Cultural framework

The insights of Schein (2004), who is acknowledged as an expert of culture and leadership, are used as an introduction for this section because it allows one to establish a connection between the previously discussed section 8.2.1, ‘DNA – the founder’s

philosophy’ and this section ‘Cultural framework’. Schein (2004) explained that a culture is

136

‘a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaption and internal integration, that was worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relations to those problems’ (p.17). This quote parallels the idea of Berger and

Luckmann (1966) (discussed in section 8.2.1) that behaviour must be taught and kept in line.

The phrase ‘solved problems of external adaption and internal integration’ is an interesting statement and can be connected to another quote by Schein (2004) (section 8.2.1 DNA – the founder’s philosophy), which explains the impact of a founder on ‘how a group solves external survival and internal integration problems’. Therefore, if the founder has an impact on how to solve external and internal problems, they also influence the ‘shared basic assumptions’ (i.e. Schein’s definition of culture). This elucidates the connection and the power a founder on the organisational culture. It is important to recognise that the solution per se is not central, but the stepping stones that pave the way to accomplish the solutions have been laid by the founder. Therefore, the cultural framework contains elements drawn on the founder’s philosophy (see Figure 16), which also explains why the founder’s philosophy is considered as the very foundation of the phenomenon of this research.

Figure 16. Cultural framework

DNA highly impacts the cultural framework; O = Organisation, A = Atmosphere, S = Support, C = Consulting, F = Feedback, RD = Right Dose.

137

The findings elucidated that the elements ‘communication’, ‘the collective’, and

‘experimental & failure’ are dominant and essential for the phenomenon. Hence, they are discussed in-depth in the next sub sections.

The introduction of this section and the existing literature on culture and KM or culture and knowledge creation may lead to the understanding that a founder or a leader is the sole protagonist and, therefore, is solely responsible for shaping a culture suitable for KM.

This perspective is in line with the quote that culture is ‘what a founder or leader has imposed on a group that has worked out’ (Schein, 2010, p. 3), but as Berger and Luckmann (1966) pointed out there is more to culture as ‘Society is a human product’ (p.61). In this regard, it is worth noting the work of Professor Kruse, who is a German psychologist and honorary professor of organisational psychology. In an interview, Kruse (2007) vigorously refuted the notion that culture can be defined or developed by someone because culture is an indirect variable, as will be explained more in the discussion of organisational development. The upper echelon of an organisation can rather only implement parameters or indirect elements so that a certain form of culture can emerge (Kruse, 2007). This insight indicates that the upper echelon might be important, but is not the sole protagonist in developing culture.

Brown and Duguid (2001) picked up the issue of ‘cultural forces’ from Schein (1985) and discussed it in their paper Knowledge and Organisation: A Social-Practice Perspective.

They explained that the most important cultural elements are provided by the employees and are drawn from their work, tasks, aims, and responsibilities and not by the imposed rules defined by the upper echelon (Brown and Duguid, 2001). Collins (1997) similarly discussed this issue and showed that a social reality (i.e. organisational culture) draws not on its definition and implementation by someone, but rather it is created by ‘people’s actions’ (p.

91), tasks and behaviour in a society (e.g. organisation).

138

Despite the importance of the actions and behaviour of the employees, it is worth emphasising the importance of the founder or top management because of the concepts of objective reality and fusion of horizons. To recapitulate an objective reality ‘has power to shape the individual’ (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 67) and the fusion of horizons is the bridge to share this objective reality.

Therefore, the basic formula for fostering a sound culture suitable for NDKM is a founder or top management that defines the right values (e.g. the founder’s philosophy) to have a positive impact on the behaviour of the employees (culture), which finally enhances knowledge creation within an organisation. The importance and necessity of the positive values have already been elucidated by different authors such as Alavi, Kayworth, and Leidner (2006) who claimed that cultural values have a positive impact on traditional KM, and it should create a ‘comfort zone’ or as named in this research, a good ‘working

atmosphere’ (Arbeitsklima) where employees are motivated to work, share, or create.

Defining the right values is important because the society (culture) changes with time.

The statement ‘The loss of identity is the destruction of the system’ (Stacey, 2001; p. 238) perfectly explains what could happen with NDKM in the absence of the right values. If the essential and positive values disappear, NDKM would also ‘lose its identity’ and, therefore, its possibility to trigger the employees and their behaviour and action for knowledge creation on a high-level. It also shows the link of NDKM to the importance of organisational

development. Similarly, Zarraga and Bonache (2005) elucidated through their research that such a setting (good atmosphere) supports knowledge transfer and, therefore, can push knowledge creation. Therefore, the aim of every organisation must be to create a good working atmosphere based on respect, trust, positive values, and so forth.

However, values and trust are elements which cannot be merely be thrown alone into an organisation in the hope that they will bloom by themselves. It must be an aim of the very

139

top of the organisation (top down approach) to establish such elements in the organisation.

Although the top management (i.e. the upper echelon) also has a vital impact on the creation of such elements, they primarily enable these elements, which is the reason why the main section of this discussion is named ‘The enablers – basic setting’.

In this regard, Schein (2010) explained that ‘Culture is both a “here and now”

dynamic phenomenon and a coercive background structure that influences us in multiple ways. Culture is constantly re-enacted and created by our interaction with others and shaped by our own behaviour’ (p. 3).

The findings of this research corroborate Schein’s quote, but the findings go one step further and elucidate that for a high-level of knowledge creation and NDKM not only are the founder and the employees important, but also it is imperative that the founder establishes the elements as presented in the last section from the outset. Trying to implement such elements afterwards might end in an ineffective trial with a different outcome than doing it from the outset.

This discussion is also in line with the observation of Stimpert, Gustafson, and Sarason (1998) that ‘changing identity’ (p. 92) is, as the term indicates, about changing behaviour. Such social and psychological change is always difficult, especially if the change is not in line with the mind-set of the managers and workers (Stimpert et al., 1998); for instance, implementing and communicating culture would be difficult when most of the employees (critical mass) of an organisation are introverted.

In this research, the focus is on how to create high-level knowledge through NDKM.

The different elements have to be rooted in the very foundation of an organisation, which needs the power of a founder so that the employees are guided and a suitable setting is created. Hence, there is a hierarchy among the founder and employees to establish a setting that is amenable to knowledge creation and sharing, which aligns with Berger and

140

Luckmann’s concept of objective reality that has been introduced at the beginning of this discussion.

This discussion might give the impression that only through the above-mentioned priority can a culture of high-level knowledge creation and its NDKM be established. This would truly be the ideal situation, which would lay the best foundation for such an

undertaking. However, in reality, as an interviewee explained, ‘you can make everyone, … everyone “fit” […] but the employees must be compatible to the system and our culture' (Original quote, ‘Du kannst jeden … jeden fit machen, aber man muss schon etwas sagen, da legen wir schon sehr viel Wert darauf, die Leute müssen kompatibel sein zum System und zu unserer Kultur’) (I16/Q18.14).

The phrase ‘Compatible to the system and our culture’ is very important, and the system or culture is normally devised through the philosophy of a founder. It is a ‘systemic approach’ (I16/Q18.14), where the employees have to be in harmony with the founder’s philosophy and spirit and the existing organisational setting (I16/Q18.14). This harmony can be linked to the notion of ‘inner picture’ (Hüther, 2013c), which is discussed in the section 8.2.2.3, ‘Organisational development’. The ‘inner picture’ of an employee must be in line with the inner picture (i.e. aims) of an organisation. If this is not the case, two different worlds would collide and create emotional barriers – the biggest danger for knowledge creation and its non-deliberate management.

Employees are vital in implementing a certain culture in an organisation. In this regard, the findings revealed an important fact. The last-mentioned quote ‘you can make everyone, … everyone “fit”’ (I16/Q18.14) explains that an employee can be swayed to think differently or change their behaviour (making someone fit), but only to a certain degree, as highlighted by the interviewees also. Hence, if an organisation aims to implement a particular culture, the employees must ‘fully’ fit into the ‘planned’ cultural setting (i.e. the founder’s

141

philosophy in this research) in order to share the same values and key elements as the

organisation wishes, as it is a precondition for knowledge creation with NDKM. For the sake of clarity, the above discussion does not imply that the organisation tries to implement a monoculture, as it could hamper creativity and innovation. Instead, it only highlights the importance of the key elements, which are essential for social interaction. Diversity, which is important for innovation, is omnipresent in the organisation under scrutiny and is determined by the individual horizon of each employee, as discussed in section 8.2.2.3, ‘Organisational development’.

In cases where the employees cannot be fully aligned towards the new or desired culture, the organisation ought to release these employees; but this would lead to a new problem. An organisation cannot just release their employees because they possess

knowledge and routines essential for the organisation. This discussion shortly explains how difficult it is to change an already existing culture because it takes a lot of effort, time, and money. A rule of the thumb is that the bigger the company, the more difficult the cultural change.

The ‘cultural framework’ pattern discussed in this section reveals ingredients arising from the seed sown by the founder’s philosophy and values. These ingredients represent what is permanently important to the founder and teaches all the employees about their values and insights almost every day and creates ‘artless KM elements’, which are important for NDKM.

Artless KM elements are situations where artificially placed (traditional) KM strategies and processes are normally used to enhance knowledge creation, such as knowledge sharing or knowledge distribution processes.

The artless KM elements take place without the presence of the founder, which is important, especially when a company becomes bigger. It is vital that the philosophy of the founder be set at the very top of the organisation (top-down approach) to preserve these

142

elements. The findings revealed that the organisation under scrutiny still uses the founder’s philosophy as a guide to take decisions, especially in strategic and organisational

development. Although this does not have a direct impact on the creation of knowledge, it has an indirect impact. As the DNA’s (i.e. the founder’s philosophy) point of focus is the employees and their needs, using it to decide what is best in critical situations has an impact on the employees and their behaviour, emotions, and views on the organisations. Therefore, each decision made is also concerned with what is best for the employees, and it finally impacts knowledge creation. Moreover, this framework experiences growth over time and the new elements are and must be in line with the basic philosophy and spirit of the founder.

It was found that the organisation’s aim of inculcating the values of the founder’s philosophy and spirit in the employees has been fully accomplished and was elucidated through the language (adjectives) used by all the interviewees and employees. Adjectives such as honesty, faith, trust, respect, or support were often used to describe the organisation under scrutiny by the interviewees (I4/Q5.1) (I5/Q6.42), which indicates a good working atmosphere (Arbeitsklima) (I5/Q6.44) (I9/Q10.5) or a ‘comfort zone’ where employees are motivated to work, to share, and to create.

In this regard, some interviewees also used words such as ‘proud’ and ‘passion’ to describe how they feel about working in the organisation under scrutiny (I5/Q6.42) (I5/Q6.44) (I29/Q35.1). Employees are generally driven by the basic philosophy of the founder who established an organisation. Moreover, the interviewees stated incidents, using quoted examples from their colleagues (I16/Q18.45), where management strategies such as flat hierarchy, equality, or being an open organisation are just failed attempts or

‘meaningless’ promises in many other organisations. The interviewees also revealed that matters were different in their organisation with the often-repeated statement ‘this is not only

143

a statement, it is reality in this organisation’ (Original quote, ‘das hört man nicht nur so… das ist tatsächlich so’) (I5/Q6.42).

This can perfectly be linked to the quote ‘what we do is not new [...] but we try to do everything on a very high-level’ (Observation_Notes, p. 3), already introduced in chapter 8,

‘Findings exercises’. Both the above-mentioned statements indicate that the organisation under scrutiny is different from many other organisations (I16/Q18.45) because of ‘small things’ such as keeping promises, enhanced communication, the focus on the employee, and so forth. These elements finally led to the situation where the employees are proud of their workplace, which also nurtured their passion for their work. Hence, the organisation is genuine with regard to its aims and promises.

However, it requires a massive yearly investment to make the organisational culture transparent (I27/Q33.3), which includes showing and teaching the employees the

organisation’s defined values. This again reflects Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) insight that behaviour must be taught and kept in line.

Therefore, the culture (i.e. behaviour) required for high-level knowledge creation or NDKM can not be accomplished by mere implementation of the defined values, but rather it must be ‘recurring’. This means that the essence of the desired culture and its different elements have to be frequently brought to the minds (teaching) of the employees, which in turn has an impact on the employees’ behaviour and the culture. Sometimes, an

organisational society requires a trigger to be aware of why certain values exist in an

organisation and how they have to be ‘lived’ to establish a high-level of knowledge creation.

This shows a link to the pattern ‘Organisational development’ discussed in section 8.2.2.3

8.2.2.1.1 CF – communication.

The traditional understanding of KM contains different elements, such as the sharing, distribution, creation, transfer, acquisition of knowledge, and so forth. All these elements

144

require proper and suitable communication (Wensley & Verwijk-O’Sullivan, 2000) to transport information and explicit knowledge, which highlights how important

communication is for knowledge creation and KM. As already shown in the section 8.2.1,

‘DNA – the founder’s philosophy’, communication is important to the founder of the organisation under scrutiny. This section not only emphasises the importance of

communication for this research, but also postulates that communication is a pre-condition or a priori requisite for knowledge creation and NDKM.

Figure 17. CF – communication RD = Right dose.

Many authors or experts such as Tylor and Osland (2005), Kikoski and Kikoski (2004), or Davenport and Prusak (2000) have expressed that communication is an essential prerequisite for the creation and the spread (sharing, transferring) of knowledge (i.e.

information and explicit knowledge).

However, in the organisation under scrutiny for the research, communication is an extensive and dominant issue and takes place through different channels, such as email, telephone, video, meetings, gatherings, documents, and so forth. In this regard, it is the act of communication and not the technology used for communication that is important. High-level

145

knowledge creation and its management is possible only by knowing how to communicate and the different features linked to it, such as places, organisational philosophy, and so forth.

Communication can also take place non-verbally; for instance, non-verbal communication has to be resorted to if one is not able to put their thoughts into words to describe something. In such a case, non-verbal knowledge transfer shows how to do, read, or make something and knowledge is communicated by way of showing and learning by doing.

Instead of tacit knowledge, this should be understood as knowledge that is too difficult to explain or knowledge one cannot explain because of the inability to do so. Tacit knowledge in this research is described as the ‘capacity for effective action’ (Senge, 2002a, pp. 56–57).

The findings of this section elucidate that communication needs to be allowed for everyone across an organisation and communication should take place where no skills are transferable at the moment. As shown in this section, employees get inspired by

communication because it allows the fusing of different horizons (employees) from different departments. Sometimes a skill, information, or explicit knowledge may inspire employees, but sometimes a private chat regarding a hobby can lead to a solution.

The communication culture in the organisation drawn from the founder’s philosophy was recognised during the observation in a project team or through approaching random employees. All of them took the time to amply answer the researcher’s questions

(Observation/Q41.16). The passion of the employees for communication can be also linked to the above-mentioned statement that ‘what we do is not always right… but we try to do

everything on a very high-level’ (Observation_Notes, p. 3). It can also be linked to the founder’s philosophy, especially by the dint of socialising. Socialising is not only a gathering of random people, but also the interaction between people through communication.

Therefore, communication can be described as a ‘binder’ or a ‘bridge’, which is also the subtitle of the pattern ‘Communication – the binder and the bridge’ (see Figure 12). It is a

146

binder of relationships and is the most effective way to expose oneself new perspectives (i.e.

sharing and transporting explicit knowledge) about which one (employee) would not think at first (I30/Q36.11). Moreover, communication not only builds bridges between employees enabling the transfer and sharing of information or explicit knowledge, but also by doing so locates knowledge gaps, which is a prerequisite for new knowledge creation (Wensley &

Verwijk-O’Sullivan, 2000).

Implementing communication as a culture does not automatically lead to communication, but rather it provides a setting most suitable for communication. As an interviewee perfectly mentioned, ‘you are responsible that communication takes place’

(I23/Q25.9). The organisation under scrutiny does not have scrupulous documentation about meetings or conversations, which forces them to participate in conversations and to

communicate with others (I23/Q25.9). In this vein, interviewees explained rituals where a bunch of employees from different departments sit together, share time, and discuss different private and job-related topics and problems, which finally can lead to an Aha-experience (i.e.

communicate with others (I23/Q25.9). In this vein, interviewees explained rituals where a bunch of employees from different departments sit together, share time, and discuss different private and job-related topics and problems, which finally can lead to an Aha-experience (i.e.