person or unit significantly contributes to the organizational
performance of companies (Argote et al., 2000).
The author proposes that knowledge sharing is more than transferring information, and
instead defines it as [. . .] the provision or receipt of task information, know-how, and
feedback regarding a product or procedure (Cummings, 2004). This definition implies that
sharing knowledge is a social, interactive and complex process including tacit and explicit
knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). Thus, knowledge sharing involves at least two persons, groups,
or companies: the sender, who is willing and able to share knowledge, and the receiver, who
is willing and able to combine this new knowledge with his or her existing knowledge and
use it.
Most researchers study knowledge sharing within the same boundaries and describe
project teams, departments and networks only to show that they enable individual
knowledge sharing (Wasko and Faraj, 2005) because they provide a closed setting for
research (Cummings, 2004; Zarraga and Bonache, 2005). In contrast, research on
cross-boundary knowledge sharing focuses on two or more closed groupings.
Cross-boundary knowledge sharing can take place between companies (Darr and
Kurtzberg, 2000; Panteli and Sockalingam, 2005; Hansen, 1999) or between companies and
customers (Chesbrough, 2003). Also, within one company, different closed groupings exist
where knowledge is stored. Researchers found out that knowledge sharing between
functional units, departments and professional groups is crucial to create value from the so

PAGE 436 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012

distributed knowledge (Tagliaventi and Mattarelli, 2006; Bechky, 2003; Tagliaventi et al.,
2010). This kind of knowledge sharing can be carried out by itinerant members,
i.e. employees who work temporarily in groups and then join others (Gruenfeld et al., 2000),
can carry out cross-boundary knowledge sharing as well as boundary objects,
i.e. abstract or concrete objects that groups share with the others (Swan et al., 2007;
Ratcheva, 2009).
Knowledge sharing between project teams is another type of cross-boundary knowledge
sharing within one company. These teams interact regularly in order to achieve a certain goal
before a certain deadline (Du Plessis and Hoole, 2006; Wang, 2001). Knowledge sharing
between project teams is necessary because the results obtained by project teams and their
experiences in project management, are valuable to the company and other project teams.
Thus, project teams should share their knowledge with other project teams to foster
organizational learning (Argote et al., 2000).

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Researchers have not studied explicitly knowledge sharing between project teams. It may
be the case that for this type of cross-boundary knowledge sharing, effective
communication, a common basis, and operational proximity (Tagliaventi and Mattarelli,
2006; Bechky, 2003) are all necessary. Cultural characteristics may also influence the
effectiveness of knowledge sharing between project teams. But, studies that focus on
knowledge sharing between project teams and cultural characteristics are still missing.

3. Characteristics of a knowledge culture

Corporate culture helps to understand patterns and orderliness of behavior within
companies and explains why different initiatives succeed or fail (Smircich, 1983). The
dynamic perspective (Sackmann, 1991) defines corporate culture as [. . .] the basic
beliefs commonly-held and learned by a group, that govern the group members perception,
thoughts, feelings and actions and that are typical for the group as a whole. This
perspective sees corporate culture in a holistic way and includes manifestations, basic
assumptions, and shared values. These elements influence the thinking, behavior and
feelings of employees (Schein, 1992; Sackmann, 1991). Vice versa all company members
influence the culture with their behavior and convictions (Martin et al., 1985; Golden, 1992).
Corporate culture enhances coordination, internal control, a focus on common goals,
motivation, and identification with the company and therefore positively influences the
company performance (Barney, 1986).
Knowledge management initiatives are only successful if they are in accordance with the
cultural perceptions in the company (Davenport et al., 1998). In this tradition, the terms
knowledge culture (Oliver and Kandadi, 2006), and knowledge-friendly culture
(Davenport et al., 1998) evolved. Corporate values and manifestations influence if and
how employees share knowledge (McDermott and ODell, 2001; Adenfelt and Lagerstrom,
2006). Vice versa, research shows that successful knowledge processes also influence
cultural values towards a knowledge culture (Mueller, 2012). If employees regard the
introduction of a knowledge management system as advantageous, they might collectively
change their values towards knowledge processes (Dixon, 2000).
Up to now, several researchers have identified corporate values and manifestations mainly
in quantitative research and have analyzed isolated cultural elements and their influence on
knowledge management. Favorable values are care (Zarraga and Bonache, 2005; Von
Krogh, 1998), trust (Levin and Cross, 2004; Renzl, 2008), collegiality and solidarity (Goffee
and Jones, 1996), team orientation (Jones et al., 2006; Alavi et al., 2005), autonomy (Jamrog
et al., 2006), risk orientation (Park et al., 2004), fairness (Bock et al., 2005), long-term
orientation (Jones et al., 2006), openness (Kayworth and Leidner, 2003), and learning
orientation (Brachos et al., 2007). Favorable manifestations for knowledge sharing and
creation are means for communication (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Chen and Huang, 2007) and
interaction (Ding et al., 2010), an overlapping organizational structure (such as a matrix
structure or hypertext organization; Galbraith, 1971; Nonaka, 1994; Nesheim et al., 2011),
incentive systems (Oliver and Kandadi, 2006), top-management commitment (Gupta and

VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 437

Govindarajan, 2000) and shared leadership (Bligh et al., 2006; Pearce and Conger, 2003), a
knowledge vision (McDermott and ODell, 2001; Gold et al., 2001), IT (Oliver and Kandadi,
2006; Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Moffett et al., 2002; Yeh et al., 2006), resources (Oliver and
Kandadi, 2006; Lin, 2006), and processes (Oliver and Kandadi, 2006).
These studies do not distinguish between different knowledge processes. A recent study by
Wang et al. (2011) focuses only on knowledge creation processes and identifies values that
are especially favorable for this knowledge process. However, these researchers do not
study both manifestations and values together. Furthermore, these studies mainly address
Northern-American or Asian countries (Alavi et al., 2005; Bock et al., 2005; Connelly and
Kelloway, 2003; Lin, 2006) and neglect potential differences due to national culture
variations (Hofstede, 2001; Nissen, 2007; Al-Adaileh and Al-Atawi, 2011).

4. Aim, design and setting of the study

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

This study aims at discovering which cultural values and manifestations influence
knowledge sharing between project teams, both positively and negatively. To provide
empirical evidence and as no previous results are available at this level of detail, the author
applied a qualitative and inductive research design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003; Maxwell,
2008). The research site is an Austrian engineering company.
The qualitative research design includes a triangulation of methods (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin,
2003; Maxwell, 2008). First, interviews with 15 employees in the selected company were
conducted in the summer of 2009 using an interview guideline to examine employees
perception of knowledge sharing between project teams and its influencing factors. The
questions about their project team, how knowledge sharing with other teams takes place,
how it worked, which factors enable/hinder knowledge sharing between the teams, and how
the interviewees would describe their company were open, and employees were
encouraged to describe their experiences using critical incidents. The 13 male and two
female interview partners came from three different project teams (two water engineering
project and one rail infrastructure project). They were mostly project team members (11
interviewees), 4 were project team leaders or their assistants. The interviews lasted 65
minutes on average and were conducted by the author as single interviews.
While visiting the employees in their company, the author noted various cultural
manifestations, such as the building, behavior of employees and management, clothes,
and rooms. As the company codified its culture in the mission statement and code of
conduct, the author analyzed these as well. The results from interviews, observations, and
document analysis based on the GABEKw method (Zelger and Oberprantacher, 2002;
Zelger et al., 2011) were summarized and reported to each project team individually. In the
following group discussions the interviewees had the chance to validate or modify the
authors conclusions and negotiate a common team opinion.
The company under study has headquarters in Austria and Germany, operates
internationally and is one of the worlds leading independent engineering consultants,
particularly concerning tunneling, underground, and pipeline construction. The work
organization resembles a matrix structure (Galbraith, 1971) with functional departments and
interdisciplinary project teams. This company was chosen because it is a
knowledge-intensive company (Newell et al., 2002) depending heavily on the knowledge
that employees develop while conducting different projects. For organization-wide learning
to occur, this knowledge has to be shared. The company has implemented previous
knowledge management initiatives and the 15 interviewees can easily reflect on different
enabling and impeding factors for knowledge sharing.

PAGE 438 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012

5. Results: how culture influences cross-team knowledge sharing in an Austrian

engineering company
5.1 The process of knowledge sharing between teams

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

The interviewees report that the companys top-management has taken initiatives to foster
knowledge sharing, such as installing mentoring systems, initial trainings for new
employees, information and communication technologies, vocational trainings, and
constructive handling of mistakes. However, top-managers have not integrated
knowledge sharing between project teams in the official work organization. The
interdisciplinary project teams should handle their tasks individually and the same project
teams should carry out similar projects. Nevertheless, knowledge sharing between project
teams takes place as is necessary for the employees. The sharing of experiences with other
project teams makes the work for project team members easier.
Knowledge sharing between project teams takes place on two levels, the project team
leader and the project team members. Project team leaders share knowledge primarily
about how to organize and administer the project teams. If managers set up new project
teams, project leaders also bring their experiences into these new teams. Project team
members talk to colleagues from the same departments, but from other project teams, about
how they have dealt with similar problems in their project teams. Regarding the question of
why knowledge sharing between project teams takes place and which factors are decisive,
the interviews reveal that cultural manifestations as well as cultural values influence
knowledge sharing processes. The author clustered both manifestations and values into
several categories and provided insights from the interviewees experiences. These cultural
manifestations are not independent of one another, but instead influence and reinforce each
other.
5.2 Cultural manifestations and their influence on knowledge sharing between teams
The first manifestation enabling knowledge sharing between project teams is the formal
organization. The company resembles a matrix organization with departments and
interdisciplinary project teams. This fosters knowledge sharing between project teams
because employees often ask colleagues from the same department, but from different
project teams, for help or advice.
The second manifestation supporting knowledge sharing between project teams regards
the communication and interaction possibilities. Favorable is that the employees are now
located in one newly built building. Thus, employees from different project teams can
communicate directly with each other, e.g. in coffee breaks. The interviewees reveal that
they prefer direct communication, such as contacting experienced employees if they have a
question. Nevertheless, the implemented database helps the employees to retrieve older
project reports and retrieve existing knowledge.
The third cultural manifestation that influences knowledge sharing between project teams is
leadership. In this company, a flat hierarchy and a participatory leadership style enable a
direct communication. Employees dare to contact each other, also across different hierarchy
levels. Top-management does not interfere in the project work because the managers are
convinced that self-managed project teams best know how to pursue their work. Employees
can retrieve knowledge upon their personal responsibility, e.g. from the implemented
documentation system where employees stored previous project reports. Furthermore,
employees only inform the top-management if heavy mistakes have been committed.
Smaller mistakes are corrected upon the responsibility of the project team. Regarding large
mistakes, the top-managements reaction is not to find someone to blame, but to find
solutions. All managers see mistakes as a chance to learn; consequently, employees also
talk about their mistakes with other project teams.
Forth, a manifestation that negatively influences knowledge sharing between project teams
is the lack of time. Having no time means that the interviewees are not able to write the
necessary reports for documentation or take part in the skill enhancement program.
Surprisingly, the interviewees believe that these activities save time later in the project work.

VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 439

Nevertheless, the lack of time caused by overwork within the projects diminishes the
possibilities for cross-boundary knowledge sharing.
Fifth, despite the lack of time, employees need to see the sense in knowledge sharing
processes; otherwise, they cease to engage in them. Thus, knowledge sharing also
influences the attitudes of the persons involved. If employees have gained positive
experiences with getting answers to their questions, diminishing their work load, and
achieving their goals more easily, they are more likely and willing to engage in future
knowledge sharing (reciprocity).
Sixth, the company does not use an incentive system to motivate employees to share
knowledge (regardless of which type of knowledge sharing). Knowledge sharing between
project teams is part of the official work organization. Therefore, interviewees engage in
these knowledge processes based on their own, intrinsic motivations.
5.3 Cultural values and their influence on knowledge sharing between teams

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

The first value that influences knowledge sharing between project teams is trust. The
interviewees do not regard other employees (also not from other projects) as competitors,
but as colleagues. The interviewees trust all employees and do not fear that colleagues will
steal their knowledge. Consequently, employees take the risk of engaging in knowledge
sharing across team boundaries. Furthermore, the trust that top-management puts into its
employees reinforces the other favorable elements for knowledge sharing between project
teams.
Second, the need for teamwork and collegiality are favorable towards knowledge sharing
between project teams. Interviewees state that individualists do not have a chance to fulfill
their tasks on their own. Rather, they need joint problem solving and knowledge sharing.
Third, in keeping with previous values the interviewees also state that the aim of project
teams is to conduct a project effectively. Instead of focusing on the processes of project
work, top-management evaluates project teams regarding the output. This output orientation
is favorable for knowledge sharing between teams because regardless of who asks a
question, everybody is a colleague and receives relevant knowledge.
Fourth, in line with the high level of trust and collegiality as well as the orientation towards
outputs and teams is that the company also highly values openness. Knowledge sharing
between project teams requires access to other employees and relevant documents. In the
company, offices and nearly all areas within the database are open to all employees.
Fifth, employees are allowed to make mistakes and to see them as a chance to improve.
Therefore, the company has a high learning orientation. Project leaders talk about mistakes
in meetings, and employees contact colleagues from the same departments, who might
have experienced the same.
Sixth, the company grew heavily in past years (from about 1,300 employees in 2008 to more
than 1,600 employees in 2011) due to the increased scale of the projects. The interviewees
mention that many employees do not know each other personally, which hinders knowledge
sharing between project teams. Besides this growth orientation, low payment and a high
fluctuation enhances the unfamiliarity of employees with each other, and does not motivate
employees to engage in knowledge sharing between project teams.

6. Conclusion and discussion: a knowledge culture for knowledge sharing between

project teams
This study focuses specifically on the knowledge sharing process between project teams.
Similar to other cross-boundary knowledge processes, knowledge sharing between project
teams takes place when employees moving from one team to the other based on their
expertise (see itinerant member; Gruenfeld et al., 2000) and by documents, such as other
teams project reports (see boundary objects; Swan et al., 2007; Ratcheva, 2009).
Interestingly, two different levels of knowledge sharing between project teams exist where

PAGE 440 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012

different types of knowledge are shared. Project team leaders mainly share knowledge
about a project teams organization, while project team members talk to their colleagues
primarily about technical knowledge.
Although much research focuses on the concept of knowledge culture, existing research
does not explicitly distinguish between manifestations and values of a knowledge culture,
does not focus on the interacting relationships of these features, and does not concentrate
on knowledge sharing between project teams. The results of this study show that certain
manifestations and values foster knowledge sharing between project teams, while some
hinder this process (see also Table I).

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Other studies have already discovered some of these favorable and unfavorable features for
general knowledge management initiatives. This study confirms that a matrix structure
(Galbraith, 1971; Nonaka, 1994), possibilities for communication and interaction (Al-Alawi
et al., 2007; Chen and Huang, 2007; Ding et al., 2010), and shared leadership (Gupta and
Govindarajan, 2000; Bligh et al., 2006; Pearce and Conger, 2003) positively influences
different kinds of knowledge processes. Time in this study is also the most important
resource for knowledge sharing between project teams. As knowledge processes are
mostly not really an official part of the work, employees and top-management do not plan
time for these activities (Oliver and Kandadi, 2006).
This study could also confirm some favorable values for knowledge processes in general.
The most important value of a knowledge culture continues to be trust (Levin and Cross,
2004; Von Krogh, 1998; Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Lin, 2006; Renzl, 2008). Other favorable values
are team orientation and collegiality (Jones et al., 2006; Park et al., 2004; Alavi et al., 2005;
Chen and Huang, 2007; Goffee and Jones, 1996), employee orientation (Kayworth and
Leidner, 2003; Park et al., 2004), and learning orientation (Brachos et al., 2007; Jamrog et al.,
2006; Park et al., 2004), which have a positive impact on knowledge sharing between project
teams. This process also needs a high degree of openness (Kayworth and Leidner, 2003).
Despite the confirmation of some factors, this study has discovered some new or
contradictory cultural elements and some interesting relationships between different factors:
B

Employees take personal responsibility for engaging in knowledge sharing between

project teams. This can only be realized if top-management does not interfere with
informal processes. Flat hierarchies and shared leadership enhance the possibilities for
self-responsible knowledge sharing and employees might continue with these activities.
Furthermore, top-management trusts employees to best know how to conduct the work,
which helps knowledge sharing between project teams. Therefore, it is not only the
employees trust in colleagues and the trust in top-management that fosters knowledge
sharing between project teams (Levin and Cross, 2004; Von Krogh, 1998; Al-Alawi et al.,
2007; Lin, 2006; Renzl, 2008), but also the trust of top-management in their employees.

Despite a heavy workload and a lack of recognition in the official work organization,
employees share knowledge between project teams because they feel the need to do
this. Through sharing knowledge between project teams, employees experience a
decrease in workload if they use their colleagues knowledge, and felt positive about the
reciprocal behavior.

A new value is that a high growth orientation is a barrier to knowledge sharing between
project teams. If the company hires many new employees, it is difficult to know each other
because building relationships takes time. Therefore, the knowledge regarding who
knows what (transactive knowledge) is limited.

Unlike previous research (Oliver and Kandadi, 2006; Brachos et al., 2007; McDermott
and ODell, 2001; Jamrog et al., 2006; Yeh et al., 2006; Lin, 2006), this study reveals that
employees do not need an incentive system to engage in knowledge sharing between
project teams. Instead, employees need to gain positive experiences with knowledge
sharing between project teams, which will then motivate them intrinsically.

Despite the existing results, which consider employee and output orientation to be two
opposite characteristics (OReilly et al., 1991), in this case study, both favor knowledge

VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 441

Table I Characteristics of a knowledge culture favorable for knowledge sharing between

project teams (authors own work)
Cultural elements
Matrix structure
Communication and interaction

Shared leadership and personal responsibility

Time
Need

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Intrinsic motivation
Trust

Team orientation and collegiality

Output orientation
Openness
Employee orientation and learning orientation

Growth orientation

Propositions regarding (un)favorable cultural

elements for knowledge sharing
P1: A matrix structure enables knowledge
sharing between project teams
P2: Communication and interaction possibilities
have a positive influence on knowledge sharing
between project teams
P3a: Shared leadership has a positive influence
on knowledge sharing between project teams
P3b: Personal responsibility of all employees has
a positive influence on knowledge sharing
between project teams
P4: The lack of time negatively influences
knowledge sharing between project teams
P5: If employees feel a need to share
experiences to conduct their project work,
knowledge sharing between project teams is
facilitated
P6: Intrinsic motivation positively influences
knowledge sharing between project teams
P7a: Trust positively influences knowledge
sharing between project teams
P7b: If top-management trusts its employees and
project teams to act upon their own responsibility,
knowledge sharing between project teams is
encouraged
P8: Team orientation and collegiality positively
influences knowledge sharing between project
teams
P9: Output orientation has positive impacts on
knowledge sharing between project teams
P10: Openness positively influences on
knowledge sharing between project teams
P11: Employee orientation and learning
orientation have positive impacts on knowledge
sharing between project teams
P12: Growth orientation has a negative impact on
knowledge sharing between project teams

sharing between project teams. The company studied here can only achieve customer
satisfaction if employees do a good job and create valuable output. Employees only show
commitment to their work if they are satisfied. Thus, employees are the most valuable
resource. Employing mostly skilled (knowledge) workers, who need a high degree of
autonomy and flexibility, might make it obsolete to treat employee and output orientation
as opposites.

7. Implications and limitations

These results are especially helpful for managers to know which manifestations and values
foster or hinder knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries. Furthermore, the
results show that these features influence each other giving managers a starting point from
which develop a knowledge culture. Employees are also responsible for shaping their
companys culture (Golden, 1992; Martin et al., 1985).
For example, top-managements trust in their employees enhances the employees personal
responsibility to conduct their work effectively. The employees personal responsibility
further positively influences their engagement in informal processes, such as knowledge
sharing between project teams. Although top-management does not officially demand

PAGE 442 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012

knowledge sharing, the employees said that knowledge sharing is obligatory. Furthermore,
top-management values that employees share best practices and avoid mistakes because
this increases the quality of project team results, which in turn satisfy customers. Also,
employee satisfaction increases because they experience a decrease in individual workload
as they share knowledge. Consequently, the company developed a learning, output and
employee orientation in its corporate culture.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Limitations of the study are that only one company with a limited amount of employees could
be studied at this level of detail. Further studies could show whether the new relationships
regarding cultural elements and knowledge sharing between project teams are valid for a
broader variety of companies. The company under study is an Austrian based company; as
national cultures shape corporate cultures equivalent studies should be repeated in other
countries, especially discover whether national differences lead to deviant results regarding
supportive and hindering cultural elements (Nissen, 2007; Al-Adaileh and Al-Atawi, 2011), or
especially for knowledge sharing between project teams. This study could only focus on the
corporate level of culture. Although many different subcultures exist within one company
(Trice and Beyer, 1984), research has not thus far discussed different levels of culture in
relation to knowledge processes.

References
Adenfelt, M. and Lagerstrom, K. (2006), Enabling knowledge creation and sharing in transnational
projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 191-8.
Ajmal, M.M., Helo, P. and Kekale, T. (2009), Critical factors for knowledge management in project
business, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 156-68.
Al-Adaileh, R.M. and Al-Atawi, M.S. (2011), Organizational culture impact on knowledge exchange:
Saudi telecom context, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 212-30.
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., Kayworth, T.R. and Leidner, D. (2005), An empirical examination of the influence of
organizational culture on knowledge management practices, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 191-224.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. (2000), Knowledge transfer in organizations:
learning from the expertise of others, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82
No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Badaracco, J.L. (1991), The Knowledge Link How Firms Compete through Strategic Alliances, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Barney, J.B. (1986), Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 656-65.
Bechky, B.A. (2003), Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of
understanding on a production floor, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 312-30.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L. and Kohles, J.C. (2006), The importance of self- and shared leadership in
team based knowledge work: a meso-level model of leadership dynamics, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 296-318.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W. and Kim, Y.-G. (2005), Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces and organizational climate, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 11-87.
Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Soderquist, K.E. and Prastacos, G. (2007), Knowledge effectiveness,
social context and innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 31-44.
Chen, C.-J. and Huang, J.-W. (2007), How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge
management the social interaction perspective, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 104-18.

VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 443

Chesbrough, H. (2003), The era of open innovation, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring,
pp. 35-41.
Choo, C.W. (2002), Sensemaking, knowledge creation and decision making: organizational knowing as
emergent strategy, in Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (Eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual
Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 79-88.
Chua, A.L. and Pan, S.L. (2008), Knowledge transfer and organizational learning in IS offshore
outsourcing, Omega International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 267-81.
Connelly, C. and Kelloway, E.K. (2003), Predictors of employees perceptions of knowledge sharing
cultures, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 294-301.
Cummings, J.N. (2004), Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global
organization, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 352-64.
Darr, E.D. and Kurtzberg, T.R. (2000), An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge
transfer, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 28-44.
Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), Successful knowledge management project,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Ding, Z., Ng, F. and Wang, J. (2010), Personal construct based factors affecting willingness to share
knowledge between architects in a project design team, The International Journal of Construction
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Dixon, N. (2000), Common Knowledge, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Du Plessis, Y. and Hoole, C. (2006), An operational project management culture framework (part 1),
SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 36-43.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case-study research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Santos, F.M. (2002), Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy?,
in Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management, Sage,
London, pp. 139-64.
Fong, P.S.W. (2003), Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: an empirical study of the
processes and their dynamic interrelationships, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21
No. 7, pp. 479-86.
Galbraith, J.R. (1971), Matrix organization designs: how to combine functional and project forms,
Business Horizons, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-40.
Gardenswartz, L. and Rowe, A. (1994), Diverse Teams at Work: Capitalizing on the Power of Diversity,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Goffee, R. and Jones, R.A. (1996), What holds the modern company together?, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 133-48.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.
Golden, K.A. (1992), The individual and organizational culture: strategies for action in highly-ordered
contexts, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Gruenfeld, D., Martorana, P.V. and Fan, E. (2000), What do groups learn from their worldliest members?
Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), Knowledge management social dimension: lessons from
Nucor Steel, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Hansen, M.T. (1999), The search-transfer problem the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across
organization subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, March, pp. 82-111.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

PAGE 444 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012

Holste, J.S. and Fields, D. (2010), Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 128-40.
Jamrog, J., Vickers, M. and Bear, D. (2006), Building and sustaining a culture that supports innovation,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 9-19.
Jones, M.C., Cline, M. and Ryan, S. (2006), Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementation:
an organizational culture framework, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 411-34.
Kale, S. and Karaman, E.A. (2011), Evaluating the knowledge management practices of construction
firms using importance-comparative performance analysis maps, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 137 No. 12, pp. 1142-53.
Kasvi, J.J.J., Vartiainen, M. and Hailikari, M. (2003), Managing knowledge and knowledge
competences in projects and project organisations, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 571-82.
Kayworth, T. and Leidner, D. (2003), Organizational culture as a knowledge resource,
in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management: Vol. 1 Knowledge Matters,
Springer, Berlin, pp. 233-52.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of
technology, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-98.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources of
Information, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in
effective knowledge transfer, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1477-90.
Lin, H.-F. (2006), Impact of organizational support on organizational intention to facilitate knowledge
sharing, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 4, pp. 26-35.
McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Martin, J., Sitkin, S.B. and Boehm, M. (1985), Founders and the elusiveness of a cultural legacy,
in Frost, P.J., Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C.C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 99-124.
Maxwell, J.A. (2008), Designing a qualitative study, in Bickman, L. and Rog, D.J. (Eds), The Sage
Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 214-53.
Moffett, S., Mcadam, R. and Parkinson, S. (2002), Developing a model for technology and cultural
factors in knowledge management: a factor analysis, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 237-55.
Mooradian, T.A., Renzl, B. and Matzler, K. (2006), Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge
sharing, Management Learning, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 523-40.
Mueller, J. (2012), The interactive relationship of corporate culture and knowledge management:
a review, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 183-201.
Nesheim, T., Olsen, K.M. and Tobiassen, A.E. (2011), Knowledge communities in matrix-like
organizations: managing knowledge towards application, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15
No. 5, pp. 836-50.
Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2002), Managing Knowledge Work, Palgrave,
Basingstoke.
Nissen, M.E. (2007), Knowledge management and global cultures: elucidation through an institutional
knowledge flow perspective, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 211-25.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-35.
OReilly, C.A.I., Chatman, J.A. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), People and organizational culture: a profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 487-516.

VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 445

Oliver, S. and Kandadi, K.R. (2006), How to develop knowledge culture in organizations? A multiple
case study of large distributed organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 6-24.
Panteli, N. and Sockalingam, S. (2005), Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: a
framework for facilitating knowledge sharing, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 499-617.
Park, H., Ribiere, V. and Schulte, W.D.J. (2004), Critical attributes of organizational culture that promote
knowledge management technology implementation success, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 106-17.
Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (2003), All those years ago: the historical underpinnings of shared
leadership, in Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (Eds), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys
of Leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-18.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Ratcheva, V. (2009), Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes the case
of multidisciplinary project teams, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 206-15.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

Renzl, B. (2008), Trust in management and knowledge sharing the mediating effects of fear and
knowledge documentation, Omega International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 206-20.
Ruuska, I. and Vartiainen, M. (2005), Characteristics of knowledge sharing communities in project
organizations, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 374-9.
Sackmann, S.A. (1991), Cultural Knowledge in Organizations Exploring the Collective Mind, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Senge, P.M. (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency,
New York, NY.
Smircich, L. (1983), Concepts of culture and organizational analysis, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-58.
Spender, J.-C. (1996), Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 45-62.
Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Newell, S. and Robertson, M. (2007), The object of knowledge: the role of
objects in biomedical innovation, Human Relations, Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 1809-37.
Tagliaventi, M.R. and Mattarelli, E. (2006), The role of networks of practice, value sharing, and
operational proximity in knowledge flows between professional groups, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 3,
pp. 291-319.
Tagliaventi, M.R., Bertolotti, F. and Macri, D.M. (2010), A perspective on practice in interunit knowledge
sharing, European Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 331-45.
Trice, H. and Beyer, J. (1984), Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonies,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 653-69.
Turner, J.R. (2006), Towards a theory of project management: the nature of the project, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-3.
Von Krogh, G. (1998), Care in knowledge creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 133-53.
Wang, D., Su, Z. and Yang, D. (2011), Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 363-73.
Wang, X. (2001), Dimensions and current status of project management culture, Project Management
Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 4-17.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.

PAGE 446 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012

Yeh, Y.-J., Lai, S.-Q. and Ho, C.-T. (2006), Knowledge management enablers: a case study, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 793-810.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Zarraga, C. and Bonache, J. (2005), The impact of team atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in
self-managed teams, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 661-81.
Zelger, J. and Oberprantacher, A. (2002), Processing of verbal data and knowledge representation by
GABEKw-WinRelanw, Forum Qualitative Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, available at: www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/866
Zelger, J., Raich, M., Abfalter, D. and Mueller, J. (2011), Gabekw theory and application in
management studies, paper presented at 10th Annual European Academy of Management (EURAM)
Conference, Tallinn, 1-4 June.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

About the author

Julia Mueller is Assistant Professor at the Department of Strategic Management at the
Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. She has received her doctoral degree
at the University of Innsbruck for her dissertation on The influence of corporate culture on
knowledge sharing processes between project teams a qualitative study. She teaches
graduate courses in strategic management, knowledge management and international
management. Her major research areas are knowledge management and corporate culture.
She has published several articles and has presented her work at international conferences.
Julia Mueller can be contacted at: julia.mueller@wiwi.uni-halle.de

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 16 NO. 3 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 447

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:30 16 February 2015 (PT)

1. Seweryn Spalek. 2014. Does investment in project management pay off?. Industrial Management & Data Systems 114:5, 832-856.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Ulrica Pettersson. 2014. Experience-based knowledge from the Swedish Armed Forces: a comparison between groups and
individuals. Knowledge Management Research & Practice . [CrossRef]
3. Alejandro Germn Frank, Jos Luis Duarte Ribeiro. 2014. An integrative model for knowledge transfer between new product
development project teams. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12:2, 215-225. [CrossRef]
4. Sunita Rega Kathiravelu, Nur Naha Abu Mansor, T.Ramayah, Norhalimah Idris. 2014. Why Organisational Culture Drives
Knowledge Sharing?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 129, 119-126. [CrossRef]
5. Julia Mueller. 2014. A specific knowledge culture: Cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between project teams. European
Management Journal 32:2, 190-202. [CrossRef]
6. James M. Bloodgood, Michael A. Chilton, Thomas C. BloodgoodThe Effect of Knowledge Transfer Motivation, Receiver
Capability, and Motivation on Organizational Performance 232-242. [CrossRef]