Journal of Knowledge Management

Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability

Dong Wang Zhongfeng Su Dongtao Yang
Article information:
To cite this document:
Dong Wang Zhongfeng Su Dongtao Yang, (2011),"Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 363 - 373
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137385
Downloaded on: 08 January 2016, At: 11:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7123 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Rajnish Kumar Rai, (2011),"Knowledge management and organizational culture: a theoretical integrative framework", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 15 Iss 5 pp. 779-801 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111174320
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

Julia C. Naranjo-Valencia, Daniel Jimnez-Jimnez, Raquel Sanz-Valle, (2011),"Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture",
Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 1 pp. 55-72 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111094437
Shu-Mei Tseng, (2010),"The correlation between organizational culture and knowledge conversion on corporate performance", Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 Iss 2 pp. 269-284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011032409

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:559424 []
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.

 Organizational culture and knowledge
creation capability
Dong Wang, Zhongfeng Su and Dongtao Yang
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)
Dong Wang is Associate
Professor at the Media
Management School,
Communication University
of China, Beijing, China.
Zhongfeng Su is Assistant
Professor at the School of
Business, Nanjing
University, Nanjing, China.
Dongtao Yang is Professor
at the School of Business,
Nanjing University, Nanjing,
China.
The authors gratefully
acknowledge the suggestions
and comments received from
the reviewers and the Editor.
Also, the authors thank the
National Natural Science
Foundation of China
(70732002) and the Humanities
and Social Sciences Research
Foundation of the Ministry of
Education of China
(08YJA630037) for the
generous financial support.
Received: 16 July 2010
Accepted: 9 December 2010
DOI 10.1108/13673271111137385
Abstract
Purpose Organizational culture comprises a firms climate that informally and tacitly defines how the
firm develops and uses knowledge, thus it has a significant effect on knowledge creation capability. The
purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of organizational culture on knowledge creation
capability.
Design/methodology/approach The data of 212 Chinese firms collected through face-to-face
interview is used to empirically test the hypotheses.
Findings This study finds that organizational culture plays a critical role in knowledge creation
capability. Specially, collectivism has a positive impact on knowledge creation capability, while power
distance and uncertainty avoidance have negative effects.
Originality/value This study not only contributes to knowledge management research by identifying a
key antecedent of knowledge creation capability organizational culture but also is of importance to
organizational culture literature by demonstrating the proper organizational culture for knowledge
creation capability.
Keywords Organizational culture, Knowledge creation, China
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Knowledge creation capability, which refers to an organizations ability to exchange and
combine knowledge to create new knowledge, plays a critical role in competitive advantage
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). But, why are there significant differences between firms
knowledge creation capabilities and how can firms improve their knowledge creation
capabilities? Existing research clearly indicates that organizational routines are critical
antecedents of knowledge creation capability (Smith et al., 2005). Thus, as an important
element of organizational routines, organizational culture has a significant effect on
knowledge creation capability (Bhagat et al., 2002; Park et al., 2004).
Owing to the importance of knowledge creation capability, its antecedents become a crucial
research issue in that it can provide a more complete picture on how firms create new
knowledge and advance knowledge management research (Smith et al., 2005).
Investigating the impact of organizational culture on knowledge creation capability can
identify a key antecedent of knowledge creation capability, thus it has a distinct contribution
to knowledge management research. Unfortunately, there is minimal research on it, which is
a serious research gap.
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to address this research gap. Specifically, the authors
employ three dimensions of organizational culture individualism-collectivism, uncertainty
avoidance, and power distance to examine the impact of organizational culture on
knowledge creation capability. These three dimensions have been validated and widely
used in existing organizational culture research (e.g. Wuyts and Geyskens, 2005).
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011, pp. 363-373, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 363
 Unlike previous research, the authors use the survey data of Chinese firms to empirically test
the hypotheses. China is deemed appropriate as the research setting for three compelling
reasons. First, there is a high variation in knowledge creation capability among Chinese
firms. Some Chinese firms belong to technological leaders in the world, such as ZTE and
Huawei, while a larger part of Chinese firms have relatively less sophisticated capabilities
and knowledge (Hitt et al., 2000). Such a high variation in knowledge creation capability
provides an ideal context to test its antecedents. Second, as the research horizon of
knowledge management is now increasingly expanded to China, it is critical to know more
about what is going on there (Meyer, 2006). Finally, improved knowledge about China has
enormous implications for Western firms to compete and/or collaborate with Chinese firms
(Su et al., 2009).

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1 Knowledge creation capability
As one kind of vital strategic asset, knowledge is acknowledged as a critical source of
competitive advantage and superior performance (Grant, 1996a). However, the frequent
and significant advancements in science and technology lead to firms existing knowledge
obsolescence (Spender, 1996). As a result, firms need to continuously introduce new
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

knowledge to sustain their competitive advantages (Grant, 1996b). Firms can introduce new
knowledge by creating knowledge themselves (Nonaka, 1994). The internal created
knowledge can offer novel ideas, skills, abilities, and methods to accordingly facilitate
organizational goals, and it is unique, path-dependent, and difficult for competitors to imitate
(Nonaka et al., 2006). Thus, the creation of new knowledge is essential for the success of
firms competing in dynamic environments (Kogut and Zander, 1992).
To create new knowledge, firms must have knowledge creation capabilities (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998). An organizations knowledge creation capability is defined as the extent to
which its members have access to one another and other stake-holders, are capable of
combining information and knowledge into new knowledge, and perceive value from the
exchange and combination process (Smith et al., 2005). Knowledge creation capability is a
unique competence to drive competitive advantage and superior profit (Grant, 1996a).
Thus, how firms can improve their knowledge creation capabilities is stressed in the extant
literature and needs more comprehensive understanding (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Through reviewing the relevant literature, Smith et al. (2005) suggested that organizational
routines have an important impact on knowledge creation capability in that they comprise a
firms climate that informally and tacitly defines how the firm develops and uses knowledge.
Thus, organizational culture, an important element of organizational routines, has a
significant effect on knowledge creation capability (Bhagat et al., 2002; Park et al., 2004).
Yet, no research has investigated the impact of organizational culture on knowledge creation
capability, a gap which this study intends to fill in.

2.2 Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability

Organizational culture typically is defined as a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions,
and symbols (Barney, 1986, p. 657) that guide the behaviors of organizational members
(Hofstede, 2001). Organizational culture is an important driving force behind all the
movements in the organization (Barney, 1986). Pillania (2006) indicated that organizational
culture is one of the major reasons behind the failures of knowledge management initiatives
and it is crucial for successful knowledge management. Organizational culture impacts the
knowledge exchange, the combinative interaction, and the perceived value of
organizational members (Tseng, 2010), thus it has a significant effect on knowledge
creation capability. To probe deeply into the impact of organizational culture on knowledge
creation capability, three elements of organizational culture individualism-collectivism,
uncertainty avoidance, and power distance, which are conceptualized as organizational
values (Wuyts and Geyskens, 2005) will be investigated separately in this study.

j j
PAGE 364 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
 Investigating the antecedent of knowledge creation capability
not only helps to enrich the knowledge on how firms create
new knowledge, but also advances knowledge creation.

Traditionally conceptualized as a continuum, individualism-collectivism is an important

dimension of organizational culture (Hofstede, 2001). Individualism refers to the condition in
which personal interests are accorded greater importance than are the needs of groups,
while collectivism accords when the demands and interests of groups take precedence over
the desires and needs of individuals (Wagner, 1995). Individualism emphasizes
independence whereas collectivism emphasizes interdependence (Wuyts and Geyskens,
2005). Members in individualist organizations prefer to be treated as individuals and they
believe that personal value is more important than organizational goals, while members in
collectivist organizations insist cooperation to realize organizational value (Chen et al.,
1998).
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

This study argues that collectivism has a positive effect on knowledge creation capability for
two reasons. First, collectivism fosters cooperation and teamwork (Chen et al., 1998).
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) indicated that an atmosphere of cooperation opens the
access to and creates motivation to exchange knowledge. In addition, teamwork facilitates
disclosure of knowledge and is key to effective creativity (Wagner, 1995). Thus, collectivism
has a strong contribution to knowledge creation capability since it enables to advance
knowledge exchange and combination (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Smith et al., 2005).
Conversely, individualism emphasizes the pursuit of individual goals and results in a
willingness to confront members of the in-group (Wagner, 1995). As a result, members in
individualist organizations seldom share and exchange knowledge with other organizational
members, which impedes knowledge creation capability (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994).
Second, members in collectivist organizations prefer cooperation to realize organizational
value and they approve the value from the knowledge exchange and combination process
(Bates et al., 1995). In contrast, members in individualist organizations believe that personal
value is more important than organizational goals (Chen et al., 1998), thus they hardly
perceive value from the knowledge exchange and combination process (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998; Smith et al., 2005). In summary, collectivism approves the organizational
value from knowledge exchange and combination and accelerates such process, while
individualism emphasizes personal value rather than organizational goals and impedes
knowledge exchange and combination. Therefore,
H1. Collectivism has a positive impact on knowledge creation capability.

Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which an organization feels threatened by and
tries to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede, 2001). With regard to the impact of
uncertainty avoidance on knowledge creation capability, it should be negative.
Organizations that are low in uncertainty avoidance accept uncertainty, take risks, tolerate
various opinions and behaviors, and dare to challenge existing routines through creating
new knowledge (Cakar and Erturk, 2010). Conversely, organizations that are high in
uncertainty avoidance need predictability and uniformity and have a strong preference for
codification (Erramilli, 1996), thus they are more willing to maintain the stability of current
knowledge base rather than pursue new knowledge (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994).
Therefore, low uncertainty avoidance organizations have stronger motivation to create new
knowledge and enhance their knowledge creation capabilities.
In addition, the willingness of organizations to experiment with new ideas and to take risks
has a significant impact on knowledge exchange and combination (Cakar and Erturk, 2010).

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 365
 Organizations that are low in uncertainty avoidance encourage employees to test and
exchange knowledge and ideas. In contrast, organizations that detest risk-taking and
experimentation move against sharing and combining knowledge and ideas (Smith et al.,
2005). As a result, uncertainty avoidance pushes organizations away from advancing
knowledge creation capability. Therefore,
H2. Uncertainty avoidance has a negative impact on knowledge creation capability.

Power distance refers to the practice of inequalities in the distribution of [. . .] power and
authority (Hofstede, 1980, p. 72). With regards to the impact of power distance on knowledge
creation capability, this study argues that it is negative for three reasons. First, low power
distance makes organizational members deem that they should involve in knowledge sharing
and exchange (Cakar and Erturk, 2010), thus knowledge is easier to diffuse across
organizational members. Second, members in low power distance organizations feel more
comfortable in interactions with others than those in high power distance organizations (Wuyts
and Geyskens, 2005), thus they can easily combine knowledge. Finally, low power distance
organizations experience less need for explicit definition of tasks and tight control (Shane,
1995), and individuals are more people-oriented (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994).
Organizational members have more freedom to do creative tasks and they approve the
value of knowledge exchange and combination (Bates et al., 1995).
Conversely, high power distance organizations have strong control mechanisms on
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

governing inter-individual activities, which inhibit creative activities such as knowledge

creation (Shane, 1995). In addition, members from high power distance organizations are
more task-oriented, and they just focus on accomplishing their tasks but ignore the value of
knowledge exchange and combination (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994). Overall, high power
distance culture impedes knowledge exchange and combination and inhibits perceiving
value from the exchange and combination process. Therefore,
H3. Power distance has a negative impact on knowledge creation capability.

3. Methods
3.1 Sample and data collection
Data for this study were obtained through an interview survey instrument. Firms in the
manufacturing industry were chosen to eliminate the differences between industries. In
addition, these firms were from several provinces of China, such as Beijing, Hebei, Jiangsu,
Guangdong, Henan, and Shaanxi, to avoid bias in certain regions.
The data were gathered in three phases. First, a questionnaire was developed following
several previous studies, and it was modified according to the actual conditions that firms
faced in China. A pilot test was conducted with 15 firms, whose responses were excluded
from the final study. The questionnaire was revised using feedback from the pilot study. The
questionnaire was prepared in English and then translated into Chinese. The Chinese
version was subsequently back-translated by a third party to ensure accuracy. Two
translations indicated no substantial differences in the meanings of the scales.
Second, 1,000 firms were randomly selected from a list of firms provided by the local
governments and business research firms. The pre-commitment technique was undertaken
to increase response rate. A telephone inquiry of 1,000 randomly chosen firms was
performed before the formal survey, and 263 firms agreed to participate in the survey.
Finally, the direct interview method was adopted to obtain subjects responses to the survey
instrument. Although it was a resource-intensive method, it was chosen over mail survey and
online survey for the purpose of clarifying respondents queries on the spot, avoiding the
situation whereby a busy executive or senior manager may delegate the task of filling out the
survey to his/her secretary, and ensuring that the responses were complete and usable for
data analysis purposes. All the interviewers received training before embarking on the
interview process. The training covered background knowledge of the survey, interview
skills, and the exact meaning of every question in the questionnaire.

j j
PAGE 366 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
 To reduce common method bias, the questionnaires for each firm were completed by two
top managers (Zhou and Wu, 2010). At the beginning, the interviewer showed the
interviewee a letter that explained the intent of the survey and stated the promise to keep the
responses confidential. Then, two interviewers interviewed two executives separately. The
final score of each item was the average of those from the two top managers. The survey was
started in October 2009. By March 2010 the answers from 241 firms were obtained. After
deleting the responses with missing data, the firms with only one answer, and the firms
whose answer from the two top managers were distinctly different, 212 firms were identified
as usable, for an effective response rate of 21.2 percent.
One issue commonly raised concerning survey methodology is non-response bias. The
responding and non-responding firms were compared along major firm attributes such as firm
age and ownership status to check non-response bias. All t-statistics were insignificant.
Additionally, there was no significant difference between the 212 usable firms and the 29
deleted firms. Moreover, the likelihood of non-response bias was further tested by splitting the
total sample into two groups based on the time when they agreed to be interviewed (Armstrong
and Overton, 1977). A comparison of the two groups revealed no significant differences,
supporting the assumption that respondents were not different from non-respondents.

3.2 Variables and measures

Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

Where possible, standard and validated instruments from the literature were used or
adapted. Questionnaire items, unless stated otherwise, were measured using a five-point
scale in which 1 represented strongly disagree and 5 represented strongly agree.
3.2a Dependent variable. Knowledge creation capability was measured by 12 items
developed by Smith et al. (2005) (Alpha 0:959, CR 0:960, AVE 0:667).
3.2b Independent variable. Consulting the existing research (e.g., Bates et al., 1995; Bochner
and Hesketh, 1994; Hofstede et al., 1990; Wagner, 1995), individualism-collectivism, power
distance, and uncertainty avoidance all were measured by three items separately.
Individualism-collectivism (Alpha 0:805, CR 0:813, AVE 0:594) was measured by:
1. Our firm emphasizes cooperation and collectivism;
2. Our firm encourages jointly responsible for the successes and failures; and
3. Close cooperation is preferred over working independently.
Power distance (Alpha 0:769, CR 0:777, AVE 0:541) was measured by:
1. The hierarchical line is very distinct in our firm and it is not allowed to be bypassed;
2. The juniors are not allowed to against the superior, and they must follow the will of the
superior; and
3. The superior has the last word, and the juniors can not discuss with them freely.
Uncertainty avoidance (Alpha 0:761, CR 0:772, AVE 0:535) was measured by:
1. Top managers encourage the development of innovative strategies, knowing well that
some will fail (inversed);
2. We believe that a change in market creates a positive opportunity for us (inversed); and
3. We have a strong preference for high-risk projects with chances of high return
(inversed).

Collectivism has a positive impact on knowledge creation

capability, while power distance and uncertainty avoidance
have negative effects.

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 367
 3.2c Control variables. Firm size was adopted as the first control variable, which referred to
the number of full-time employees measured by a five-point scale. Firm age was used as the
second control variable, which referred to the number of years since the firm was founded.
In addition, market turbulence, technological turbulence, and competitive intensity all have
important impacts on firm performance (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), thus they were all taken
as control variables. The measurements were adopted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Su
et al. (2010), and Zhou (2006).
Market turbulence (Alpha 0:825, CR 0:828, AVE 0:552) was measured by four items:
1. The volume and/or composition of demand are difficult to predict;
2. The evolution of customer preference is difficult to predict;
3. Our demand fluctuates drastically from week to week; and
4. New demands in the market are significant difference from existing one.
For technological turbulence (Alpha 0:762, CR 0:796, AVE 0:503), a four-scale
measure was used:
1. Our industry is characterized by rapidly changing technology;
2. The rate of technology obsolescence is high in our industry;
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

3. It is difficult to forecast the technological changes in the next three years; and
4. Technological changes provide big opportunities in our industry.
Competitive intensity (Alpha 0:833, CR 0:836, AVE 0:561) was measured by four
items:
1. Price competition is a hallmark of our industry;
2. Any action that a company takes, others can make a response swiftly;
3. One hears of a new competitive move almost every day; and
4. Competition in our industry is cut-throat.

3.3 Reliability and validity

Composite reliability assesses the inter-item consistency, which is estimated using
Cronbachs alpha. Cronbachs alpha values of all factors were well above the cut-off point
0.7 (Cronbach, 1971), which suggested that the theoretical constructs exhibited good
psychometric properties. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for each set of focal constructs
were taken to further test the composite reliability and construct validity. At 0.772 or higher,
the composite reliability (CR) for each construct exceeded the 0.7 benchmark (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Further, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was 0.503
or higher, exceeding the 0.5 benchmark (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Thus, composite
reliability and convergent validity were supported by the CFA results.
Discriminant validity is the degree to which measures of different latent constructs are
unique enough to be distinguished from other constructs (Hatcher, 1994). The discriminant
validity of the measures was assessed by running chi-square difference tests for all the
constructs in pairs to determine if the restricted model (correlation fixed as 1) performed
significantly worse than the freely estimated model (correlation estimated freely). All the
chi-square differences were highly significant, providing evidence of discriminant validity
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
Dependent and independent variables were measured by two respondents assessments
and evaluation of their company in this study, thus, the potential dangers of common method
variance should not exist in this study (Zhou and Wu, 2010). Additionally, the possibility of
common method variance was also examined via Harmans one-factor test (Podsakoff and
Organ, 1986). Significant common method bias would result in one general factor
accounting for the majority of covariance in the variables. The Harmans one-factor test on all

j j
PAGE 368 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
 the multi-item variables extracted seven distinct factors that accounted for 71.2 percent of
the total variance, with the first factor explaining 24.9 percent. Thus, no general factor was
apparent, and common method variance was not a serious issue (Podsakoff and Organ,
1986).
The score for each item was the average of those from two interviewers, thus the inter-rater
reliability should be tested in this study. Inter-rater reliability refers to the degree of
agreement among raters, and it can be tested by correlation coefficients (Shrout and Fleiss,
1979). All the variables in this study showed high correlation coefficients. Thus, the data had
good inter-rater reliability.

3.4 Findings
Table I shows basic information on each factor and correlations among them.
Following existing studies, the regression by the ordinary least squares method (OLS) was
used to test the hypotheses in three steps. First, the control variables were added into the
model, next three independent variables individualism-collectivism, uncertainty
avoidance, and power distance were individually added, and finally the full model. The
values of the variance inflation factor (VIF) of all the models were well below the cut-off of ten
recommended by Neter et al. (1985).
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

Table II reports the results of the regression analysis. Model 2a indicates the impact of
collectivism on knowledge creation capability is positive (b 0:514, p , 0:001), which
supports H1. Model 2b indicates the impact of uncertainty avoidance on knowledge creation
capability is negative (b 20:675, p , 0:001), which supports H2. Model 2c indicates the
impact of power distance on knowledge creation capability is negative (b 20:138,

Table I Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Firm age 1
2 Firm size 0.360** 1
3 Technological turbulence 0.037 0.018 1
4 Market turbulence 20.044 20.112 0.428** 1
5 Competitive intensity 0.057 20.008 0.509** 0.340** 1
6 Individualism-collectivism 20.055 20.018 0.398** 0.190** 0.298** 1
7 Power distance 0.039 20.064 0.286** 0.194** 0.339** 0.223** 1
8 Uncertainty avoidance 0.047 0.049 20.462** 20.244** 20.382** 20.400** 20.273** 1
9 KCC 0.011 20.056 0.367** 0.315** 0.440** 0.599** 0.198** 20.560** 1
Means 10.15 1.49 3.30 3.02 3.70 3.86 3.17 2.62 3.61
St. D. 12.04 0.91 0.74 0.85 0.71 0.53 0.80 0.77 0.66

Notes: * Significant at 5 percent; ** Significant at 1 percent

Table II Results of regression analysis

Model 1 Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 3

Firm age 0.107* 0.095* 0.112** 0.114** 0.117***

Firm size 20.145** 20.129** 20.048 20.143** 20.050
Technological turbulence 0.134* 20.113** 20.119** 0.141** 20.163***
Market turbulence 0.195*** 0.173*** 0.292*** 0.199*** 0.267***
Competitive intensity 0.439*** 0.327*** 0.212*** 0.441*** 0.213***
Individualism-collectivism 0.514*** 0.376***
Uncertainty avoidance 20.675*** 20.523***
Power distance 20.138* 20.092**
R-square 0.445 0.568 0.606 0.458 0.661
Adjust R-square 0.403 0.518 0.560 0.411 0.605
F value 10.478*** 11.312*** 13.222*** 9.643*** 11.773***

Notes: * Significant at 5 percent; ** Significant at 1 percent; *** Significant at 1 percent

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 369
 p , 0:05), which supports H3. In addition, the full model shows the same results as Models
2a, 2b, and 2c. Thus, H1, H2, and H3 all were supported by the regression results.

4. Discussion and conclusion

4.1 Contributions
This study offers distinct contributions to knowledge management research by identifying a
key antecedent of knowledge creation capability organizational culture. Investigating the
antecedent of knowledge creation capability not only helps to enrich the knowledge on how
firms create new knowledge, but also advances knowledge creation. As a result, what are
the antecedents of knowledge creation capability is a crucial research issue of knowledge
management research (Smith et al., 2005). This study finds that organizational culture plays
a critical role on knowledge creation capability. Specially, collectivism has a positive impact
on knowledge creation capability, while power distance and uncertainty avoidance have
negative effects. Thus, this study contributes to knowledge management research by
clarifying the antecedent role played by organizational culture on knowledge creation
capability. In addition, the findings also provide some support to the proposition of Smith
et al. (2005) that organizational routines are critical antecedents of an organizations
knowledge creation capability.
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

Moreover, this study contributes to organizational culture literature as well. Existing research
on organizational culture suggests that organizational culture is crucial for successful
knowledge management and lack of focus on the cultural issues involved has led to the
failure of many knowledge management initiatives (Pillania, 2006, p. 124). Although several
studies have explored the impact of organizational culture, what is the appropriate
organizational culture for knowledge creation remains an unsettled issue (Park et al., 2004).
The findings of this study indicate that the organizational culture with the characteristics of
high collectivism, low power distance, and low uncertainty avoidance contributed to
knowledge creation capability. Thus, this study contributes to organizational culture
literature by demonstrating the proper organizational culture for knowledge creation
capability.
Besides theoretical contributions, this study has strong empirical values as well. Most
existing knowledge management research is developed in the developed economies and
little examination is conducted on emerging economies, such as China (Farh et al., 2004). As
the research horizon is now increasingly expanded to China, it is critical to know more about
what is going on there if the field aspires to be globally relevant (Meyer, 2006). Thus, this
study offers a good threshold to extend knowledge management literature to an emerging
economy context. Second, China has the potential to further delineate the theoretical
boundaries of organizational culture, which have been largely developed in Western
contexts (Peng, 2003). This study finds that the dimensions of organizational culture
developed from Western contexts can be generalized to the Chinese context and that
different dimensions function diversely, which help to enhance the theoretical completeness
of organizational culture literature.

4.2 Managerial implications

This study also provides some valuable managerial implications for firms to improve their
knowledge creation capabilities. The findings indicate that collectivism has a positive impact
on knowledge creation capability, while power distance and uncertainty avoidance have
negative effects. Thus, firms must pay attention to their organizational culture. To advance
their knowledge creation capabilities, they should build organizational culture with the
characteristics of high collectivism but low power distance and uncertainty avoidance. If the
organizational culture does not meet such characteristics, firms should endeavor to avoid
the damage of organizational culture on knowledge creation capability.

j j
PAGE 370 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
 The dimensions of organizational culture developed from
Western contexts can be generalized to the Chinese context.

4.3 Limitations and future research

This study also has some limitations. First, the results of this study are based on the data of
Chinese firms and should be viewed cautiously when generalized to other contexts. Second,
the cross-sectional data used in this study may have discounted any causal statements
being supported by empirical findings. Thus, the longitudinal approach is required in future
studies.
There are some interesting and important topics left for future research as well. The
antecedent of knowledge creation capability is a crucial research issue. Besides
organizational culture, other important organizational routines such as control systems
and organizational structure may also play important roles in knowledge creation capability,
which call for further attention. Moreover, firms internal knowledge base and external
access to knowledge also have strong impacts on knowledge creation capability, thus future
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

research should build a more comprehensive framework to investigate the antecedents of

knowledge creation capability.

References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review of
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T. (1977), Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
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.
Bates, K.A., Amundson, S.D., Schroeder, R.G. and Morris, W.T. (1995), The crucial interrelationship
between manufacturing strategy and organizational culture, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 10,
pp. 1565-80.

Bhagat, R.S., Kedia, B.L., Harveston, P.D. and Triandis, H.C. (2002), Cultural variations in the
cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 204-21.
Bochner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994), Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related
attitudes in a culturally diverse work group, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 233-57.
Cakar, N.D. and Erturk, A. (2010), Comparing innovation capability of small and medium-sized
enterprises: examining the effects of organizational culture and empowerment, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 325-59.
Chen, C.C., Chen, X.P. and Meindl, J.R. (1998), How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects
of individualism-collectivism, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 285-304.
Cronbach, L.J. (1971), Test validation, in Thorndike, R.L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement, 2nd ed.,
American Council on Education, Washington, DC.
Erramilli, M.K. (1996), Nationality and subsidiary ownership patterns in multinational corporations,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 225-48.
Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B. and Organ, D.W. (2004), Organizational citizenship behavior in the Peoples
Republic of China, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 241-53.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 371
 Grant, R.M. (1996a), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 109-22.

Grant, R.M. (1996b), Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as

knowledge integration, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 375-87.

Hatcher, L. (1994), A Step-By-Step Approach to Using the SAS(R) System for Factor Analysis and
Structural Equation Modeling, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Hitt, M.A., Tina, D.M., Edward, L., Jean-Luc, A. and Anca, B. (2000), Partner selection in emerging and
developed market contexts: resource-based and organizational learning perspectives, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 449-67.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,

Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B. and Ohavy, D.D. (1990), Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and
quantitative study across twenty cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 286-316.

Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), Market orientation: antecedents and consequences, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

technology, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-97.

Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.

Meyer, K.E. (2006), Asian management research needs more self-confidence, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 119-27.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.

Neter, J., William, W. and Kutner, M.H. (1985), Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of
Variance, and Experimental Design, Richard Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science,

Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.

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

Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G. and Voelpel, S. (2006), Organizational knowledge creation theory:
evolutionary paths and future advances, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1179-208.

Park, H., Ribiere, V. and SchulteJr, W.D. (2004), Critical attributes of organizational culture that promote
knowledge management technology implementation success, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 106-17.

Peng, M.W. (2003), Institutional transitions and strategic choices, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 275-86.

Pillania, R.K. (2006), State of organizational culture for knowledge management in Indian industry,
Global Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 119-35.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.

Shane, S. (1995), Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 47-68.

Shrout, P. and Fleiss, J.L. (1979), Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 420-8.

Smith, K.G., Collins, C.J. and Clark, K.D. (2005), Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability,
and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 346-57.

j j
PAGE 372 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011
 Spender, J.C. (1996), Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.

Su, Z., Xie, E. and Li, Y. (2009), Organizational slack and firm performance during institutional
transitions, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 75-91.

Su, Z., Xie, E. and Li, Y. (2010), Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in new ventures and
established firms, Journal of Small Business Management (forthcoming).

Tseng, S.M. (2010), The correlation between organizational culture and knowledge conversion on
corporate performance, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 269-84.

Wagner, J.A. III (1995), Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152-72.

Wuyts, S. and Geyskens, I. (2005), The formation of buyer-supplier relationships: detailed contract
drafting and close partner selection, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 103-17.

Zhou, K.Z. (2006), Innovation, imitation, and new product performance: the case of China, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 394-402.

Zhou, K.Z. and Wu, F. (2010), Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 547-61.
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

About the authors

Dong Wang is an Associate Professor at the Media Management School, Communication
University of China. His research interests are strategic management. He has previously
published his work in Small Business Economies.
Zhongfeng Su is an Assistant Professor at the School of Business, Nanjing University. His
research interests include strategic management, entrepreneurship, and innovation
management. He has previously published his research in journals such as Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, Management International Review, Small Business Economies, and
Technovation. Zhongfeng Su is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
zhongfengsu@163.com or suzhongfeng@gmail.com
Dongtao Yang is a Professor at the School of Business, Nanjing University. Her research
interests include organizational culture and human resource management.

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

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

j j
VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 373
 This article has been cited by:

1. Teresa M. Chan, S. Luckett-Gatopoulos, Brent Thoma. 2015. Commentary on competency-based medical education and
scholarship: creating an active academic culture during residency. Perspectives on Medical Education 4, 214-217. [CrossRef]
2. Zhongfeng Su, Mike W. Peng, En Xie. 2015. A Strategy Tripod Perspective on Knowledge Creation Capability. British Journal
of Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
3. Julia Mueller. 2015. Formal and Informal Practices of Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams and Enacted Cultural
Characteristics. Project Management Journal 46:10.1002/pmj.2015.46.issue-1, 53-68. [CrossRef]
4. Nicky Antonius, Jun Xu, Xiangzhu Gao. 2015. Factors influencing the adoption of Enterprise Social Software in Australia.
Knowledge-Based Systems 73, 32-43. [CrossRef]
5. Siti Rohajawati, Astrid Sugiana, Dana I. Sensuse, Yudho G. Sucahyo, Sofian LusaIdentifying components knowledge
management for e-Health (Case study: Mental Hospital, Indonesia) 200-205. [CrossRef]
6. Anna Suorsa, Maija-Leena Huotari. 2014. Knowledge creation and the concept of a human being: A phenomenological approach.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65:10.1002/asi.2014.65.issue-5, 1042-1057. [CrossRef]
7. Zhongfeng Su, David Ahlstrom, Jia Li, Dejun Cheng. 2013. Knowledge creation capability, absorptive capacity, and product
innovativeness. R&D Management 43:10.1111/radm.2013.43.issue-5, 473-485. [CrossRef]
8. Mohamed A.F. Ragab, Amr Arisha. 2013. Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge
Downloaded by ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY At 11:35 08 January 2016 (PT)

Management 17:6, 873-901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. Raphaela Stadler, Sacha Reid, Simone Fullagar. 2013. An ethnographic exploration of knowledge practices within the Queensland
Music Festival. International Journal of Event and Festival Management 4:2, 90-106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Trudi Wright. 2013. Information culture in a government organization. Records Management Journal 23:1, 14-36. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
11. Zhongfeng Su , Jisheng Peng , Hao Shen , Ting Xiao . 2013. Technological Capability, Marketing Capability,
and Firm Performance in Turbulent Conditions. . Management and Organization Review 9,
115-137. [CrossRef]
12. Zhongfeng Su, Dongtao Yang, Jianjun Yang. 2012. The match between efficiency/flexibility strategy and organisational culture.
International Journal of Production Research 50, 5317-5329. [CrossRef]
13. Julia Mueller. 2012. Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents. Journal of Knowledge Management
16:3, 435-447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Rajnish Kumar Rai. 2011. Knowledge management and organizational culture: a theoretical integrative framework. Journal of
Knowledge Management 15:5, 779-801. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Julia Connell, Charlotte ThaarupMind Training for Innovation: 52-71. [CrossRef]
16. Hesham Magd, Mark McCoyKnowledge Management: 127-156. [CrossRef]
17. Julia Connell, Charlotte ThaarupMind Training for Innovation: 1719-1738. [CrossRef]