The Centre for Labour Market Studies

Doctorate in Social Science

Thesis title: Knowledge management during an economic

crisis: The case of Greek firms

Name: Christos Mantas

Supervisor: Jason Hughes

2015
 Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the following people for their support:

 My wife Marina and my beautiful daughter Marina-Erifili for inspiration

 My parents for their support
 Dr. Jason Hughes for guiding me during the writing of this thesis
 Susan Walker and all the people working at CLMS for their excellent
support during those years

2|Page
Abstract
Knowledge management is a concept which has emerged during the previous years.
The present thesis aims to explore knowledge management in relation to the economic
crisis using the case of Greek firms. For that purpose a sample of 120 employees was
selected from firms in various sectors, and an additional 11 managers and employees
were interviewed. The results of the research indicate that employees have an overall
positive perception over knowledge management but there are some issues, mostly
having to do with corporate culture and the lack of use of state-of-the-art KM
information systems. However, knowledge management can be a vehicle of
development for firms that seek to exit from the economic crisis. Hence, firms should
not allow the economic crisis to drive them into reductions of knowledge management
programs and strategies, but instead should focus on utilizing knowledge management
so as to improve their performance.

3|Page
Contents

Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 7
1.1 General Introduction............................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Definition of Knowledge Management ............................................................................... 7
1.3 Knowledge Management and economic crisis .................................................................... 9
1.4 Research questions ............................................................................................................ 11
1.5 Rationale and analysis of research questions .................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 13
2.1 The concept of knowledge management ........................................................................... 13
2.1.1 The concept of knowledge...................................................................................... 13
2.1.2 Literature Gaps concerning knowledge management ........................................... 14
2.1.3 Transfer and conversion of knowledge .................................................................. 16
2.1.4 The SECI process ................................................................................................... 17
2.1.5 Implications of knowledge management ................................................................ 19
2.1.6 Communities of practice......................................................................................... 20
2.1.7 Meta-Knowledge .................................................................................................... 21
2.1.8 Empathic knowledge .............................................................................................. 21
2.1.9 Second order knowledge ........................................................................................ 22
2.2 Knowledge brokerage........................................................................................................ 22
2.3 Implication for managing economic crisis ........................................................................ 23
2.4 Knowledge management and economic crisis................................................................... 25
2.4.1 Definition of economic crisis ................................................................................. 25
2.4.2 Knowledge Management and Economic Crisis...................................................... 26
2.4.3 Knowledge Management and the economic crisis – Why economic crisis is an
important issue faced by SMEs investment in Knowledge Management ....................... 34
2.5 Knowledge management approaches ................................................................................ 37
2.6 Knowledge Management Activities .................................................................................. 39
2.6.1 Knowledge Management as a process ................................................................... 41
2.6.2 Strategic steps towards Knowledge Management ................................................. 44
2.6.3 The need for Knowledge Management .................................................................. 46
2.7 Organizational culture ....................................................................................................... 49
2.7.1 Increasing importance of organizational culture ............................................................ 50

4|Page
2.7.2 Varied aspects of organizational culture ........................................................................ 52
2.7.3 Culture and Knowledge Management ................................................................ 56
2.8 Other barriers to knowledge management ............................................................. 62
2.9 Formulation of the research hypotheses ................................................................ 63
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 66
3.1 Research Philosophy: Epistemological Positions .............................................................. 66
3.1.1 Positivism ............................................................................................................... 67
3.1.2 Phenomenology ...................................................................................................... 68
3.1.3 Relevance to the intended research problem .......................................................... 68
3.1.4 Justification for Choice of research philosophy: Positivism .................................. 69
3.2 The research approach ....................................................................................................... 70
3.2.1 Deductive approach ................................................................................................ 70
3.2.2 Inductive approach ................................................................................................. 71
3.2.3 Justification for the use of deductive approach ...................................................... 71
3.3 Data collection methods .................................................................................................... 74
3.4 The instruments of research............................................................................................... 77
3.4.1 Part 1 – Demographics ........................................................................................... 79
3.4.2 Part 2 – Economic crisis ......................................................................................... 79
3.4.3 Part 3 – Corporate Culture ...................................................................................... 79
3.4.4 Part 4 – Knowledge management initiatives .......................................................... 80
3.4.5 Part 5 – Knowledge Management and economic crisis .......................................... 80
3.4.5 The Interviews ........................................................................................................ 81
3.5 Sampling techniques ......................................................................................................... 82
3.6 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................. 84
3.7 Ethical considerations of the research ............................................................................... 85
CHAPTER 4 – STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 87
4.1 Demographic data.............................................................................................................. 88
4.2 Recent changes in the firm ................................................................................................ 92
4.3 Corporate Culture .............................................................................................................. 98
4.4 Knowledge Management Initiatives ................................................................................ 122
4.5 Knowledge Management and the Economic Crisis ......................................................... 133
4.6 Missing value analysis..................................................................................................... 140
4.6 Results from the Interviews ............................................................................................. 141
4.7 Hypothesis Testing .......................................................................................................... 150

5|Page
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 161
5.1 Discussion of results and research hypothesis ................................................................. 161
5.2 Further discussion............................................................................................................ 175
5.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 180
5.4 Limitations....................................................................................................................... 181
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 185
Appendix 1- Doctorate Questionnaire ................................................................................... 197
A. RESPONDENT AND ORGANISATIONAL PROFILE: ............................................ 197
B. RECENT CHANGES IN THE FIRM .......................................................................... 198
C. CORPORATE CULTURE ........................................................................................... 199
D. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES ...................................................... 202
FOR ENTERPRISES USING KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ................ 204
E. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ......................... 205
Appendix 2 – Missing Value Analysis .................................................................................. 206
Appendix 3 – Crosstabulations.............................................................................................. 210
Appendix 4 – Inferential Analyses ........................................................................................ 218
Appendix 5 – Interview questions ......................................................................................... 257

6|Page
 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Introduction

The concept of Knowledge Management (KM) has emerged during the last years as a
popularly researched topic in company management, both in academia and in
practice. Knowledge Management places emphasis on the hard resources of
organisations. To a large extent, it involves the nurturing of a learning environment
that enables socialisation, externalisation of knowledge, and knowledge transfer,
where individuals are motivated to share, create and acquire knowledge (Liebowitz,
1999). The creation of such a social reality can become an important core competence
that will enable organisations to acquire a sustainable competitive advantage.

The implementation of a knowledge management programme can constitute a source

of conflict, since fear of change and resistance to change may bring about problems
such as anxiety of losing power and defensiveness (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov,
2010). Still, as will be seen in the literature review, knowledge management can be
misapplied and abused in order to provide a pretext for downsizing and job-cuts.
Particularly in times of economic austerity and harsh measures, a knowledge
management programme may be seen as suspicious by many employees. On the other
hand, there are important factors that may prevent the adoption of knowledge
management, such as cultural differences, where differences in collectivism/
individualism and power distance may exert a strong influence (Hofstede et al., 2010).
It is important to take into consideration the fact that in order to apply the knowledge
management approach, the company or organization needs to incorporate open
systems, and its social contexts need to allow for knowledge sharing. Those are issues
that will be examined in detail later in the dissertation.

1.2 Definition of Knowledge Management

Knowledge management is defined as “a multi-disciplined approach to achieving

organisational objectives by making the best use of knowledge. KM focuses on
processes such as acquiring, creating and sharing knowledge and the cultural and

7|Page
technical foundations that support them. The aim is to align knowledge processes with
organisational objectives”. (Standards Australia, 2001, HB-275)

The resource-based view of organisations postulates that a company’s profitability is

not only a function of combining resources of its competitive position but also a
function of its internal capabilities and know-how to deliver products and services.
According to Barney (2002:155), company resources are “all assets, capabilities,
competencies, organisational processes, firm attributes, information, and knowledge
that are controlled by a firm”. These resources enable the organisation to implement
strategies that increase its effectiveness and efficiency. If the resources are valuable
and rare such that contribute to a company’s competitive advantage, then the
company should nurture and maintain them. (Barney, 2002)

Most importantly, the resource-based view of the firm focuses on the ‘idiosyncratic’,
‘costly to duplicate’ resources that may give the company a competitive advantage,
such as highly skilled and creative workers, effective managers, and institutional
leaders. Barney (2002) further defines these costly resources as possessing ‘resource
immobility.’ Therefore one can conclude that the competitive advantage of an
organisation is closely linked to the effective management of its human resources,
among other reasons because people carry the knowledge of their organisation, which
is precious, rare and often inimitable, and is therefore irreplaceable.

The theory of resources and capabilities makes two assumptions which facilitate the
understanding of the significant impact of the indoor environment on the design of the
strategy of an organisation. Resources and capabilities provide a key direction for the
organisation's strategy, and they comprise the primary sources for a company’s
success and profitability. To the extent that the success of an organisation depends on
its resources and capabilities, these characteristics are a subject of strategic interest.
Resources can be categorised into three types: natural, human and organisational.
Natural resources include raw materials, machinery and innovations; human resources
include personnel and its abilities, knowledge and available experience; and
organisational resources refer to the various funds needed in the management,
leadership and business organisational components.

8|Page
Every business has at a greater or lesser extent a large number of natural, human and
organisational resources. However, the company's resources themselves are unlikely
to create a competitive advantage and, even if this happens, the advantage created will
not be sustainable. Therefore it may not be sufficient for a company just to have
various resources at its disposal; it is also important that these invaluable resources
are combined in order to build a capacity or capabilities. Consequently, the
capabilities of an enterprise derive from the correct combination and integration of a
set of resources. Knowledge is the link that combines the various resources of an
organization effectively. For every employee this knowledge is unique, since it is an
amalgamation of their own ideas, perceptions, feelings, pieces of information and of
course their experiences.

In applying knowledge management, the predominant problem may often lie not in
the system technology but rather in the fact that it is difficult to change the work
habits of employees. If a KM system is not tightly knit with the workflow, the
workload of an employee may actually be increased for the satisfaction of special KM
requirements. For an organisation as a whole, this process can be a waste of time and
resources. Furthermore, the implementation of a KM system which does not pay
attention to employee cooperation can only preserve the explicit knowledge in an
organisation. Implicit knowledge, such as the ‘how’ and the ‘when’ of carrying out
tasks, is often embedded within the process of work, or exists solely in the mind of a
particular employee, and is impossible for such a KM system to handle.

1.3 Knowledge Management and economic crisis

In a period of economic crisis, and in their effort to reduce cost by all possible means,
companies sacrifice various resources (Ambos and Schlegelmilch, 2009). In the
context of this effort companies tend to lay off some of their human capital in order to
reduce cost. This leads to a subsequent change of organisational structure as well as a
loss of knowledge, since the holders of knowledge are discarded from an organisation.
As Ambos and Schlegelmilch (2009:27) state, “That cost management cannot be
efficient which looks only at profits and costs… only those can manage costs
efficiently who use the most effective assets and operate them in the most efficient

9|Page
way”. An employee who has been laid off may take his or her knowledge to a
competitor and exploit it accordingly. Organisational theory approaches need to share
their knowledge and let this knowledge move freely within the various structures of
the company so as to become a capital.

During times of crisis, however, this cannot be achieved; knowledge is lost since the
emotion of fear and insecurity developed to employees inhibit them from
communicating freely; in plain terms, employees may prefer to ‘keep their knowledge
to themselves’ so that they may better negotiate their position to the organisation.
Most organisations may not fully realise the serious repercussions that the loss of this
significant resource can have. Research by Remery et al. (2001) has shown that
individual managers may not have a sense of urgency when it comes to tackling this
issue, and valuable employees with a great pool of knowledge at their disposal, are
removed.

Therefore in evaluating a KM system one should also consider whether a KM system

provides links between knowledge flow and employee work routine, as well as helps
to improve cooperation of knowledge workers. Linking work and knowledge
management to enable users to leave experiences and knowledge behind in their daily
routine is a prompt and efficient way of accumulating knowledge. Knowledge
management also provides a convenient environment for employees to cooperate and
innovate. By routinely saving data during the work process, when the work day is
finished the experiences and knowledge are already stored in the system.

But under strenuous economic conditions, companies can experience difficulty in

meeting the needs of workers and in effect provide the latter with the incentive to
have a better performance, creativity and knowledge sharing. In view of Maslow's
(1954) needs theory, if the basic needs of workers are not met, then employees do not
feel highly motivated, nor do they have self-esteem, or integration through the
creation of new knowledge. In a period of crisis, the basic need for an employee is not
to lose his job; and even if one’s position is not directly threatened, many employees
work under a climate of constant anxiety and insecurity. In effect, creativity becomes
a secondary consideration.

10 | P a g e
It is therefore important for an organisation to respect the knowledge they possess and
not treat it just as a form of capital which will be used through creation processes,
transporting and storing knowledge. Knowledge, whether abstract or empirical, is an
alive, dynamic and collective valuable, which is preserved within the organisation
through the maintaining of a cohesive culture, stable industrial relations, confidence
and security.

1.4 Research questions

The research questions that are put forth in the present study are the following.

1) What constitutes knowledge management in today’s business environment of Greece?

2) What is the impact of the economic crisis on the knowledge management practices of
Greek companies?
3) Does knowledge management constitute an opportunity to get away from the negative
impact of the economic crisis?
4) Can knowledge management contribute to the creation of a culture which will allow
the company to overcome the economic crisis?

1.5 Rationale and analysis of research questions

At the time the present study was taking place, Greece and other world countries are
undergoing a significant economic crisis. While it is beyond the scope of the research
to criticise the effectiveness of the political decisions made to tackle the crisis, it is
nevertheless evident that company employees are the ones who have suffered the
most. Therefore, the intention of the first research question is to examine knowledge
management from the perspective of the current economic crisis.

Relevant literature has indicated that knowledge management has the capability to
leverage the firm’s productivity through the capitalisation of the intellectual assets
found within the firm and on the beliefs of its employees. (Hussain et al., 2004)

11 | P a g e
However, like most business practices, knowledge management requires resources for
its implementation. One of the negative outcomes of the economic crisis is that
companies have to reduce their costs spent on knowledge management programmes
and practices so as to save money and cope with the economic conditions. Hence, the
second research question investigates whether Greek companies have reduced funds
allotted to KM practices and in general what the impact of the economic crisis on KM
practices is. This question can be answered through examining the resources provided
for KM practices during the last years.

The third research question investigates whether knowledge management can

comprise an opportunity to get away from the negative effects of the economic crisis.
Since there is only limited literature on the topic, this research question is investigated
through the use of a questionnaire and quantitative research, which spans a sample of
workers, managers and executives.

The final research question attempts to provide new knowledge to the current
literature, by examining whether knowledge management may contribute to the
creation of a culture that allows the company to overcome the economic crisis. One of
the symptoms of economic crises is the demoralisation of personnel and a creation of
a culture of ‘losers’ among the staff; knowledge management is examined as a
potential means to recover from and change this situation around. As mentioned
earlier, KM is a practice with the capability of leveraging the performance of the
organisation. It is suggested that when an employee has all the existing knowledge
and solutions at his/her disposal or when he/she has upgraded his/her skills and
knowledge, he/she will feel more confident about his/her future and will therefore
increase his/her efforts to help the firm to get away from the crisis, by contributing
into the creation of a culture that helps the firm to get away from the crisis.

12 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The concept of knowledge management

The concept of knowledge management is a part of human resources management

function within the organizations. The discovery of the concept of knowledge
management can be attributed to Ikujiiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi in the year
of 1995. They presented the concept as an extension of the concept of organizational
learning at that point of time. Their work was then further refined by the research
efforts of Polanyi when the research work established that the concept of knowledge
management plays a pivotal role in overall organizational development and evolution
as well.

As per the viewpoint of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) organizational learning was an
outcome or a byproduct of the overall process of knowledge transfer. The process of
knowledge transfer also includes active quest for, and carving of all together novel
and formerly unknown knowledge. This very much includes varied manners in which
the knowledge gets transferred between people and organizations. The process of
knowledge management also involves how various processes are to be controlled so
that desired results can be garnered.

2.1.1 The concept of knowledge

The basic essence of the process of knowledge management is knowledge.

Knowledge can be beneficial for organizations only in the case when organizations
know how to manage it. The first obstacle in process of understanding knowledge is
to distinguish it from closely related but dissimilar concepts.

Knowledge is best described in terms of being a cognitive process. As per the

viewpoint of Polanyi (1966) is the very act of knowing. Knowledge is the process of
believing, interpreting and comprehending the data available. The very act of making
use of information and data is what knowledge is all about. It is the craft of not only

13 | P a g e
taking the right decisions but also implementing and controlling the same to move in
the desired direction for organizational progress.

2.1.2 Literature Gaps concerning knowledge management

As Smith (1990) claims, a potential examination bearing is to investigate the
improvement and organization of Knowledge Management techniques in light of an
emergency at individual, gathering, and hierarchical levels with reference to the
properties of emergency inclined elements, for example, society, correspondence, and
setups proposed in Smith's (1990) seven Cs emergency administration system.
Based on the above, we should highlight the importance of knowledge in the
organization. It is essential that this knowledge is not considered simply as a capital
managed through creation, transportation and storage of knowledge. Knowledge, is
the most effective form of the abstract or empirical state of the organization and it is
an alive, dynamic and collective good that is enshrined in the organization through the
creation of a single culture, stable industrial relation through confidence and security.
One thing that should be taken under consideration is that organizations ought to work
more to support experience and Knowledge Management offering and procurement,
and combine them so that they are used both by the administration and workers. It is
important to enhance the human capital and the representatives' interest in tackling
issues by enhancing their insight and experience through the frameworks they need to
accomplish vital goals in the long haul. Long-term (Wafa and Akram, 2011). These
requirements should be more proof for the refinement of market orientation toward
fusing receptive assets. (Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001)
Moreover, a genuine change of the administration and administration models is
important to overcome customary inefficiencies. Additionally, trans-division and
universal collaboration could prompt another advancement of the area.
Notwithstanding, some important changes of the administration methodology are
required, to get over the customary sense of self anti extremism, to actualize non-
bureaucratic and participatory choice making components, to construct the
administration framework around information, knowledge, straightforwardness and
capabilities.
The principle characters of the sector ought to decipher the emergency as an open
door rather than a risk, with a specific end goal to keep on being the forward mainstay

14 | P a g e
of improvement and knowledge. More centered research on this area and on the
exhibitions of social associations have to be done. In times of emergency,
comprehension of the current conditions and the on-going patterns must be the
significant focuses for absolutely confrontation of the present and future difficulties.
As a major aspect of the examination group, this is one of the primary obligations of
an organization, towards the social parts. (Hawkes, 2001)
Suppositions are separated with reference to whether the most reasonable
manifestation of post capitalist society will turn out to be one focused around far
reaching unified yet law based arranging or a type of management socialism in which
markets supplement fair arranging (Nove, 1982). Therefore, Knowledge Management
should be applied so that there are concrete examples of its application.
Wang and Belardo (2005) claim that a crisis is difficult to anticipate. An organization
has to always screen its authoritative surroundings and to be careful when it identifies
some irregular cases. An organization also needs to create new knowledge from inner
information assets and realise what the cautioning signs of the potential emergencies
are, so as to create reasonable systems to discover the cautioning signs of any kind of
crisis.
A critical issue has been identified from Cohen et al. (2014) whose research is quite
useful since it has taken place in Greece. The research has identified two issues. The
first one is that the effective use of intellectual capital, as it occurs through knowledge
management, can be a strategic enabler during times of economic crisis. This means
that decisions over the use of Knowledge Management during an economic crisis
shall not be abandon. Also, Cohen et al. (2014) have identified the fact that the Greek
small to medium enterprises (SMEs) are not fully aware of the value that their
intellectual capital has and how it can help them to overcome the crisis. Most of them
have a narrow-minded culture which does not allow the flow of fresh ideas and
innovation. In a similar manner Pantzalis and Park (2009) have mentioned the fact
that there is a lack of in-depth research as it concerns the use of knowledge
management in Greece but mostly about the lack of information and of information
which will indicate on Greek firms, mostly SMEs on how to capitalise the use of
knowledge management.
At this case, it is essential to mention that Cohen et al. (2014) have argued that their
key limitation is that the information used has derived mostly from data given from
the firms that participated on the research along with quantified data. However, there

15 | P a g e
is a lack of qualitative data which will be useful to have in-depth understanding of
how Greek firms can have a strategic use of Knowledge Management within the
current economic environment. Cohen et al. (2014) have argued that the findings of
their research indicates that there is a positive response for the use of Knowledge
Management but there is a need for further research which will provide data taken
with qualified method so to cross-check the results. Also, Cohen et al. (2014) have
argued there is a need for further research which will confirm or reject the strategic
use that Knowledge Management may have as an enable for coping with the
economic crisis.
Gummesson (2014) have argued that the crisis is a complex structure. Gummesson
(2014) has argued that many SMEs and larger firms in Greece and the rest of the
South European countries which were hit from the crisis have not been able to handle
the complex nature of the information related with the crisis. Sudden events and
mounting problems created from the crisis have resulted in the need of having an
effective system of knowledge management. However there is a definitely gap of
research and of framework of practices.
The above researches indicate that there is a clear need to investigate the notion of
knowledge management as strategic enabler during an economic crisis. There is a
limited research on this issue but also a lack of qualitative info. Even the more recent
research in Greece made from Cohen et al. (2014) indicates that there is still a gap
since the case of whether Knowledge Management as an enabler to overcome the
economic crisis has not been widely examined. Cohen et al. (2014) argue that there is
a need for quantified data along with qualitative data. Furthermore, this a rather new
phenomenon and there is going to be a need for more information on this issue.

2.1.3 Transfer and conversion of knowledge

It is evident that the process of knowledge transfer between individuals can be

effective only in a given knowledge class. The statement implies that tacit knowledge
can be transferred in the same form only from one person to another. Also tacit
knowledge can never be completely converted into explicit knowledge. The very
basic aim of the process of knowledge management is to manage, control and foster
such kinds of knowledge transfers and conversion of knowledge with a purpose to

16 | P a g e
mitigate the possible losses and promote the accumulation of knowledge as it passes
from one individual to another within the organization. Care should be taken to
minimise the losses that escalate with each time the process of knowledge transfer
takes place. (Boda, 2006)

2.1.4 The SECI process

As per the viewpoint of Nonaka and Takeuchi, innovation in any of the organizational
processes comes as an outcome of sharing and comparing knowledge in a continuous
cycle of knowledge conversions as well as knowledge transfers. The overall process is
referred to as SECI process. The process involves four different phases which are
socialization, externalizations, combination and internationalization. (Biemer and
Lyberg, 2003). Each of the four phases of the overall SECI process puts forth at least
one manner in which knowledge can be created and the overall process deals with
making sure that knowledge is relevant to the problem in consideration. This is not
the case that four phases follow each other, there may be any sequence that four
phases come in. the sequence of the four phases depends on the situation in
consideration.

The overall process of SECI is very complex. Each phase of the overall cycle depicts
a different amalgamation of the three prime variables so involved in the process. The
three key variables that are an integral part of the process are described below.

 Process- It is important to freeze on the fact that whether the process involves
knowledge transfer or just knowledge conversion
 Output/Result- The process will churn out explicit or tacit knowledge, and
 Participation- The task in consideration is a group task or an individual task.
This particular step is further complicated by the facts that how will the
various variables interplay with each other is largely latent.

Socialization

17 | P a g e
This particular phase is very much a group exercise which involves transfer of tacit
knowledge between the groups of participants in relation to the current management
practices. The primary purpose of this process is getting each of the participants to
experience and adopt different solutions discussed in the group. The outcome of this
process is shared knowledge in relation to each of the perspectives in the group. This
also involves learning from others’ knowledge and learning comprehensively. Thus it
is more of a learning experience wherein individuals get to learn a lot from the
practices that others adopt in different situations. It is a process which gives high
impetus on observation rather than seeking reason as to why particular solutions were
implemented. This involves varied forms of excursions, participating in observations
as well as on site studies. (Ambos and Schlegelmilch, 2009)

Externalization

This phase involves each of the persons to take on the new sympathized knowledge
and render their own interpretations for the same. It also includes understanding past
experiences of almost similar circumstances and also the possible solutions for the
same. This aids the process of conversion of tacit knowledge into an explicit
statement of facts. All this paves way for creation of large repository of good
conceptual knowledge in relation to the present situation for the group. All this paves
the “reason” which was missing from the socialization phase. This kind of knowledge
renders each person with a fair chance to render explanation for his/ her choice so
opted in a particular situation. (Kidwell et al., 2000)

A very simple example of externalization phase is a simple after action report or a

similar one that compiles various past or recent experiences. The knowledge so
gathered in the process differentiates itself for the systematic knowledge that is
acquired in the combination phase.

Combination Phase

In this particular phase, the explicit knowledge that is gathered from the
externalization phase is shared or can be said to be transferred within the
organizations. This stage also involves discussing in group various results in relation

18 | P a g e
to systemic knowledge as well as understanding of the larger picture. The knowledge
in this phase is acquired with the aid of seminars, panel debates and other kinds if
intellectual discussions.

In a similar fashion to socialization, the ultimate outcome is the common goal in

relation to solving the problem and also resolving the problem at hand. The phase of
combination aims at rendering something that is akin to a mission statement or
something of kind of best practices list in which everyone gets a chance to contribute.

Internalization

This is one of the most important phases of the process of SECI. It is this process that
takes systemic knowledge of the combination phase undergoes the process of
interpretation and then converting the same into action. The overall result of the
process is churning out of operational knowledge in relation to how to deal with the
problem. In this phase the goal is interpreted differently by each of the associates. The
different interpretations are then summed up to carve out a common set of external
knowledge. This will then go on to determine a different and unique task for each of
the individuals within the organization.

The final part of the overall SECI process involves sharing of knowledge in the new
socialization phase.

2.1.5 Implications of knowledge management

The process of knowledge management is effective in putting up a new set of

knowledge that can be pivotal in describing how to “learn on the fly” and also to
uncover new set of knowledge as per the need. The SECI process lies at the heart of
the process of knowledge management as it is the only way of transferring
knowledge. The process of SECI does not render any kind of explanation in relation
to the source of knowledge. In relation to exploring the ideas of learning, the fields of
knowledge management has explored numerous ways of findings knowledge and
hence add on to the present options that are present in organizational learning toolbox.

19 | P a g e
The three key concepts in case of knowledge are meta-knowledge, empathic
knowledge and second order knowledge. As already said tacit and explicit knowledge
can be expressed in terms of knowing how and knowing that respectively. The science
of knowledge management also renders a brief description as to how various types of
knowledge come into picture with the deployment of community practices and also
via knowledge brokerages. (Barney, 2002)

2.1.6 Communities of practice

As earlier said, there is bulk of information that is mined in quest for knowledge and
through repeated processing is distilled down to carve out new, not so obvious pieces
of knowledge. This involves taking help of computer aided expert systems; although
these expert systems are not that advanced that they can draw complex conclusions by
them. Expert systems can only draw conclusions from the available data. In more than
one ways, it is how the concept of knowledge management is put into practice. It
involves mining of large amount of data in quest for knowledge and with the aid of
repeated processing is distilled down to form new, not so obvious concepts.

The basic idea behind this framework goes back to the foundation of the concept of
organizational knowledge wherein the knowledge processes in relation to individuals
were extrapolated onto organizations. In recent times, these kinds of idea are
expanded to render similar kinds of descriptions for larger communities that have an
inclination towards similar kinds of activities and interests.

As the purview of knowledge management expanded, the so called larger

communities expanded outside organizational boundaries as well. With such a large
size of such groups, they contain everything from associates to smaller groups to even
larger organizations or even entire states as well. In such large groups problem in
relation to new knowledge is not about inventing knowledge but is about how to
actually find that knowledge in the vast network and how to transfer it when needed.
The process in this case is referred to as sourcing and grafting of knowledge. Sourcing
is the process which involves exploring knowledge or its source by own whereas

20 | P a g e
grafting deals with incorporating the new knowledge into the existing organization.
(Biemer and Lyberg, 2003)

2.1.7 Meta-Knowledge

The very first step in case of quest for exploring knowledge involves comprehending
what is that is to be known through the process. In other words, we can say that it is
about understanding what is missing from the current knowledge base. This calls for
having a firm grasp in relation to the present knowledge base. It also happens that
organizations overlook their present knowledge base in quest for new knowledge.

It is important for bigger organizations to keep a regular check on their knowledge

base which at times is also called as a kind of knowledge audit so that the
organization’s management exactly knows the knowledge gaps and needs of the
organizations as well in relation to knowledge. In a nutshell, we can say meta-
knowledge is knowledge about knowledge. It is a depiction of knowing the reason.
Meta-knowledge facilitates knowledge sharing within communities of practice.

2.1.8 Empathic knowledge

It is important to understand that there are different knowledge needs for different
people but still does not solve the purpose of sufficing those needs which is the
ultimate aim. In order to suffice those needs, there has to be real contact with the
relevant knowledge holders. This implies that either there should be direct interaction
with experts or with someone who can guide in the right direction. Thus it important
to understand that access to knowledge is not much of knowing how but rather of
knowing who.

Overall empathic knowledge is the very skill or art of knowing who to ask for advice,
knowing who to request for what, what can work and so on. This kind of knowledge
comes from having a large network of contacts. The word empathic points towards
having feeling or emotional connect for other people and understanding them as well.

21 | P a g e
2.1.9 Second order knowledge

The final link is utilizing knowledge management to access and utilize external
knowledge is what is referred to as second order knowledge. It is the art of knowing
how to know more and more. This kind of knowledge is less personal and more
structured in comparison to empathic knowledge.

It is important to understand the common patterns within the functions that are present
within the knowledge oriented organizations. This kind of knowledge is present
within the organization and paves way for understanding different kinds of
bottlenecks and gatekeeper roles. All these are present within the organizational
network and they at times even control the flow of knowledge within the organization
as well.

2.2 Knowledge brokerage

All the kinds of knowledge are aimed at more or less the same goal which is to find
new relevant knowledge that benefits the organization. They all collate to form the
larger picture for the organization. Meta knowledge renders an understanding of what
kinds of knowledge needs are present as well as render a means of forecasting the
future needs as well.

The key component in the process of knowledge management is to nurture that kind
of environment which fosters higher degree of mutual trust. If there is trust there will
be effective knowledge sharing as well. But on the other hand if there is no trust, then
all is in vain. Even if the efforts are well intentioned, elaborate and thought out, still
they will not be able to suffice the purpose in the intended manner. (Clark-Carter,
2004)

In addition to building an environment of trust, the communities of practices must be

accessible and foster the members to take full advantage of the knowledge network

22 | P a g e
for the benefit of everyone and organization as well. It is important that knowledge
workers are skilled enough as well as in a position to identify what knowledge is
relevant for their organization. Without this ability of making the correct
differentiation, all the efforts stand in vain and are of no use to the organization as
well. (Boda, 2006)

In these days, tacit knowledge is becoming apparent and thereby the distinction
between knowledge and information has to be very clear. This made way for the
concept of knowledge brokerage wherein it is not just important to know what you
need to know but also what others around you might be interested in knowing.

2.3 Implication for managing economic crisis

In this case, it is very important to understand that what kinds of implications SECI
process can have. Not only this, but it is equally important to understand what
implications knowledge management can have for economic crisis management. The
perspective rendered by SECI adds an entire new dimension of various crisis
management tasks.

SECI and Crisis Management

As earlier discussed, knowledge management’s roots can be traced back to the

concept of organizational learning and thereby it is not a surprise that the process of
knowledge management entirely revolves around adding new knowledge to the
organization. The mist important application of knowledge management is to foster
learning at the times of crisis.

At the time of crisis, there is very little time available for self-reflection and reform
craft that is in general inferred by post crisis learning. Hence, relying on external
expertise in such cases is worth the efforts so involved in the process. (Brewerton and
Millward, 2001)

23 | P a g e
The overall process of SECI renders a pivotal role in fostering a better understanding
between the decision makers and their advisors. It also can assist in transferring
relevant expert knowledge. Importantly, there are five uses, each of which
incorporates a varied set of SECI transfer modes.

 Assessment: it is the amalgamation of known facts and carving out new

knowledge that needs to be internalised with the help of key decision makers
 Framing: after internalization of the concept, it is pivotal that the concept is
shared through socialization among the key people and also with those who
will get affected in some way or other through the decision in consideration
 Implementation: it involves coding the present set of practices either through
the process of externalization or internalization of various best practices as
well as operational procedures which is then shared
 Building credibility: as per the medium, there has to be internalization of trust
factors via explicit statements or by sharing emotions which can then get viral
through socialization
 Evaluation: it is the final phase that involves scrutinizing how everything
went, comparing the outcomes with preset standards and then recording the
findings as well into the system for future reference.

It is the concept of knowledge management that adds granularity to the overall

process of SECI. In case of knowledge management gatekeepers are just not passive
filters but they are full-fledged knowledge workers who are in quest for the required
information all the time. Also there are certain limitations with the process of
knowledge management as it may be biased as the human element is involved in it.

Another problem with knowledge management is that, by the definition external

experts will not be a part of present crisis management team, thereby where the two
must interact; they have a risk of succumbing to the new group syndrome wherein
unfamiliar composition of the group makes it even harder to raise divergent opinions.
But then the involvement of knowledge workers should ease out the issue to certain
degree.

24 | P a g e
2.4 Knowledge management and economic crisis

2.4.1 Definition of economic crisis

There is no unified definition of what a crisis is due to the fact that for years there
were different meanings of the words that were attributing to the word varied
meanings according to the situation. However, there are some common elements
which can help us to understand what is behind the notion of a crisis.

The facts on which these meanings are attributed to the word “crisis” are based on (a)
the instability of change, and (b) the threat that derives from crisis that leads to
instability and changes.

A crisis consists a period during which the system does not function correctly thus
there needs to be specific actions so as to deal with the changes. During a crisis there
is dismal economic performance. During this period, the value of institutions,
particularly financial institutions, falls at unprecedented speed and the production is
low failing to meet the levels of demand. During a crisis there need to be immediate
corrective actions due to the fact that the system does not function in a proper way.

A crisis can be experienced throughout the main operations of an organization,

therefore the organization needs strategic leads so as to control and manage the
changes so as to control the direction of the events. (Cockram and van den Heuvel,
2012)

According to Griffin (2009) the outcome of a financial crisis is a number of negative

effects into the business environment. For example, in the case of Greece the state had
to face a huge public debt and deficits. In order to reduce those, the government took
decisions including high corporate taxes which created a negative climate for
businesses. The result was the profit margins were reduced and along with a lack of
efficient and leaderships many multinationals had to either to disinvest or to
downsize. On many occasions the crisis was used an excuse to violate labor relations
and reduce salaries or even cut jobs. What is for sure is that the financial crisis leads

25 | P a g e
in a business crisis where firms have to take decisions, such as layoffs, in order to deal
the crisis.

The economic crisis that exists worldwide is something generally accepted by

economists. Countries are on the edge of going default. Also market failures like
bankruptcies are an everyday phenomenon. The economic crisis is depicted by slow
growth rates as well as high level of unemployment, way above its natural rate of
unemployment. The reasons for such an economic crisis could be found in many
theories like the lack of infrastructure of many countries, an explosive public debt that
suffocated almost the Greek economy and perhaps alterations in consumer demand
which make some professions and products obsolete. Knowledge management on the
other hand is potentially a tool that could help companies, states and even individuals
grow some tacit and explicit knowledge in order to protect themselves against the
economic crisis. (Cockram and van den Heuvel, 2012)

2.4.2 Knowledge Management and Economic Crisis

“Knowledge management concerns turning individuals learning into organisational

learning.” (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007:129). People that live and operate within a
specific economic system face at some point or another economic crisis. Potentially
they could observe their causes and the outcome it has. Individual learning is the set
of knowledge that empirically has been acquired by life experiences and behavioural
psychology. When individual knowledge is being incorporated into an organisation’s
learning then that is called knowledge management. Knowledge management could
be a useful tool to deal with the economic crisis, since by disseminating knowledge
through the planet, through social networks and the Internet, cost savings can be
made.

Knowledge management actually tries to resolve problems of the economic crisis in

one part of the globe, using specific knowledge that has been got in other parts of the
planet. Huczynski and Buchanan (2007:129) write a specific usage of knowledge
management with the help of technology. “These (intelligent search engines) are

26 | P a g e
technology-based systems designed to facilitate access to expertise by creating a
catalogue of specialists, each with their own web site in the company intranet, so that
their knowledge can be accessed by email or video conferencing. The number of
times somebody’s expertise is used can be monitored and used to influence pay and
promotion decisions”. A specific practice of knowledge management is the intelligent
search engine. With this tool it is easy for a firm, or governmental organisation to
transmit knowledge, data and ideas to other members of this group. Experience, best
practices and knowledge by other members of an organisation against a common
problem can lead to serious cost saving, as well as reducing opportunity costs of
missed chances.

Thierauf (1999:5) mentions an interesting opinion about knowledge management.

Knowledge management not only reports what is economic crisis, but also the causes
of the problem and way more. “Fueling the interest in knowledge management
systems is the prospect of going beyond the traditional approach to actually finding
out what went wrong. In the past, a management information system told the decision
maker what had happened, but not why and what should be done. The focus then has
shifted to finding out why and what can be done to meet and possibly beat
competition”. (Thierauf, 1999:5)

McDermott (1999:107) also discusses the issues of knowledge management and how
it can be used, in my case, the economic crisis problem. “To share knowledge we
need to think about the present. Sharing knowledge involves guiding someone
through our thinking or using our insights to help them see their own situation better.
To do this we need to know something about those who will use our insights, the
problems they are trying to solve, the level of detail they need, maybe even the style
of thinking they use”. McDermott (1999) describes methods that could help an
organisation overcome specific problems that arise while doing business operations.
One of this is by leveraging knowledge with help coming from humans as well as the
use of information systems. There are specific software programmes that are used to
track down an issue, share knowledge and provide solutions through tacit and explicit
knowledge. The Kahnsept Knowledge Management System is one of those software
programmes.

27 | P a g e
Nickerson (2001:362-364) makes a specific reference to knowledge management.
According to Nickerson (2001:362), “knowledge management is the process of
managing organisational knowledge”. So in the case of examining the reasons of the
global economic crisis its organisation could gather information and knowledge from
other parts of the world, or from other departments within the same firm. These items
of knowledge could be gathered together, segmented, analysed and become available
to stakeholders that might use them effectively. The International Monetary Fund for
example wants to now as soon as possible which countries are on the edge of
bankruptcy. Apart from empirically observing such an issue, the I.M.F might install a
knowledge management system to carefully transmit knowledge and discuss best
practices in combating such a problem. Analyzing the reasons and causes of the
economic crisis is also a managerial tool to help deal with the problem, and ideally try
to find opportunities within the economic crisis.

To facilitate knowledge management many organisations use knowledge management

systems. “A knowledge management system is an information system that provides
capabilities for organizing, storing, accessing, and sharing organisational knowledge”
(Nickerson, 2001:364). Computer software tracks down analytically what has
happened in a specific problem, and ideally team members of the organisation’s
intranet give their own opinion as well as recommendation.

These knowledge management systems could for example indicate reasons and causes
of the economic crisis and the high unemployment rate it creates. Also through the
knowledge management systems some standard operating procedures might arise,
thus leading to some relatively safe assumptions for the future. “These types of
systems may organise and store documents with explicit knowledge, such as
procedures manuals, that can be accessed over an intranet by employees of a
business… Knowledge management systems may use expert systems to provide
expert knowledge, and they may use other techniques from artificial intelligence, such
as intelligent agents, to acquire knowledge”. (Nickerson, 2001:364)

Data flow charts and data mining are ways to track down problems that are created by
the economic crisis. Using experience of the past it would be interesting to see what
caused the economic crisis and created some kind of a computer programming code

28 | P a g e
(like Pascal has) to predict with some accuracy the likelihood of such an economic
crisis appearing again in the future. Knowledge management is a science that does not
merely keep records of various issues. It tends to create through the use of computers
specific functions and procedures firstly to determine what knowledge the company
(or organisation) already has, and what is lacking. Then this knowledge should be
documented in policies and procedure manuals (or even business policy procedures).
Lastly transmitting knowledge to the whole organisation could be done in two ways.
Either by written manuals and standard operating procedures or by human interface.

Human interface involves meetings, teamwork, job assignments and on the job
training. A member in a bank, which faces problems caused by the economic crisis,
could learn how to deal with the problem, via the help of knowledge management.
Suppose a bank loan a financial manager has issued is unpaid and seriously overdue.
A solution to the problem could be copying best practices from other branches of the
bank thus providing a meaningful solution to the specific case. Team building and
managerial effort require sharing knowledge and best practices in order to deal with
the problems the economic crisis has brought.

Finally, technology is closely related to knowledge management. If it had not been for
technology, then it would have been difficult for the dissemination of information to
many different members of a group. “XML, XSL, and RDF are complementary
technological means that will enable ontological support in knowledge management”.
(Fensel, 2004:21)

According to McConnell and Brue (2001) there are some reasons that can cause a
financial crisis. The book illustrates the examples of Mexico and south-east countries
which in deed had serious economic crises during the 1990s. “Currency crises such as
those in Mexico and Southeast Asia in the last half of the 1990s were not the result of
the floating-exchange-rate system itself. Rather, the abrupt currency devaluations and
depreciations resulted from internal problems in those nations, in conjunction with the
nations’ tendency to peg their currencies to the dollar or to a basket of currencies”
(McConnell and Brue, 2001). So knowledge management could use this experience of
financial crises and use it effectively in preventing similar problems to happen again.

29 | P a g e
If the experience of the past is grouped together and used in an effective way, this
could potentially lead to a better way of confronting financial crises. The only
drawback of a knowledge management system is that it is limited to the guidelines
and data that are inserted to it. Providing the data are accurate, there is little flexibility
for new data to be incorporated immediately, thus leaving a lag time between new
information is integrated into the old one. Knowledge management systems should
adjust to new conditions. And also an important issue with information nowadays is
its huge quantity, which requires careful picking up.

Today the business environment is changing rapidly. Skyrme (2002) had summarized
the drivers that lead to the development of knowledge management. These are the
following:
 Dispersion – the organisation is dispersed over several geographic locations. This
makes it more necessary to find out what is already known elsewhere to avoid
“reinventing the wheel”.
 Change /restructuring – constant reorganizations mean that the relationships in
which informal knowledge is shared are often broken; some organisations e.g. the
US federal government, have a demographic situation in which many experienced
and knowledgeable staff will reach retiring age within a short period of time.
 Complexity/interdependencies – many organisational activities require inputs from
other departments and their own activities may impact others.
 Improving business performance – by sharing ‘best practices’ across an
organisation, the performance of the less well performing units can be brought
closer to that of the best.
 Customer relationships – the higher value placed on good customer service and
customer relationships puts a premium on customer knowledge – understanding
their needs, bringing together customer information into a single place, and using
the knowledge so acquired to develop better products and services
 Need for innovation – faster, better, cheaper (a common mantra within business) is
the result of more effective innovation; this requires an innovation system that
converts knowledge (ideas) efficiently and effectively into products, services and
processes.

30 | P a g e
 Better enabling technology – the growth of functionality of the Internet (including
collaborative workspaces, discussion groups, content management systems and
portals) makes it easier to assemble and share information across organisational
boundaries
 Minimizing uncertainty and risk – better access to relevant knowledge will help
managers make better decisions and so minimise various risks that may confront
the business.

Marler (1999) states that the rate of change in technologies is so quick, that it does not
allow enough time to develop subject matter experts, training courses, and human
resource interventions. Nevertheless, not only technologies are changing rapidly, as
well as products and product-lines etc. Davenport and Grover (2001) are stating that
“it was only a few years ago that knowledge management was relegated to the domain
of organisations whose primary business was to sell knowledge-based products. Now,
it is rapidly becoming an integral business function for many organisations as they
realise that competitiveness hinges on effective management of intellectual properties.
In a relatively quiet and rapid way, the concept had penetrated into many different
functions and processes of business. This is perhaps the best possible set of outcomes
from knowledge management. Rather than becoming a stand-alone business fad, the
management of knowledge is best accomplished by becoming embedded in other
aspects of business. Ironically, the best future for knowledge management would be
for it to become so pervasive and common that it seems invisible.”

However the organisations have to control their intellectual properties in order to

exploit them and transform them to a competitive source of resource. Jarzombek
(1999) commentates that there is no real management of knowledge as it is internal to
individuals; yet it is possible to set the right environment in order to promote the
sharing of information that derives from this tacit knowledge. Stecking (2000)
commentates that there is at least some grade to which knowledge may be managed.
So the main issued here is to manage the knowledge and that is what the knowledge
management examines. (Hofstede et al., 2010)

31 | P a g e
Davenport and Prusak (1998) state: “Much of the current interest in knowledge
management derives from the fact that organisations lack good information about
where their knowledge is and therefore have difficulty getting it and making use of
it.” This difficulty that appears on the difficulty to control the knowledge had brought
various definitions for what is knowledge management. In the domain of Knowledge
management, there are still questions or changes to the different past attempts of
categorising, classifying or defining knowledge or its related terms (Davenport and
Prusak 1998) and “are still questioned, widened or changed”. (Tuomi, 1999)

Liebowitz (1999) argues “that idea behind KM, which is to turn an organisation into a
learning organisation”. To quote the definition as provided by the University of Texas
knowledge management is actually the method to assist any organisation towards the
understanding based on own defines the knowledge management as “the systematic
process of finding, selecting, organizing, distilling and presenting information in a
way that improves an employee's comprehension in a specific area of interest”. It is
actually the method to assist any organisation towards the understanding based on
won experiences; it is the means of storing and referring to past knowledge towards
the solving of problems, of learning in a dynamic manner, of achieving effective
strategic planning and of making sound decisions, of providing flexibility, of
constantly upgrading the intellectual assets and overall organisational intelligence.
(Bryman, 2004)

According to Malhotra (2000), knowledge management may shield the organisation

against discontinuous and rapid environmental changes by assisting its adaptation,
survival and overall competence since it promotes the processes that are effectively
utilising information as well as the innovative capacity of human beings.

A recent World Bank report agrees that there is no common definition for what is
Knowledge Management; most definitions are linked to the generation, capture, or
dissemination of know-how (World Bank, 2011). Carter and Scarbrough (2001) are
concluding that the main definitions of the knowledge management are about
intellectual capital, knowledge assets and workplace and organisational learning.
They also add that the knowledge management’s practices also vary to terms of

32 | P a g e
economical, technical or social- political practices, while they are linking the human
resource management with knowledge management.

From some further reading of others authors such as Nonaka (1991), Davenport and
Prusak (1998) and Marler (1999) there can be assumed that knowledge management
are some practices (best practices) and procedures that can create knowledge within
the environment of an organisation and transform it to a source of competitive
advantage. Another definition is that “knowledge management is the set of
professional practices which improves the capabilities of the organisation’s human
resources and enhances their ability to share what they know.” This is an interesting
approach because the same source continues and indicates the knowledge
management as a procedure that starts from the creation of the knowledge, continues
with the acquisitions of the knowledge from the organisation in order to use it and to
learn (Process Renewal Group, 2015). The following figure illustrates the Knowledge
Cycle.

Figure 1. The Knowledge cycle (Source: http://www.processrenewal.com).

This is a circle which starts from the creation of knowledge. Then it goes from the
storage and the distribution of the knowledge within the firm, so to be used from the
individuals who will use it to acquire and learn new knowledge. At this point, it is
useful to refer on the fact that this circle does not have an end. When the individual
will acquire and use the new knowledge, then he will start again a new knowledge,
since knowledge is not static but it needs to be renewed very often.

33 | P a g e
2.4.3 Knowledge Management and the economic crisis – Why economic crisis is an
important issue faced by SMEs investment in Knowledge Management

In the case that we are going to explore as far as it concerns the economic crisis, the
present monetary and financial emergency are to be analyzed, thus, it is important to
explore the fundamental attributes and standards of emergencies in general and the
historical backdrop of prior occasions. Hamvas (1983) claims that before starting to
talk about the genuine nature of an economic crisis, we ought to ask if we are able to
talk and analyse a crisis. It is important to underline that obviously, the case that the
idea and appearance of an economic crisis is not new.
The advancement of the entrepreneur framework and the customary procurement of
information have permitted this inquiry to be inspected and justified additionally from
a monetary measurable point of view, and speculations hold that certain precise
components in the form of different cases are noticeable in the case of an economic
crisis. The most critical financial hypotheses in which periodicity is present, can be
summarized below.
According to Kitchin (1923) there are three to five year financial cycles mainly, that
are connected to business inventories - which cause variances in financial execution.
This exploration is focused around measurable information distributed by the money
related establishments of the United States and the United Kingdom somewhere
around 1890 and 1922. Schumpeter (1954) has been used these results and has found
that by breaking down the Dow Jones List, the Kitchin speculations still apply. The
hypothesis, which primarily alludes to sectors and is focused around specific
investment cycles, is characterised by seven to eleven year periods in which the
trough between waves is indicated by overproduction and monetary business
emergencies. The periodicity of the specific cycle is obvious in the case of the current
breakdown of stock exchange costs such in the case of the collapse of the Russian
monetary system during the Russian crisis. Since the return of major infrastructural
venture by organizations and businesses is obvious inside such periods, the economic
cycles can be nearly associated with Kuznets' hypothesis on fifteen to twenty year
development cycles.
A standout amongst the most well-known hypotheses is that of the Kondratiev (1998)
Long Wave Cycles. The Kondratiev hypothesis, formalised in 1920 yet disregarded

34 | P a g e
until the 1929 crisis, recognises forty five to sixty year-long stretches. Both the up-
slants and down-inclines of the wave have their distinctive redundant qualities. Before
the up-inclines start, noteworthy changes can be seen in monetary conditions such in
the case of strategies for generation and trade change profoundly, the utilization of
specialised development quickens and new cash transmission systems. At the change
arrange on the other hand, the social stuns and wars and strains increment appear. At
the down-inclines however, the price gap between farming and mechanical products
increases and expansions and there is an agricultural depression.
The Crisis Management arrangements of organizations show up today in the form of
methods for news of lessened working time and lay-offs. Notwithstanding, rejecting
workers can bring long haul issues and in addition advertising transient survival. One
of the fundamental presumptions of Knowledge Management is that data and human
capital assume an expanding part on the side of the input. A great part of the value of
an organization lies in its human capital - the learning dormant in individuals' heads –
and this is a component urgent for its competitiveness and enhanced corporate
execution. In a crisis management, nonetheless, organizations give careful
consideration to holding information and their holders. They basically utilize the
"lawnmower standard" in expense reduction, endeavoring to streamline on the most
astounding expense part, that is, compensation.
This, nonetheless, must be compelling to a restricted degree. Boda (2006) claims that
this helps us to comprehend the foundation. When we discuss costs, we give up assets
for the purpose of a benefit, and whoever inspects the use of assets will attempt to
diminish costs by any methods conceivable. This methodology, in any case, can be off
base. Expenses happen during working, not at the purpose of speculation. We can
partition costs into two classes: operational and limit costs, keeping up and saving the
state of the advantages. Resources make benefit and expenses must be allocated to
their operation. In cases of knowledge based organizations there are learning based
operations that exist, human capital is the most gainful resource. Human capital is a
specific decent way of operating since its speculation quality is low -not expecting to
be obtained- however its operation is somewhat the only way of operating due to the
fact that cost administration can't be proficient when just looking at benefits and costs.
No one but those can oversee costs proficiently when utilizing the best resources and
work in the most effective way. Thus, rejecting the idea of human capital equivalents
scrapping. This becomes more effective when the human capital can't create a benefit

35 | P a g e
which covers the expense of speculation and surpasses operational expenses. In any
case, laying-off is in general not such a decent arrangement.
Information and learning offering have gotten to be most essential components of
authoritative potential in this environment of fast change and eccentrics, since it
expands aggressiveness. (Tomka, 2009) As Salojärvi et al. (2005) claim, the
development of Knowledge Management is decidedly corresponded with long haul
development and supportability. Organizations with a more thorough and vital
methodology to Knowledge Management are becoming more than the individuals
who fail to offer this. Their study reasons that a cognizant methodology to Knowledge
Management is insufficient in itself, since a large portion of the organizations do not
indicate development. Knowledge Management exercises are conveyed out in a
complete and adjusted way.
The McKinsey Management Consultant Company in prompting on procedure
moreover contends for hierarchical learning and advancement (Barret et al., 2009). As
indicated by them, those organizations which diminish costs in a subsidence with a
specific end goal to streamline, are committing an error. Obviously, cost
diminishment creates no transient income and benefit, and so cutting expenses may
appear, by all accounts, to be a simple arrangement, with a lot of people unmistakably
feeling that they can create investment funds both immediately. There is after all a
fact that may even now be hard to discover in a way out of the emergency, that is,
without bringing up issue marks and new spearheading arrangements.
General expense cutting and diminishing of costs additionally convey a genuine
negative message. The information specialists, such as engineers, who speak to the
primary non- material abundance of an association and guarantee its creativity, are
left with a negative impression of the organization. Rather than cut-backs,
associations ought to take a key methodology to expenses cut and hold key
representatives. The emergency should be considered as an open door. (Barret et al.,
2009)
As per diverse exact studies, headcount cutting is every now and again utilized among
lower-gifted specialists toward the starting of an emergency (GKI Research, 2009).
Later this advocacy apparatus may be reached out to all the more profoundly
instructed workers and chiefs too.

36 | P a g e
2.5 Knowledge management approaches

There are many different approaches with respect to knowledge management. This is
something normal, since knowledge management is a new managerial science and it
may take some time will be necessary before the various authors and researchers
narrow down the theories which are the most representative of what knowledge
management is.

Many authors have referred to the various knowledge management approaches. For
example Sun Microsystems has referred to the technological approach of knowledge.
So there are various schools of thought. From these schools of thought the most
important are two; the managerial approach of knowledge management and the
critical approach. (Boda, 2006)

The managerial approach of knowledge management is the school of thought that uses
strategies for the adaptation of knowledge management in the companies. This is
represented from various authors. The most popular authors are Davenport and Prusak
(1998) and Nonaka (1991).

On the other end lies the critical approach school of thought. Its stance is more
critically than the previous one to the theories of knowledge management,
management sharing and others. Blackler (1995) and Orlikowski (2002) are some of
the authors that are representing this view.

Orlikowski (2002) states that there is dichotomy between the various authors and the
school of thought that they are representing. The main arguments stand “between tacit
and explicit knowing, local vs. universal, codified vs. uncodified, canonical vs. non-
canonical, procedural vs. declarative, and know-how vs. know-what.

These two schools have some various differences. The first major difference is on the
way that they see the information systems. The managerial schools believe that
information systems have a crucial role to play on the development of the learning
organisation. Davenport, De Long and Beers (1998) are proposing that the

37 | P a g e
information systems can play an important role to the transfer of tacit knowledge from
individuals into a repository. The information systems are the intermediate between
the knowledge and its place of storage. Dunn (2002) states that “Knowledge
management can be said to be, the policies and processes through which organisations
seek to create, capture, store, disseminate and leverage organisational knowledge, and
IT is fundamental to this endeavour. This definition of KM is significant in that it
differentiates from typical information management through its first and last stages. In
pure terms many knowledge based systems that populate organisational life contain
little more than information, otherwise known as organisational history”.

On the other hand McDermott (1999) seems to disagree with the last. He agrees that
the Information technology has helped many businesses to improve their overall
performance but he is claiming that there is a great gap existing in the use of
information tools and concepts towards the creation of real knowledge management
systems. He is criticizing the managerial school of thought for treating the cultural
issues of knowledge management as “secondary, implementing issues”. In addition to
this McDermott sets six characteristics of knowledge distinguish it from information.

These six characteristics are the following:

 Knowing is a human act
 Knowledge is the residue of thinking
 Knowledge is created in the present moment
 Knowledge belongs to communities
 Knowledge circulates through communities in many ways
 New knowledge is created at the boundaries of the old (McDermott, 1999).

Despres (1995) states the information technology codifies the knowledge and is the
mean that carries it to the other parts of an organisation or a community. Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995) are claiming that if the tacit and explicit knowledge being codified
and communicated then the “knowledge conversions” occurs. This means that the
knowledge codification is the key to understand and share the knowledge. Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995) describe the process of creating knowledge as a spiral and
believe the interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge produces four modes of

38 | P a g e
knowledge conversion that are interconnected. These modes are socialisation (from
tacit to tacit), externalisation (from tacit to explicit), combination (from explicit to
explicit), and internalisation (from explicit to tacit). This means that the tacit and the
explicit have equal validity and that managers shall look after to join these two
elements. Tsoukas (1996) states that “tacit and explicit knowledge are mutually
constituted … in-separable.”

Not all of the authors seem to agree on that. Romaldi (2002) summarizes the views of
some authors who are focused on the tacit knowledge and concludes that “to survive
in this emerging economy of knowledge, organisations must recognise the need to
introduce processes and technologies that aim to convert tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge and then capture it for use by the body corporate. Stewart (1997) and
Kluge, Stein and Licht (2001) have examined several organisations and concluded
that organisations that tend to follow Nonaka and Takeuchi’s model (although
Nonaka and Takeuchi model is based on empirical evidence taken from Japanese
manufacturers) had to face problems and that the effectiveness of this model seems to
be problematic.

So the critical side focuses more to the tacit knowledge and how this will be
transformed to an explicit one in order the companies to take advantage of this.
Stewart (1997) states that “tacit knowledge needs to be-come explicit; what’s
unspoken must be said aloud. Otherwise it cannot be examined, improved or shared.”
The critical school of thought believes that the managers shall pay more attention to
the tacit knowledge because it is inside the worker’s mind and it is difficult to get
externalised. Borghoff and Pareschi (1998) say that the transformation of the tacit
knowledge is risky and some wrong designed procedures may affect negative the
existed knowledge. According to von Krogh et al. (2000) any knowledge creating
company is facing two challenges: one of realizing the value that tacit knowledge has,
and two that this tacit knowledge should be channeled within the organisation. Thence
it is also required to facilitate interpersonal relationships via thorough conversations
to enable knowledge. (Davenport et al., 2001)

2.6 Knowledge Management Activities

39 | P a g e
Concerning Knowledge Management, Bornemann et al. (2003) express that a learning
focused examination completed toward the start of the Knowledge Management
activities will give data on the level of development of the association to the
development; the real individuals included in Knowledge Management activities
ought to be given the impression that what they did in the past was not wasteful, that
Knowledge Management is not an end in itself since speedy and noticeable results can
be created through the building of a virtual library, case in point, and that it will bring
arrangements which will resolve their issues so as to detach imperviousness from
development, which is to be kept away from the organization.
Furthermore, pilot ventures over a period of a few years will support the change
transformed in place for dependable achievement of Knowledge Management to be
accomplished. In a society driven by the presentation of Knowledge Management at a
high level of intentional activity of imparting learning to others, while there is an
administration driven presentation of Knowledge Management, focused on and
proceeded with improvement, adjustment, and application of particular Knowledge
Management techniques are into the center (Bornemann et al., 2003). In the long run,
in a focused on, efficient execution of Knowledge Management, proper routines make
potential on the association's vital - key administration - objectives so as to create,
disperse, and assess information.
Learning incorporation exercises make existing implied and unequivocal information
accessible all through the organization while evaluating information exercises
demonstrate the learning accessibility and what it has created after some time, in
addition to the degree to which information objectives have been arrived, allowed that
adapting exists. Concerning the estimation of what is consistently realised and on the
meta-ability of assessing the value of learning something before learning itself starts
as indicated by connectivism. To round off, the recipients of advancement and
Knowledge Management go about as outside evaluators, while inner assessment – as
a center skill tree – can be done by picturing the improvement of the association's
center skills and society. (Bornemann et al., 2003)
Knowledge Management is in the end, the management of an organization with a
special focus on knowledge (Bornemann et al., 2003). According to Bellinger
(2004:37), “the value of Knowledge Management relates directly to the effectiveness
with which the managed knowledge enables the members of the organisation to deal
with today's situations and effectively envision and create their future”, while “with

40 | P a g e
on- demand access to managed knowledge, every situation is addressed with the sum
total of everything anyone in the organisation has ever learned about a situation of a
similar nature”.
There are three operational layers (the knowledge level, the data level, and the action
level) linked with the five core knowledge processes (information, documentation,
communication, application, and learning) to form a basic knowledge management
model (Bornemann et al., 2003). The individual knowledge 30 and the interaction of
the individual members of the organization make up the knowledge level, the
available documented knowledge constitutes the data level, whereas both knowledge
and data levels provide input for the action level so as, firstly, the organization's
processes to be enacted, and secondly, its value processes to be created.

2.6.1 Knowledge Management as a process

Modern organizations are exposed to an environment that is influenced by

technological, political and scientific changes. Competition at national and
international level is growing and customers are becoming more demanding. In this
rapidly changing and highly competitive environment, organizations are invited to
meet the new requirements that are presented every day. Organizational knowledge
and learning can create the conditions of continuous innovation and of competitive
advantage. The ablest and best guide to achieve this objective, is the Management of
Knowledge and Learning.
Many theorists of management believe that the phrase "Knowledge Management" is
an oxymoron, to the extent that it is extremely difficult to apply technical and
administrative processes to something that is not tangible and is found mainly in the
knowledge that people have (Hedlund, 1994). The objective, however, concerning the
management of knowledge, is not the emphasis on human resource management
practices, but the creation of that business environment that will facilitate and support
a systematic way towards the development processes of knowledge, with the ultimate
aim of creating business value. (Mentzas, 2000)
According to Baumard (1996), Knowledge Management is a new administrative
practice related to the systematic and collective creation, diffusion and use of business
knowledge, to radically improve organizational efficiency, improve business
competitiveness and innovation. In theory, there are four aspects for successful

41 | P a g e
Knowledge Management: leadership, corporate culture, the performance
measurement system and technology. According to this, the organizations should
formulate coherent Knowledge Management strategies that are consistent with the
objectives of developing their products and services, the desired penetration targets in
new markets and their financial aspirations.
Knowledge Management regards the acquired management process understanding in
general (Nonaka and Ikujiro, 1994). According to Sveiby (2002), it is difficult to
define Knowledge Management. For this reason the definition effort is based in two
separate sections, depending on the activities of researchers, and two levels of
approach. The individual parts of Knowledge Management, are related to the
following.
Information Management. Researchers and users have the appropriate training on
computers or IT science and are engaged in the development of information systems
and artificial intelligence. Knowledge is in this case identified within the objects that
can be used in the information systems.
Person - Human management. Researchers have been focusing in philosophy,
psychology, sociology or administration and are dealing with the evaluation and
improvement of human skills and human behavior. Knowledge is in this case
identified within the procedures, the composition of a group skills, which are
constantly changing.
The approach levels, which differ each other in terms of core research and their
application are the human approach, according to which the person consists the core
of research and implementation; and the approach of the organization, according to
which the organization consists the research and core application itself.
Davenport and Probst (2001) argue that the essence of Knowledge Management is the
teamwork on the grounds that the organization is the essence of the composition of
people, which seek or follow their personal goals, if neglected or left without
guidance. The mission of the leaders is able to lead people to contribute collectively
so as to achieve a common goal, which is translated automatically as sharing
information and knowledge with a view to achieving the best possible result. As easy
as this may seem in a theoretical level, especially today that the development of
information technology enables the collection and sharing of large information, at the
level of practical application, there are several difficulties.

42 | P a g e
Bhatt (2001) argues that it is difficult to define Knowledge Management uniquely and
thus, it would be more logical to set it per organization to whom it would be applied.
He identifies the Knowledge Management as a five-step process, which provides the
organization with the ability to create, evaluate, express, support and extend the base
of core competencies.
More precisely, the creation of knowledge refers to the ability of the organization to
develop innovative, useful ideas and effective solutions. The creation of knowledge is
not necessarily a start from scratch, thus, it can be derived from existing information,
the interaction deriving from the information, or the approach from another angle, or
even as a result of applied efforts.
The second phase, the confirmation of Knowledge refers to the extent that an
organization can affect knowledge and effectiveness. During this phase, it is
necessary to update knowledge, carried out with the continuous interaction between
technologies and technical and human resources of the organization. Essentially, it is
the continuous redefinition of data and information after verification. The Knowledge
codification refers to the variety of ways - with their codes entitled Knowledge,
represented so that it becomes possible to provide a spread beyond the members of the
organization. Coding data, information and knowledge can be different, depending on
the organization, resulting in the presence of difficulties in the identification and
recognition.
Thus, the organization must choose a definite way for coding, to avoid any confusion
or misunderstanding. The diffusion of knowledge is achieved by the interaction of
technologies, technical and human resources of an organization. The vertical diffusion
of knowledge of the leaders of the organization to employees, has until now been
proved as non - constructive. Instead, the horizontal diffusion of knowledge among
employees, by e-mail or intranet, allowing interactions between staff of different
departments of the organization, discussions and interpretation of existing information
from different angles, is indirectly increasing the possibilities of reviewing of the
authenticity of knowledge.
The last phase of Knowledge Management (Bhatt, 2001), is the application of
knowledge, which refers to products, processes and services of the organization. Hsu
and Shen (2005), adopting the definition of Horwitch and Armacost (2002), claim that
Knowledge Management is a structured and organised approach, which is related to
improving the ability of the organization employing knowledge to make decisions, to

43 | P a g e
act and present final results that support the basic strategy of it. It should be noted
there is a risk smoldering in addressing Knowledge Management, concerning one's
own learning rather than group learning. In this case, there is no knowledge
transmission because the focus deals with individuals resulting in lack of information
exchange and thus lack in organizational learning.

2.6.2 Strategic steps towards Knowledge Management

The knowledge requirements vary depending on the size of the organization, the
activity sector, the level of technology and many other features. No single Knowledge
Management system is suitable for any business / organization. However, there are
some steps and conditions that ensure the success of any Knowledge Management
policy. Below are the strategic steps for implementing Knowledge Management.
(Bhatt, 2001)
Determination of business strategic goals. In the case of creation of important
strategic goals, Knowledge Management has to gain maximum results. The strategic
objectives stated in the business plan of the organization need to be followed by a
SWOT analysis that has to be conducted to determine the priorities and objectives.
This is crucial, because in most cases the results of Knowledge Management are not
obvious in terms of relative cost or other quantitative characteristics, so as to ensure
full commitment of management. Therefore, Knowledge Management team should
present as soon as possible the first results.
Diagnosis and identification of knowledge gaps, future requirements on knowledge
and knowledge of the specific characteristics of the organization. Well-defined
strategic objectives have to be analyzed in order to provide an appropriate framework
for analyzing gaps in current knowledge and future knowledge needs of the
organization. Knowledge gaps may arise from lack of people, lack of technology or
both. The knowledge gaps need to be filled with a list of techniques, such as internal
training, hiring new staff, acquire new skills and new knowledge. Possible knowledge
gaps could be identified from problems that have been reported in the past, after being
discussed with senior management and staff of the organization. During this process,
an excess in knowledge may also arise.
Implementation of a culture change policy. In today's competitive work environment
many employees do not feel safe in their work places and they are usually concealing
their knowledge, which could be used to improve efficiency. They also hide this

44 | P a g e
knowledge because they believe that if they share it with others they will lose their
competitive advantage. This is probably the biggest hurdle for every Knowledge
Management activity. People must feel free to exchange ideas and make mistakes. All
these minor but still very critical daily activities help an organization to acquire new
business knowledge and to build a Knowledge Management culture.
Implementation of a knowledge-mapping tool. The mapping of knowledge is a
process that aims to link knowledge description with the people who possess it. In
most cases it is difficult to map the knowledge itself while it is easier to create links
between a brief description of knowledge and its holders. However, knowledge in an
organization exists in many forms and is being met in various subject areas such as
management, production, marketing or sales. Thus, the knowledge to describe and
fully understand the processes of the organization, should be formulated in a familiar
and easy language in the form of a code. This process is called knowledge
codification. There are many ways of creating coding and the chosen one every time
should include particular characteristics of knowledge of the specific organization.
For example, a simple knowledge codification could be implicit, explicit, teachable,
non-teachable, documented, non-documented, simple, complex, functional, non-
functional, theoretic or practical. Therefore, a knowledge map would be created. The
creation of a knowledge map does not necessarily reflect the knowledge of an
organization, as presented or implied in the organization charts. Specific knowledge
might be hold by every employee deriving by the various experiences he/she had in
his/her life. (Hsu and Shen, 2005)
One of the most common and most important decisions one has to take in order to
shape organizational Knowledge Management strategy is to focus on the orientation
strategy. Orientation strategy can be described based on two dimensions that help
understanding and explanation of their orientation. (Choi and Lee, 2002)
During systematic strategy, the orientation and focus of the management of
knowledge is identified within the system. This strategy emphasises the capacity of an
organization to support the creation, storage, sharing and use of explicitly documented
organizational knowledge. The strategy based on this dimension, is in most cases
focused on coding and storing knowledge. Typically, knowledge can be codified
through information technology. The codified knowledge is more likely to be reused.
In this approach the emphasis is strictly based on predefined rules anything that must
be done in all possible conditions. (Takahashi and Vandenbrink, 2001)

45 | P a g e
During oriented strategy, the organization is dealing with the orientation and focus on
the management of knowledge, identified in humans. This strategy emphasises
knowledge sharing through interpersonal interactions. The key elements of this
strategy are the communication processes across the spectrum of the social network of
the organization such as expert groups or project teams that contribute to knowledge
sharing through interpersonal contacts. This strategy aims to acquire internal and
opportunistic knowledge and the informal sharing of it, since knowledge can be
acquired in various ways by experienced and competent employees. (Takahashi and
Vandenbrink, 2001)
The systemic approach on the one hand, emphasises on the codified knowledge used
in Knowledge Management processes, focusing on encoding and storage of
knowledge through IT and contributes to the gathering of formal knowledge sharing.
The human – centric approach on the other hand, emphasises on dialogue through
social networks and personal contacts, focuses on knowledge acquisition through
experienced and capable people and contributes to the acquisition of informal
knowledge sharing. Systemic strategy corresponds to grade coding and storage of
organizational knowledge, to the extent of access and use of explicit knowledge. The
human - centric strategy corresponds to the acquisition and sharing of tacit knowledge
mainly through interpersonal interaction as in the case of employees' conversation and
constructive dialogue. (Hsu and Shen, 2005)

2.6.3 The need for Knowledge Management

The ability of organizations to exploit their advantages, it is more crucial than their
ability to manage their assets. The market in which they operate is constantly
changing and the uncertainty increases as competitors multiply, technologies evolve,
consumer demands and changing products and services become quickly outdated.
Therefore, organizations that invest in Knowledge Management, become able to cope
and overcome changes successfully while development is occurring in the foreground
tending to influence the way forward.
Today the success of an organization is incorporated in its operating systems, with
knowledge-based activities in order to develop new products and services and create
closer relationships with its customers, who are the organization's orientation. With
the adoption of these procedures, the modern enterprise is seeking to acquire a long-
term and long promising competitive advantage. (Pérez-Bustamante, 1999)

46 | P a g e
The orientation of organization is to provide knowledge, not capital. Most
organizations have understood that knowledge is the way according to which they
may be helped in order to cope with the changing developments in the marketplace,
posing the right questions and following the right moves that will lead to the finding
of the appropriate responses. Knowledge Management is essential in order for an
organization to apply the appropriate knowledge so as to solve a problem. (Bhatt,
2000)
Knowledge can help drastically in decision making. Experience from previous
procedures, the initiatives taken, any failures or successes generally, show that the
efforts made can be accessed and revoked, in order for them to contribute
significantly to the decision making.
The environment in which an organization is operating, is characterised by the
existence and function of many competing organizations. To survive, an organization
must keep up with developments in order to address any threats. This is a long and
difficult process where the Knowledge Management can be a valuable tool for the
rebuttal and degradation of any competitors. (Bhatt, 2000)
In cases of retirement, resignation or dismissal of an employee, the organization may
lack in experience and specialised knowledge possessed. In particular, in cases of
dismissal or when the employee resigns, knowledge and experience can be exploited
by the new company by which the employee will be hired. Knowledge Management
can help an organization to store and maintain the critical skills of employees in the
event of a dismissal for any reason, so that the organization maintains its manpower.
(Ngulube and Lwoga, 2002)
The survival of the largest and well-known organization is a concept that has been
overcome in a knowledge-based economy. Actual cases have shown that even large
organizations, which did not believe in the benefits of Knowledge Management
sooner or later were led to stagnation or have been closed. By contrast, smaller
organizations which have adopted the philosophy of Knowledge Management, have
been benefited. (Ngulube and Lwoga, 2002)
As shown above, Knowledge Management is the most valuable resource of modern
business and the systematic utilization of its most critical success factor in both the
internal of the organization and the relationships developed with the external
environment - customers, partners, suppliers, competitors -. More generally,
Knowledge Management provides benefits for individual workers, communities of

47 | P a g e
practice, and the organization itself. This introduction of the three levels, the internal
part of the organization, its environment and the organization itself, helps to the
highlight of the importance of Knowledge Management today. (Bhatt, 2000)
Knowledge Management at an individual level, helps people to do their job and save
time by improvisation of decision-making and problem solving. It also creates a sense
of social ties within the organization. Moreover, it helps people to stay informed,
while it offers challenges and opportunities for contribution.
Knowledge Management within a practical community develops professional skills. It
also promotes peer guidance while it facilitates effective networking and
collaboration. It also develops a code of professional ethics that members can follow
while it can promote the use of a common language.
Knowledge Management at organizational level, helps strategy. It can promote the
solving of problems quickly while it disseminates best practices. It also improves
knowledge embodied in products and services. Knowledge Management improve the
crossing of ideas and the enhancing of opportunities for innovation. It allows the
organizations to be ranked above the average competition. While it builds
organizational memory.
Bourandas and Papalexandris (2002) set as a fundamental objective of in-company
training the idea of pushing the organization towards success, adding value to the
work of employees. According to the above, education is used as a means to develop
new skills, in order for the time to be reduced. This way the organization can adapt to
new ideas and improve the knowledge and attitudes of its employees. Thus, there is a
change in the behavior of the employees which involves the acquisition of new
technical knowledge in handling quality and problem-solving skills and attitudes
defining the objective of education as the transformation of knowledge.
Training is also a learning process. The training, as education is planned, is an activity
that brings employees to the desired pattern within the process of high performance,
under the guidance and practice. The desired standard work performance involves the
performance of work as designed in the strategic planning of the organization
(Bourandas and Papalexandris, 2002). The difference lies in the fact that the training
is setting broad goals, and is based on many ways of thinking and acting. (Rogers,
1998)
In addition, the importance of training that Peters (1967) underlines is based on the
learning a specific object in a particular way of a process of project development

48 | P a g e
focused primarily on practical training. This indicates a certain level of education
according to the National Employment Institute (NHRF) according to which, training
is considered as a specialised way of addressing the workers or those who are seeking
for employment. In the literature review there are two basic forms of training in any
organization. (Hitiris, 2001)

 Training at work (job training), which includes formal and informal

educational activities, related to the role of each employee in the organization.
 Training out of work (off job training), which includes educational activities -
seminars or workshops - outside the workplace, in special education areas that
have the basic equipment. These activities are aimed at all employees in order
for them to realise the organization's policy through regulations and
procedures.

2.7 Organizational culture

In this section, organizational culture is defined. The importance and the

characteristics of organizational culture are then discussed and analyzed, and the
relationship of culture and knowledge management is examined. This review leads up
to the justification and the description of the main research hypotheses.

Some researchers define organizational culture as the rules of observable behavior in

human interaction within the organization, whereas other researchers define it as
involving those values which are dominant within the organization. One of the most
common and acceptable definitions of organizational culture states that it comprises
of shared values, beliefs and norms within the organization as well as behavioral
patterns for translating them into general practice within the organization as well.

As per the view of Schein (1986), culture is a unique kind of coherent system of
assumptions and basic values which differentiate one group of organizations from
others. Thus we can state that organizational culture tends to be a certain kind of
pattern in relation to basic assumptions that remain common and unique to a

49 | P a g e
particular group. Hence organizational culture can be considered as a common thread
throughout the organization through which seamless communication takes place.

There are numerous definitions that have been put forth in context of organizational
culture. There is one common element which is the pattern of doing things within the
organization. Culture can be viewed as the collective beliefs that in turn pave the
individual’s behavior. In this case, if the organizational culture is strong, it will be
consistent, widely shared and clear to one and all within the organization (Kidwell et
al., 2000). Culture can also be defined as the collective ‘programming’ of the mind
which differentiates the members of one group from another in a significant manner.
It is important to understand the fact the culture does not at all belong to individuals
but to groups (Kidwell et al., 2000). Culture is dynamic; it is an ever evolving process
and not at all static. The individuals within the organization are important in shaping
and refining the organizational culture.

2.7.1 Increasing importance of organizational culture

It is certain that organizational culture paves the way towards supreme organizational
excellence. High-performing firms are organizations which have a strong culture
throughout the organization, as well as a uniqueness. Culture is one of those elements
that differentiates one organization from another and provides organizations with a
definite coherence and self-confidence. Culture satisfies the basic need for affiliation
and security of individuals within the organization. Important concepts such as
organizational learning, organizational development and others can be effectively
deployed only when organizational culture fosters and backs them in the right
manner.

It is important for managers to have the right interpretation and understanding of the
organizational culture, as this will help them to frame and implement appropriate
strategies for various strategic decisions. In various earlier research it has already
been established that organizational culture has a definite impact on people working
with the organization. It has a bearing on associates’ commitment as well as their
involvement. In relation to change and organizational culture, there is a definite direct

50 | P a g e
correlation between them. Culture is one of the keys to driving commitment,
productivity and profitability alike. This implies that organizational culture also has a
definite impact on the bottom line of the organization. (Kronan, 2000)

On the other hand, any kind of cultural misunderstanding can be painful for the
management as well as the associates of the organization. It is important to have a
comprehensive assessment of various cultural issues at the organizational level in
order to better and more deeply understand what works for the betterment of the
organization and what can be improved for the positive progress of the organization.

The very nature of organizational culture affects the manner in which the organization
operates within the market place; the accomplishment of goals and the control of the
organizational culture is yet another important subject in relation to managing the
organization in the right manner. It is crucial to have a deep understanding of
organizational culture because:

 Organizational culture helps in determining the responses that the

organization’s top management may opt for in relation to facing new
challenges
 It may help to facilitate the process of change management in the intended
manner
 It helps to identify key people for important initiatives within the organization
 This also imbues the organization with a clear direction of the skill gaps and
renders a roadmap as to how the organization should go about learning and
developing initiatives.

If the management of the organization fails to understand the organizational culture in

the intended manner, it may lead to unnecessary wastage of resources in terms of
manpower, time and money. This may also lead to conflicts, cynicism and
disillusionment within various organizational levels as well, which may accentuate
the problems of the organization. The core values need to be duly recognised and
embedded deep within the culture to reap the intended benefits.

51 | P a g e
2.7.2 Varied aspects of organizational culture

It is evident that there are numerous approaches, methods and terms that have been
put into practice by various researchers while exploring the concept of organizational
culture in-depth. These views are described below.

Schein (1986) referred to varied cultural elements such as the physical layout of the
organization’s offices, the rules of interaction and other basic values that seem to pave
the way for organizational ideology and philosophy (Hofstede, 1993). In the view of
Geert Hofstede (1993), there are various approaches and perspectives in relation to
organizational culture that need to be explored in order to understand the concept
more clearly and deeply. Organizational culture can manifest itself, among other
things, in terms of symbols, heroes, rituals, and values. On the other hand national
cultures differ on the value front. Hofstede (1993) explored the variations in relation
to national cultures of more than 50 countries across the globe. The study revealed
five independent dimensions of organizational values which are: power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus
femininity, and Confucian dynamism.

Power distance is a measure of the inequality that exists between bosses and their
subordinates as well as to the extent to which this is accepted. Uncertainty avoidance
is the degree to which an individual or the associate working with the organization is
comfortable with or in other case feels threatened by ambiguous, uncertain situations,
or either it can be defined as the extent an individual can or cannot tolerate
uncertainty and attempts to mitigate it by establishing more structure. (Kronan, 2000)

Individualism vs. collectivism defines the degree to which the organizational culture
relies on and is committed to the self to or the group. In other words, it can be defined
as the degree to which an individual thinks in terms of “I versus we”. Masculinity vs.
femininity is also known as achievement versus nurturance orientation, and it is a
measure of the degree to which a culture values behaviors like assertiveness,
accomplishment, wealth acquisition, quality of life and others.

52 | P a g e
Confucian dynamism is the fifth dimension that was later added following Hofstede’s
work with Michael Bond. This parameter renders some kind of explanation to the fast
economic development of various Asian economies. This dimension points out the
selective promotion of a particular set of ethics that are prevalent and common in
Confucian teachings. The various teachings that play an important role in this include
thrift, perseverance, a sense of shame and adherence to hierarchy. All these pave the
way for fast economic development. Part of exploring this parameter involves
assessing the impact of long-term as well as short-term orientations.

In his research, Hofstede (1993) recognised six independent dimensions of practices

which are mentioned as follows:

 Process-oriented vs. result-oriented

 Job-oriented vs. employee-oriented
 Professional vs. parochial
 Open systems vs. closed systems
 Tightly-controlled vs. loosely-controlled; and
 Pragmatic vs. normative.

The position of the organization with respect to the above mentioned dimensions is
decided in part by the business or industry the organization is in. The above leads to
conclusions in relation to how organizational culture can be managed more
successfully. In relation to international business, this implies managing both national
and organizational cultural differences at the same time.

While exploring the concept of organizational culture, some researchers noted the fact
that the organization’s structure is a determinant of organizational culture. This
implies that certain structures carve certain types of cultures as reflected in various
researches. Therefore there needs to be a simple framework for categorizing cultures.

As per the viewpoint extended by Charles Handy (1999), there are four types of
organizational culture which can be easily identified and they are described below.
Role Culture is one of the most easily recognizable organizational cultures. It heavily

53 | P a g e
relies upon the job or role instead of the personalities. This culture type is epitomised
by what associates tend to think of as the conventional hierarchical structure. In
general, this is often called a bureaucracy - controlled by procedures, role descriptions
and authority definitions.

In role culture, job position is the focal point, and co-ordination is pivotal. The
strength lies in predictability, stability and consistency. The role culture carves out a
highly structured and stable organization that includes precise job descriptions,
usually with a single offering. This culture is essentially impersonal and by
implication restrictive, suppressing individual attempts at improvement. It is not
complicated to follow a role-oriented culture; change, however, is very slow to come
and can be imbibed through fear – not a good atmosphere for positive progress.

Task Culture is one of those cultures wherein the management is basically concerned
with evolving the ongoing and successful solutions to organizational challenges.
Performance in this case is measured in terms of outcomes and of the hurdles that are
overcome in the process. A definite structure clearly exists, but it is flexible and
therefore capable of being formed and reformed depending upon the task in hand. As
per the viewpoint of Handy (1999), the task culture can be linked to a net where the
power comes through junctions or interstices. Thus the organization is more loosely
bound and depends less on the role model. It can be said to be a small team approach.
The impetus lies more on outcomes and problem solving, as well as getting things
done. Associates are empowered with discretion and control over their work. Power
and respect come from a person’s knowledge and talent instead of rank or position.
(Kidwell et al., 2000)

Power Culture is more or less similar to the web with a ruling spider; those who are in
the web are very much dependent upon a central power source. The influence is
exerted from the focal point and lines of communication radiate from the centre but
also link sideways and across the organization. In this case, power is derived from the
apex and it is the personal relationship with the person the matters rather than the
position within the organization. The prime influence paves the way for that kind of
organizational structure which is very flexible and responds to any type of change
very quickly. This kind of ability is not gained by formal procedures but by the

54 | P a g e
selection of like-minded individuals in important positions, that will make out what
will be the top management’s decision without relying on any kind of conformist
systems.

This type of culture is often found in small entrepreneurial organizations and political
parties but then this type of culture tends to break down as soon as it grows, since the
web which is the essence of this culture is difficult to maintain in a large size.

In Person/Star Culture, an individual person is the focal point. If there is any kind of
organizational structure at all, then it is present only to aid the persons that are present
within it. This kind of culture is present for the people concerned and does not have
any kind of subordinate objective whatsoever. It is not common to find such a culture
throughout the entire organization. It is although present in small areas or teams of
larger organizational setups. This culture is more prevalent is highly educated and
articulate associates who have come together owing to common sets of interests,
including academic researchers, solicitors, consultants and the like. Individuals in
such a culture tend to operate and work independently. Associates have strong values
in relation to their work and therefore it is extremely difficult for organizations to
manage and bring effective change for the betterment of the organization as a whole.
The organizations exist in such cases only to foster the progress of individuals
towards their respective goals. Hence, the first two cultural models are considered to
be role- or task-centric, whereas the latter two are discussed as individual-centric.
(Hofstede et al., 2010)

As per the viewpoint of Graves (1986), organizational culture is comprised of five

different variables which are as follows.

 Communication: it refers to how receptive individuals are in relation to ideas

and suggestions
 Motivation: it refers to how much the associates look forward to working and
coming to office each day and contributing towards the organization

55 | P a g e
  Decision-making: it involves assessing the extent to which people who are
decision-makers are aware of the challenges faced by associates at the lower
level of the organization
 Control: it refers to the level of influence various hierarchical levels have on
what goes on in the department
 Co-ordination: it refers to the extent to which individuals in different functions
plan together and coordinate accordingly.

The above five variables are referred to as climate variables and they have a strong
correlation with the following leadership variables:

 Managerial support: it is the degree to which the manager fosters the

subordinate’s feeling of being important to the organization
 Impetus on goals: it is the degree to which the manager fosters enthusiasm for
accomplishing the work on time and with the given resources in a superior
manner
 Work facilitation: it is the degree to which the manager helps his team to get
the task done by clearing and overcoming the challenges that are in the way
 Facilitation of interaction: it is the degree to which the manager ‘builds’
subordinates’ groups into a work team.

In this case the first and the fourth variable deal with the associate as an
organizational participant, whereas second and third variable deal with the associate
as a member of the production team.

2.7.3 Culture and Knowledge Management

What is the relationship between culture and knowledge management? Culture and
Knowledge Management are elements that have attracted the interest of many authors.
Husted and Michailova (2002) claim that the knowledge management process is
taking place within a certain cultural context. Malhotra (2000) argues that a
significant hurdle on effective knowledge management can be culture – national and
organisational culture. An organisation will have to understand its culture and how it

56 | P a g e
works before going ahead with instituting a knowledge management programme. A
firm’s managers and executives must examine whether their company’s environment
encourages an extensive cultural change as a result of a knowledge management
scheme (Davenport and Grover, 2001). The culture should evolve in such a way that it
supports knowledge sharing and encourages individuals to express their views and
ideas freely in order to buffer the process of creating new knowledge.

The traditional culture and the knowledge culture are different in many ways. The
following table illustrates some of their basic differences.

Table 1. Difference between the traditional culture and the knowledge culture.
(Source: www.kmadvantage.com/docs/km_articles/KM_and_Corporate_Culture.pdf).

Industrial Culture Knowledge Culture

Limited information distribution Wide information distribution

Many management levels Few management levels

Uneven responsibility Shared responsibility

Rules–based Principles–based

Structured Unstructured

Risk–adverse Able to take some risks

Inward orientation Outward orientation

Occasional training Continuous learning

57 | P a g e
 Financial focus Marketing focus

Political Open

Αn example where culture can obstruct knowledge management regards knowledge

sharing. As a matter of fact, conflict often emerges in relation to knowledge
management, where people realise that this new approach means that they are
expected to share their knowledge. Knowledge sharing raises questions like: How will
I be exposed if I share xyz? What harm will come to me if my knowledge is more
widely known? Why would I want to talk to anyone about what I know? What will they
do with my previous hard-earned knowledge? However there are cultures that do not
promote knowledge sharing. For example, Greek employees’ uncertainty avoidance
index is very high. This means that they may have difficulties in adopting a
knowledge management strategy that relies on loose structures, in the elimination of
hierarchy, and in adherence to strict laws and regulations. Generally, employees
would not welcome any change on their social routines of the workplace.

It should also be mentioned that knowledge management includes several social

processes –like socialisation– needed to have a successful knowledge management
programme. Delong and Fahey (2000) claim that culture is often the main obstacle of
a knowledge management programme and a source of conflicts or even the reason
behind the failure of a KM programme. There have been a number of studies that
indicated that culture discourages people from changing their behaviour and sharing
their knowledge (Watson, 1998); that the senior management creates a culture that is
hostile with knowledge management’s practices (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000); or
even that organisations where the culture supports collaboration and solidarity will
embrace knowledge management (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2001). Culture can play a
determining role in the development of a knowledge management programme. In
some cases it may encourage knowledge management, for example in cultures with a
low distance from power. Nevertheless, culture as a concept and the use of Hofstede’s
model must not be taken as a panacea for the investigation of culture.

While Hofstede’s seminal work has been the basis for a lot of research on culture,
some writers hold that Hofstede’s work is not to be viewed as infallible. McSweeney

58 | P a g e
(2002) questions the methodology that Hofstede used, while it is mentioned that
Hofstede has not taken into consideration non-cultural forces that operate within
nations. Baskerville (2003) has identified a number of limitations, such as the
assumption of stability of cultural differences. A major issue for Hofstede’s work is
that he equates cultures with nations.

In relation to this, Baskerville (2003:6) claims that “there are 98 different cultures
identified in 48 countries in Africa…” As a matter of fact a national culture can be
comprised of several sub-cultures. An example is the so-called “Tigers of Anatolia”
group, an emerged group of companies in Turkey that have embedded the Islamic
doctrine and values into their corporate culture, contradicting the dominant secular
culture of modern Turkey. This example is taken from the author’s personal
experience, and demonstrates how a country can shape two different business cultures
that also reflect different sub-cultures and that contradict each other. Nonetheless, this
work has been used in a number of researches in order to understand work-related
differences caused from cultural differences.

The fact that Hofstede’s viewpoint has become the most popular method to analyse
the impact of culture in the workplace, should not undermine the work of other
authors such as Trompenaars (1993) who has used seven dimensions in order to study
how culture affects workplace behaviour. Unfortunately and even though it relies on
extensive research, Trompenaars’ (1993) work has not been used as a reference point
to study culture in the workplace. From that author’s point of view, the work of
Hofstede is an important piece of academic work, however culture is not something
that is stable, but it changes over time.

There have been different new cultures since the 1980’s, even a so-called global
culture, which tends to undermine the value of national culture. For example the so-
called “X, Y and 00” generations are cultures that dominate today’s workplace and
cannot be ignored by someone who studies culture in the workplace. Though they
cannot be termed “national cultures”, their value may be as significant as the value of
the national culture.

59 | P a g e
The literature provides a variety of models that have not been used as extensively as
Hofstede’s model. For example, Gesteland (2002) from Denmark has worked on four
key patterns of the national culture, which are:

 Dear-focused vs. relationship-focused cultures

 Informal vs. formal cultures
 Rigid-time vs. fluid-time cultures
 Emotionally expressive vs. emotionally reserved cultures.

From their point of view, Pauleen and Murphy (2005) claim that the concept of
Knowledge Management is unrealistic and counterproductive as a universal principle.
As a matter of fact, Multinational Companies (MNC) are a vacuum of different
cultures which are compressed into one giant organisation (Ang and Masshingham,
2007). The same authors also claim that any Knowledge Management model that
examines MNC must not exclude the influence of national culture. However, there are
some authors like Simonin (1999) who believe that cultural distance does not affect
knowledge transfer, while Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) claim that national culture
does not have any effects when a MNC transfers knowledge from its head office to its
subsidiaries.

A key point in this field is the work by Ang and Masshingham (2007) and their survey
on whether MNCs can standardize their KM practices in respect with national culture.
The finding was that national culture has an impact on many processes and sub-
processes, such as knowledge creation and sharing; from this follows that managers
and researchers may have to look deeper into the impact of national culture to KM’s
processes. Regarding the impact of national culture on small- to medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs), in terms of knowledge management, things differ. A basic
assumption is that SMEs focus on local or in some cases on regional markets.
However some SMEs may expand abroad. Mammadov and Galusca (2005) have
examined the case of a Turkish SME that expands in Sweden and the difficulties that
national culture has brought in terms of knowledge transfer to the Swedish personnel.
Indeed, small- and medium-sized firms face many difficulties when operating within a
different culture, while larger firms are based on more multi-cultural backgrounds. In

60 | P a g e
this context it is important to mention that for the purposes of the present thesis, the
author focuses on the impact that national culture has on SMEs that operate solely in
Greece.

Another issue is the creation of global practices in culture and its impact. There are
many professional areas where culture has created dominant and global trends. Barber
(1995) refers to “universal cultures” among professionals such as bankers and
athletes. The growth of information and communication technology along with
globalisation has created “universal cultures”. The creation of a universal culture can
help the promotion and implementation of a Knowledge Management programme, as
well as lift several barriers. However, authors like Root (1994) and Usoro and Kuofie
(2006) claim that “while information, technology, globalisation and professionalism
are breaking cultural barriers, there still exist substantial differences in culture to
create a significant impact on the work of organisational members”. (Usoro and
Kuofie, 2006:20)

Within an organisation, especially a multinational one, there may be several

convergences regarding the culture of its members, however cultural gaps will exist
and every knowledge officer must consider them as an important factor that may
affect the end result of a knowledge management programme. Usoro and Kuofie
(2006) contrast “high context” cultures that value less formal modes of
communication with “low context” cultures that prefer formal communication
approaches. The Chinese culture is characterised as a high context culture, while the
German culture is a low context culture. Within a multinational organisation there
may be a dominant culture, however employees and managers will still be affected by
their native national culture. If one considers the case of knowledge sharing in a
global organisation, the knowledge officer must think on how this will be transmitted.
Maybe he or she will have to adjust the project from country to country or otherwise
to find a model that will satisfy all of the organisation’s subcultures and consider
national cultures.

Using the example made by Usoro and Kuofie (2006) a multinational organisation
must find a way to communicate with employees who have a different cultural
background. German and in general Western employees will prefer informal ways,

61 | P a g e
such as emails, forums or even social gatherings in order to exchange and gain
knowledge. On the other hand a knowledge officer must use formal procedures in
order to allow employees coming from oriental cultures to communicate but also to
allow them to share knowledge. However, the big issue arrives when those two
cultures coexist in the same social framework, such as in the workplace. While there
must be an organisational culture that will include elements which will be mutual for
all members of the organisation, nevertheless the national culture still exists and in
some cases it may even dominate several branches of the organisation. Yet in smaller
organisations there cannot be such gaps, especially in small and medium organisations
where there are no cultural confrontations. This is another issue that needs to be taken
into account in relevant research.

As we saw, culture is the way in which individuals do things within a social

environment; it follows that culture can also be identified within the daily
organisational routines. Taking the example from an organisation that punishes
mistakes, a fairly common cultural characteristic in many firms, the manager of the
knowledge management project must study the culture carefully before going ahead
with a knowledge management programme. If not, the Knowledge Management
programme may create conflicts due to misunderstanding of cultural issues.

2.8 Other barriers to knowledge management

Still, it is important to mention that culture is not the only potential barrier on
knowledge management. For example, organisational resistance to internal
Knowledge Management efforts also stems from hierarchical structures that function
to reinforce norms of competition by creating winners and losers (De Long and
Seeman, 2000). If the organisation punishes mistakes, and that historically has been a
fairly common cultural characteristic within many firms, if this is a characteristic of
the organisation, then the management will face many difficulties in order to motivate
its employees to share their knowledge in an open system. The reason behind this is
the fear that the knowledge that the individual will contribute may mislead the
company (Ardichvili et al., 2003), and the individual may be punished for this.

62 | P a g e
Competition and punishment can undermine trust and it is well known that a
successful Knowledge Management initiative will have to be trusted from employees
(Ellingsen, 2003). If people do not feel comfortable about sharing what they know
through internal Knowledge Management efforts, and fear that it will put them at a
disadvantage in relation to other colleagues, then knowledge hoarding will result.
Knowledge hoarding is linked to the legacy of Taylorism, fears of being replaceable
in the company, as well as a manifestation of societal stereotypes around job position,
status and worthiness. Then, control of ideas is often the case.

Additionally, it is not only the systems and structures that can become a barrier but
the fact that in general people resist change. When management decides to initiate
knowledge management techniques, it is probable that they resist, because they do not
like changes due to various reasons such as job losses. An example is given by
Griffiths et al. (2004) who refer to the extensive use of IT on Knowledge
Management projects. The use of I.T. creates new opportunities but also anxiety on
employees who regard the automation of some processes, such as collecting data and
creating new knowledge through information sharing systems, as a threat for their job
in terms of changing their normal routines up to losing their power and even their job.

Indeed, people are used to their own habits and processes and usually do not
appreciate change. Thus, conflicts arise until they are persuaded of the usefulness of
the new initiative or when the company has managed to gain the trust of its
employees. In this vein, if the company has had a prior record of changes that led to
job losses, then the implementation of a Knowledge Management system may be seen
as a new threat and conflicts can surface.

2.9 Formulation of the research hypotheses

The main focus of the present research report is twofold: to examine the effect of an
economic crisis on the need of companies for knowledge management, and also to
understand the context of organizational culture in fostering the concept of knowledge
management throughout the organization. After an examination of the relevant

63 | P a g e
literature, below are presented the research hypotheses in fulfillment of the aim of the
research.

In section 2.7.3 the relationship between the economic crisis and knowledge
management was discussed. In times of economic crisis, companies have to reduce
their operating costs and, more, importantly, to find ways in which to do this. The best
possible use of a firm’s intellectual resources, then, contributes to a sensible and
effective cost reduction (Das and Puri, 2003). Fodor and Poór (2009) argue that an
economic crisis forces an organisation to adopt either one of two courses of action: to
reduce the investments made towards the creation of a knowledge management
system, such as information systems, databases and personnel development
programmes; or to justify more investments in knowledge management in order to
acquire a competitive advantage through knowledge. Finally, Neef (2005) has argued
that during a crisis a firm would have to be more careful with its decisions and take
fewer risks. In this vein, knowledge management may become even more significant
as the organisation utilizes it in order to reduce risk.

Hence, from the above the following hypothesis is formulated.

H1: The economic crisis, as reported by employees and managers, affects the
need of companies for knowledge management.

The null (zero effect) hypothesis states that H0: The economic crisis, as reported by
employees and managers, does not affect the need of companies for knowledge
management.

Another issue examined in the literature review is that culture has a special role in
knowledge management during an economic crisis. As discussed earlier, the culture
of the organisation can affect the operation of knowledge management systems and
procedures (Holowetzki, 2002). For example, the free flow of information among
employees and the level of trust they show to their managers and to the firm, which is
vital for knowledge management, is determined by the culture of the firm.
Furthermore, knowledge management concerns changes, and any change that occurs,
such as a change in order to face a crisis, requires a culture which will endorse those
changes as well as the need to develop efficient knowledge management policies

64 | P a g e
(Leidner et al., 2006). Sometimes organizational culture can be highly influenced by
the home country or at times even certain social groups. The thesis focuses on the
impact of culture on small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Greece during
the economic crisis (Mammadov and Galusca, 2005; Ang and Masshingham, 2007).

Based on the above and the literature review, the second hypothesis states that:
H2: Managers’ perceptions of knowledge management affect the organisational
culture, as measured through employee and manager self-reports during a
period of crisis.

Conversely, the null hypothesis states that H0: Organisational culture, as measured
through employee and manager self-reports, is not affected by managers’
perceptions of knowledge management during a period of crisis.

65 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY

In order to evaluate the aspects of knowledge management, the researcher should be

able to apply the necessary methods of analysis and evaluation. Research
methodology enables a writer to observe from the best possible view point and derive
suitable results. Bryman (2004) opines that the use of appropriate methodology is
essential to conduct the research systematically in order to resolve the research
problems. The effective mix of suitable research philosophy, approach, sampling, data
collection and analysis method is essential to maintain research quality in terms of
reliability and validity.

The present research is based on the various aspects of knowledge management thus
the researcher has initiated the use of deductive approach since the data is going to
straightforwardly empirical (Mason, 2006), while the relationship between theory and
research is conducted with reference to hypothesis and ideas inferred from the former
(Bryman, 2004). The philosophy of positivism under the epistemological stance has
been used for making research judgments. A combination of different data collection
methods has been followed to gain substantive data regarding the research subject.
Primary data is collected using quantitative research strategies through questionnaire
distribution to the employees of the selected organizations along with qualitative
research through interviews, which constitutes a multi-method approach.

Probability sampling, simple random technique is the sampling strategy used to select
respondents from the chosen population. Data has been explained using descriptive
research design by making extensive use of SPSS.

3.1 Research Philosophy: Epistemological Positions

Research philosophies describe the researcher’s ability to judge the existing and
upcoming situations and drive the study in an authentic manner. Epistemology is
derived from the Greek words “επιστήμη” (epistimi, “science”) and “λόγος” (logos,
“speech” or “mind”). Grix (2002) defines “επιστήμη” as “knowledge” (derived from
the ancient Greek word “επίσταμαι”) and “λόγος”as “logic”. According to Grix

66 | P a g e
(2002), epistemology focuses on the “knowledge-gathering process and is concerned
with developing new models or theories that are better than competing models and
theories”. Bryman (2004:538) defines epistemology as a “theory of knowledge. It
refers to a stance on what should pass as acceptable knowledge”. Potter (2000:234)
writes that “epistemology is a theory of what knowledge is, what is possible to have
knowledge of, how it is possible to have knowledge at all etc.”

To the question ‘what constitutes valid knowledge and how can one obtain it’,
different answers can be obtained from the two extremes of epistemology in the
conduct of research: positivism and phenomenology. They are two different research
paradigms, each of which proposes different rules, practices, habits and customs in
setting the research design. Other names for the ‘positivism vs. phenomenology’
debate are the ‘deductivism vs. inductivism’ debate and the ‘quantitative vs.
qualitative’ debate.

3.1.1 Positivism

Positivists argue that social research should aim to concern itself with facts, not
values. Values are subjective evaluations about the world containing moral
dimensions. Facts, by contrast, being value-free can be verified by observation or
experimentation. So, according to positivism the most valid kind of knowledge is
objective knowledge, and one comes to know things by testing ideas through the
research process; for this reason positivism is a theory-testing position, and as such
uses a deductive approach. Thus, the overall conclusion is that according to positivists
social research should be modeled on the natural sciences. There is more emphasis on
the design stage than on the analysis stage. Positivism tries to know things by testing
ideas, tests theories and seeks out standardized ways of measuring and quantifying the
social world. (University of Leicester, 2006)

Interpretivism deals with contemplating issues and research problems based on

extensive discussions and are useful for research using qualitative data collection and
analysis method (Frankel and Devers, 2000). Interpretivism is an anti-positivist

67 | P a g e
philosophy which makes research outcomes on the basis of observations, explanations
and field studies involving extensive human interference.

3.1.2 Phenomenology

Phenomenologists discard the idea of modeling social research on the natural sciences
since the behaviour of human beings is fundamentally different from the behavior of
atoms and matter. In other words, the subject matter of the natural sciences (i.e. atoms
and matter) is different than the subject matter of social sciences (i.e. human beings).
Phenomenologists propose that research should be used in such a way as to discover
things about the subject matter, which in the case of social sciences is humanity.
Thus, phenomenology is a theory-building position, and as such uses the inductive
approach. There is more emphasis on the analysis stage, than on the design stage. In
contrast with positivism, phenomenology suggests that the positivist distinction
between facts and values is a fallacy, and it relies on qualitative methods of research.

3.1.3 Relevance to the intended research problem

There are various views and opinions on ontology and epistemology and when they
best fit social research (Seth, 1894; Feibleman, 1949; Oliver, 1960; Kienzle, 1970;
Morgan and Smircich, 1980; Collier, 1994; Kim and Fox, 2002). According to Künne
(2003), researchers and people alike often prefer to create or to test a theory using the
‘safe road’ of epistemology and of producing results based on epistemological
processes such as surveys, structured observations or in-depth interviews. Knowledge
management success is enhanced when applying a knowledge lens in an ontological
manner (Edgington et al., 2004) but, at the same time, epistemology is valuable since
it can help the researcher to see which method is the most suitable (Grix, 2002), and
which path to take in order to reach to a sufficient conclusion. Grix (2002:177)
considers a combination or link between ontology and epistemology, when he states
that “ontology is the starting point of all research, after which one’s epistemological
and methodological positions logically follow”.

68 | P a g e
The present research deals with knowledge management, with particular reference to
the current Greek economic crisis. Knowledge management is a rather new concept to
the management world (Nonaka, 1991), and there is not one widely accepted
definition of what knowledge management is (Park et al., 2004). The author
investigates a theory that is still in development and does not have much application
in the Greek business world (Chatzikostas, 2005). A researcher that investigates
issues of knowledge management needs to take into consideration what constitutes
real knowledge of the social world and its causal relationship with the various entities
that affect knowledge management and its performance. Since knowledge can be both
implicit and explicit (Ardichvili et al., 2006), It is essential to start with understanding
knowledge within the social context and its casual relationships.

3.1.4 Justification for Choice of research philosophy: Positivism

As the research is based on the concepts of management and the economic crisis,
positivist view point will help the researcher in gathering and analyzing real-time
facts. Positivism supports quantifiable observations that can be scientifically tested
using statistical tools or analytical techniques (Creswell, 2002). Being a positivist, the
collection of empirical knowledge through quantitative data collection was made
possible and data analysis was done using deductive reasoning. Bryman (1992)
explains that positivism theory better aligns with deductive reasoning as the latter
deals with theory testing based on empirically obtained data. The researcher remains
independent from the study using positivism principles and the chance of biasness is
absent. Positivism is also based on truth and facts that already exist in the world
which is considered external to human interference (Frankel and Devers, 2000). The
positivist viewpoint is selected as the most appropriate approach for the present study
and, in doing so, quantitative measures are utilized.

Phenomenology is considered unsuitable for the study because the concept of

knowledge management and its relevance to economic crisis should be based on facts
and evidences already existing in the social and organisational context. These facts
need to be unfolded, collected, analysed and tested instead of relying on what
individuals interpret about the facts. Phenomenology is also not suitable for the

69 | P a g e
research because it is useful for inductive studies where there is scope for new theory
building. Moreover, the chances of arriving at biased results are also more as the
researcher can interfere in the data analysis and construct and involve own opinions.

According to Bryman (2004) in positivism the aim of the theory is to generate

hypothesis which can be tested and thereby they will allow the explanation of laws to
be assessed. Hence, there is a need to apply the methods of the natural sciences so to
test theories and to provide material which can be useful for the development of laws.
Thus there is a need to link the theory and the research and this is the use of scientific
methods which will verify if the hypothesis developed is valid or not. In terms of this
research, the author has examined from a critical point of view the current theory.
Based on issues such as of Knowledge management and its interaction with the crisis
but also what is the role of culture, the author has constructed a set of hypothesis
which derives from the theory. The hypothesis needs to be examined so to conclude
on whether it is valid or not.

3.2 The research approach

Research approach primarily helps the researcher in judging the validity of an existing
theory or making changes in the theory according to the need of the hour. Two types
of research approaches used are inductive approach and deductive approach.

3.2.1 Deductive approach

Deductive approach is a theory testing approach and is suitable when extensive

theoretical underpinnings are available about the research topic. Deductive reasoning
follows from a general to specific process and narrows down to test theories using a
positivist approach. Research outcome is followed logically from facts already
available in the form of data collected from primary and secondary sources. Clark-
Carter (2004) critically argues that deductive approach does not provide scope for
creativity and new knowledge development as the principle is to concentrate on
already gained knowledge. Steps used in deductive approach are theory development,

70 | P a g e
formation of hypothesis, data collection and observation, and finally existing theory
confirmation or modification.

Data
Theory Theory
Hypothesis collection
Development confirmation
formulaton and
/modification
observation

Steps in deductive reasoning

(Source: Frankel and Devers, 2000, p - 256)

3.2.2 Inductive approach

As opposed to deductive reasoning, inductive approach is a theory building process

and the process starts from specific observations to generalisation and new theoretical
standpoint. Creswell (2002) argues that inductive approach includes an element of
uncertainty as research outcome is not based on already studied knowledge but based
on new observations. Inductive approach is suitable for those studies which
incorporate qualitative data collection to be analysed using interpretations of events.
Inductive approach steps from direct observation, tentative hypothesis formation, data
collection and finally new theory development.

3.2.3 Justification for the use of deductive approach

As Lee (1989) suggests the theory-testing, deductive approach in social research

follows the natural science model and a hypothetic and deductive logic, by first
formulating hypotheses and then striving to test them with vigorous measures.
Supporters of this model suggest that natural science is the ideal after which social
science should model itself. According to Mason (2006:180) this is a ‘theory comes
first’ approach, moving from the general to the particular. Lee (1989:34) states that
there are three reasons for selecting this particular model of science for research. He
states that a scientific methodology that applies the natural science model
complements and supports the methods traditionally associated with social science.

71 | P a g e
 On the other hand, there is the theory building, inductive, approach (Bonoma, 1985).
Here, research data that is gathered or accumulated leads to the creation or
verification of the theory. The inductive approach has important differences from
deductive social research. Concerning the research methods and the design phase of a
study, inductive studies do not necessarily comply to a pre–specified set of constructs,
theories of interest, hypotheses, and rival theories, but keep a ‘clean theoretical slate’
(Dubé and Paré, 2003). In the data analysis phase, as opposed to deductive research
where empirical testing, time series analyses and controlled studies are utilized,
inductive research may use explanation building as an analytical technique, and
subsequently compare the results with existing literature.

Compared to the positivist approach, a basic difference of the inductive perspective

can be found in its main assumption of social constructionism, and the different
ontological and epistemological values. The following table lists some of the major
differences between deductive and inductive approaches to research as provided by
Saunders et al. (2003:89).

Table 2. Different emphases of deduction and induction.

(Source: Saunders et al., 2003:89).

Deduction emphasises Induction emphasises

Scientific principles Gaining an understanding of the meanings

Moving from theory to data human attach to events
Need to explain casual relationships between Close understanding of the research context
variables The collection of qualitative data
The collection of quantitative data A more flexible structure to permit changes
Application of controls to ensure data validity of research emphasis as the research
The operationalization of concepts to ensure progresses
clarity of definition A realization that the researcher is part of
A highly structured approach the research process
Researcher independence of what is being Less concern with the need to generalize
researched
The necessity to select samples of sufficient
size in order to generalize conclusions

72 | P a g e
Ontologically, the inductive perspective claims that reality is a social product, and the
importance of subjective meanings and social and political action, as well as symbolic
action in the process of constructing and reconstructing the reality, is emphasised.
Consequently, researchers following the inductive approach avoid imposing
externally defined categories on a phenomenon. Instead of bringing a set of well-
defined constructs and measurement instruments to measure social reality, the
constructs are derived by an in-depth examination and exposure to the phenomenon of
interest. Hence, the categories and themes that emerge from the empirical evidence
are expected to be similar to those relevant to the study’s participants. (Klein and
Myers, 1999; Goles and Hirschheim, 2000)

According to University of Leicester’s Manual for the Doctorate in Social Sciences

(2006), the fundamental difference between theory building and theory testing is that
the former focuses on theory development through systematic procedures that lead to
the production of theory about a research problem. A research design following the
inductive approach can pick and choose among many methodological alternatives,
including grounded theory, phenomenology and ethnography (Benbasat and Weber,
1996). Another difference is that the deductive approach is based on ‘one take’
regarding data collection, while the induction approach takes a longer period of time,
thus the researcher spends longer time dealing with the research problem. (Saunders
et al., 2003)

The research topic emphasises on judging the authenticity of the knowledge

management process and not developing any new theory and thus deductive approach
has been selected by the researcher. The deductive approach is found suitable for the
study because comprehensive theories on knowledge management and its principles
are discussed and then quantitative data gathered to test the concepts empirically.
Inductive approach is found weak for the study because the scope for new theory
development is not present in the current research. Moreover, inductive reasoning
finds application in those studies that follow the interpretivist paradigm and use
qualitative method of data collection such as interviews. Ardichvili et al. (2006)
emphasises that deductive process is closely linked with positivism which involves
hypothesis testing through scientific testing of data. Hence, the current study applies

73 | P a g e
the principles of deductive reasoning to test theoretical underpinnings based on
scientific data testing.

Bryman (2004) argues that the deductive approach is the commonest view of
explaining the nature of relationship which exists between theory and social research.
The research commits a reflective examination of theory so to construct the
hypothesis of the research. This process has been constructed in chapter 2.8. The
hypothesis contains concepts which will be transformed into researchable entities. To
be more precise the first hypothesis investigates whether the assumption, generated
from the theory, that the economic crisis affects the behaviour of firms towards the
use of Knowledge Management. The second research hypothesis attempts to
investigate whether organizational culture affects the perception that the managers
and employees have over the use of knowledge management during a period of crisis.
Hence this is a deductive approach where the hypothesis is deduced from the theory,
so that the researcher to gather primary data which will help him to reject or confirm
the research hypothesis.

3.3 Data collection methods

Data collection methods are of two type’s quantitative and qualitative data collection
process.

Quantitative data provides analytical information that can be processed, synthesised,

and measured using statistical tools such as SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Sciences). Quantitative data collection in case of primary research involves cost -
effective tools such as survey, questionnaire distribution etc. Bryman (2004) puts
forward that questionnaire distribution can help to access individuals spread over a
wide geographical area using online tools. However, the scope for expressing
individual views, provide elaborate explanation, exchange ideas and build
professional rapport is limited in questionnaire distribution as questions are mostly
closed ended to be answered systematically.

74 | P a g e
Despite few limitations, quantitative method of data collection been used due to time
and financial constraints, unavailability of appointments for interview, and the use of
deductive approach in the research. Quantifying the relationship between knowledge
management and Greek economic crisis is essential for satisfying the objectives of
current research. Questionnaire provides an insight into the perceptions and attitudes
of individuals which is reflected in the response they provide in the form of numerical
expressions. The topic of the research empathises on utilisation and analysis of the
real time data and the process of developing a validated result in this scenario are
related to the analysis of the data with the quantitative approach. Quantitative
approach also allows the researcher to portray the results of the analysis in a clear
manner with the help of statistical tools like tables, charts and graphs.

On the other hand, there is the case of qualitative method. According to Mason
(2006:24) “thinking qualitative means rejecting the idea of a research design as a
single document which is an entire advance blueprint for a piece of research”. It also
means that the researcher drops the idea of having a priori strategic decisions since the
character of the qualitative research is exploratory, fluid and flexible. According to
Bryman (2004) qualitative research usually emphases words rather than the
quantification of the collected data. This means that as a research inductivist,
constructionist and intepretivist. Nonetheless, it is important that the qualitative
researcher does not have to subscribe with all of the above mentioned approaches.
(Bryman, 2004)

Qualitative research has the advantage that it can provide an in-depth investigation of
the examined problem, while it has the flexibility to examine all of the aspects of the
research. On the other hand, it limited in a small sample and often the outcome of the
research can be subjective and biased. (Creswell, 2002)

For all research the researcher needs to decide on the design approach that he or she
will select. The researcher has often to choose between theory building, theory testing
or sometimes a combination of those two approaches, which means that an inductive
methodology may use some elements of the deductive approach. (Hyde, 2000)

75 | P a g e
At this point it is essential to decide on which approach to use and why. According to
Saunders et al. (2003) quantitative research represents a productive approach on the
relationship between theory and research. It allows the researcher to make a test on
the theories that he used and to confirm whether those theories are valid or not.
Furthermore, the quantitative approach refers to a social reality which is examined
from a distance in order to avoid the case of producing a biased result. On the other
hand, this is research which seeks to go deep into a phenomenon which has not been
widely investigated.

This type of research aims to analyse the phenomena examined, via the finding of
trends and correlations among the variables included (Gorard and Taylor, 2004). For
example, conclusions can be drawn as to how the demographic or work characteristics
of the respondents (their gender, their position in the organisation) may affect another
variable or variables, such as attitudes towards the use of knowledge management.
Hite (2001) stated that the purpose of quantitative research is the production of results
that can be generalised. Quantitative research is based on the development, the
examination and analysis of research questions that have been set beforehand or ‘a
priori’ by the researcher (Frankel and Devers, 2000). In addition to this, there is a
need to have a further investigation based on the fact that Cohen et al. (2014) have
suggested that many similar researches have relied on secondary data given from
firms and on quantitative data. Nonetheless, there is a need not only to present the
results but also to proceed on some explanations. At this point, qualitative research
has the advantage that it “can produce explanations or arguments rather than claiming
to offer mere descriptions”. (Mason, 2006:7)

From the above arguments it is understood that this is a research which could rely on
multi-methods strategy. Bryman (2004) argues that the multi-method approach allows
a greater prominence to the strengths of quantitative and qualitative techniques
associated with the qualitative and quantitative approaches. In addition to this, it is
possible to cross check the results.

Multi-strategy approach can occur through a number of different approaches which

are the triangulation, facilitation and the complementary approach. This research will
rely on the facilitation approach where the quantitative research is the main research

76 | P a g e
and the qualitative research is used as an aid (Bryman, 2004). An important remark is
that the quantitative research occurred first and then it was the qualitative research
which took place a bit later so to help the author to clarify some things about how
knowledge management was used before, during and after the crisis but also what was
the impact of national culture. The in-depth understanding of the examined
phenomena which will derive from the qualitative research will be used so to interpret
the results of the quantitative research.

3.4 The instruments of research

Next, the appropriate research instrument is determined. Creswell (2002) points out
that the methodological instruments that are available in quantitative research are
experiments and questionnaires. Given the scope of this research, the structured
questionnaire is selected as the instrument. The use of questionnaires constitutes the
most relied upon and commonly used instrument of data gathering in a quantitative
research (Wilson and Mclean, 1994;Bryman, 2004).The structured questionnaire was
chosen because it is easy to be completed by the respondents; its design, distribution
and collection are inexpensive; the variables can easily be codified; and it is the best
tool for measuring attitudes, opinions, intentions, preferences and behaviours of
subjects (Moorman and Podsakoff, 1992). Moreover, this methodological instrument
can be distributed to a large sample of respondents, regardless of their geographical
distance, thus allowing for larger, more diverse research samples. (Brewerton and
Millward, 2001)

The questionnaire that was used in the present study was designed by the author for
the purposes of the study. It comprises closed-ended questions and has a standard
structure. Closed-ended items drive respondents to complete the questionnaire in a
fast and easy way, while at the same time such items are easier to codify and analyse
via statistical tools, such as the SPSS software for the social sciences (Lewin, 2005).
The standard structure of the questionnaire involves specific questions, in a specific
order, that all respondents are called upon to respond to (Clark-Carter, 2004, U.S.
Office of Personnel Management, 2008). During the design of the questionnaire, the
researcher took the time and effort to make the questionnaire as brief as can be; to

77 | P a g e
provide questions which are easy for participants to understand; to link the items to
the examined theory and research; and to provide assistance and support to the
participants, whenever possible. Based on the above, the researcher designed a
questionnaire comprised of five parts. The full questionnaire can be found in
Appendix 1.

Descriptive research design

Research design is used for comparing the different variables used in the study and
their relevance to the subject topic. Descriptive research supports survey form of data
collection that focuses on current status of the topic of study (Bryman, 2004). It also
involves using data for describing events through comparisons between past and
present occurrences in context of the identified research problem. Descriptive design
provides extensive descriptions regarding the information about a group of
individuals, a class of events, a set of conditions, and establishing cause and effect
relationship between variables, particularly using quantitative research strategies.
Creswell (2002) critically argues that descriptive studies fail to control variables and
are suitable for ad-hoc research studies. However, descriptive design finds application
for both, qualitative and quantitative research.

Explanatory research is inclined towards answering questions relating to ‘why’ of a

phenomenon. For example, if applied for this study explanatory study would only
help to explain why knowledge management principles emerged, why it is relevant in
the current business environment, why did the Greek crisis occur etc. It fails to
provide multifaceted answers relating to the ‘why, how, what and when’ of the
research topic. On the other hand, exploratory study is applicable when only
background information is available about the research problems. Exploratory
research is suitable for studies relating to organisational or social problems, causal in
nature without having a clear set of objectives.

On the basis of above arguments, descriptive research is found most suitable for the
current study. Descriptive design also supports cross sectional studies that involve
gathering data from a specified set of individuals once in a particular time period, as
followed in this study. The implementation of descriptive cross sectional study also

78 | P a g e
helps to understand the research theme and outcome at the same time due to the
absence of prolonged series of research.

3.4.1 Part 1 – Demographics

In this section the author asks questions about the profile of the participants and the
company. Since the nature of some items may negatively affect participants’
willingness to complete the questionnaire in an honest manner, given potential
feelings of uncertainty and insecurity related to the economic crisis conditions, the
present questionnaire only requires a minimum number of personal and company
details. According to Biemer and Lyberg (2003) personal questions are more
important when there is a survey about buyer behaviour and in general when the
participants are consumers. The required items were related to job position and the
nature of work and may theoretically instill less apprehension to the participant.

3.4.2 Part 2 – Economic crisis

At this point of the questionnaire the author wanted to examine the impact of the
economic crisis on the participants. Regarding the content of the questions, Thierauf
(1999) has noticed that the economic crisis may have some negative impact on
companies such as downsizing and reduced turnover. And Cabolis and Travlos (2010)
have mentioned that the economic crisis has affected almost all of Greece companies;
employees are expected to lose 25% of their salaries, while job anxiety and stress are
making things even worst for Greek employees. Based on the above mentioned
literature but also on McDermott’s (1999) work, the present researcher has created a
set of 5 questions which measure the impact of the economic crisis on the
organisation.

3.4.3 Part 3 – Corporate Culture

Previous research, like that of Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) and Mammadov and
Galusca (2005), has found the degree of impact that culture has on knowledge
management. Nonaka (1991) emphasises the creation of a business climate and

79 | P a g e
culture that encourages the free flow and sharing of knowledge within the
organisation. It seems that culture can either foster or disrupt the implementation of
knowledge management. Mantas et al. (2008) have remarked also the fact that
elements of Greek culture are prohibiting the implementation of knowledge
management.

The items in this section regard corporate culture and how it affects the environment
of the employees. One item asks whether corporate culture has changed during the
past 18 months. This is an important question, since the author would like to examine
the possible changes that have been made since the outbreak of the economic crisis.

3.4.4 Part 4 – Knowledge management initiatives

Based on the work of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Davenport and Prusak (1998),
Bennet and Bennet (2004) and others, the author has developed a set of questions on
how firms are utilizing Knowledge Management. Addicott et al. (2006) have stated
that knowledge management combines the use of information systems, business
administration and human resource management (that includes workplace learning
and organisational learning). Overall in today’s knowledge management, information
technology systems have an important role and they are necessary, along with the
creation of a culture which will encourage knowledge sharing, for the effective
implementation of a knowledge management programme (Flinn, 2010). For this
reason the author has produced a special set of questions about the effectiveness of the
use of knowledge management systems.

3.4.5 Part 5 – Knowledge Management and economic crisis

In the final part of the questionnaire, the researcher has used a small number of direct
items concerning the impact of the crisis. Those items are graded with a five-point
Likert-type scale, and ask the participants whether there have been changes in the
knowledge management policies of the firm.

80 | P a g e
3.4.5 The Interviews

Qualitative data collection involves extensive interaction with the subjects of the
research such as participants in an interview. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) explains that
interview is a two way communication process where the participants can share their
real life experiences, share feelings, cite examples supporting their arguments, thereby
presenting an in-depth informative data relating to the asked question. However,
measuring the qualitative data by converting it into quantitative forms involves much
complexity due to process of ‘coding’ applying the principles of grounded theory.

In our case the in-depth interviews are going to be used so to provide a social
explanation and arguments which will be used so to explain the quantitative results.
This is an approach which will help the author to understand and explain some of the
results of the quantitative research (Mason, 2006). In addition to this, the use of in-
depth interviews has the advantage that there is a face-to-face interaction where trust
can be built and to make the respondent to feel comfortable so to provide his or her
own views of the examined issues (Bryman, 2004).

The interview was comprised of 16 questions directed at employees and managers,

and it can be found on Appendix 5 regarding the analysis of the interviews the author
has broken up the answers into four research themes:

Research theme 1: The use of Knowledge Management before the crisis

Research theme 2: Implementation of Knowledge Management

Research theme 3: The use of Knowledge Management during the crisis

Research theme 4: Knowledge management on the aftermath of the crisis and its
impact on performance

Research theme 5: Knowledge management and culture

81 | P a g e
The structure of the interviews is following a rational thinkin where it starts from how
KM was used before the crisis, how it was used during and after the crisis and then is
impact on the firm’s performance. There is also a fifth research theme which is about
KM and culture.

3.5 Sampling techniques

In order to derive the most authenticated primary data, the researcher needs sampling
techniques and segment the target population that represent the need of the research
topic. Sampling helps to select a set of individuals as representatives if a target
population. Probability sampling employs an element of random selection which
helps to generate equal chance for each unit to be selected (Lewin, 2005). Probability
sampling also provides scope for calculation of sampling error due to which the
sample may differ from chosen population. The simplest and purest form of
probability sampling is random sampling which has been used in the current research.
Other types of probability sampling include stratified sampling and systematic
sampling.

Non Probability sampling is a non randomised method of sampling where the

individuals do not get equal opportunity of being chosen as sample subjects. As a
result the findings obtained from the study of the particular sample cannot be
generalised for the entire population. Hence, non-probability sampling is avoided in
the current study and the use of probability sampling is made for selecting individuals
from different industrial sectors. (Bryman, 2004)

In our case, the author has used an ad-hoc sampling approach. Ad-hoc research
studies focus on specific marketing problems. They collect data at one point in time
from one particular sample of respondents (Simons, 2005). The current thesis focus in
a strict managerial issues hence the sample is made from employees, managers and
executives of firms.

Regarding the population of the research, it is defined as everyone who is involved

with knowledge management or he or she works for firms which use knowledge
management. Surely this does not allow much space so to provide an exact number of
the targeted population. Researches which have taken place in Greece (Lytras and

82 | P a g e
Pouloudi, 2006; Desouza and Awazu, 2006; Cohen et al, 2014), have argued that
Knowledge Management is mostly used from I.T. firms, Shipping firms, construction
firms and in general from firms which rely on their intellectual capital. For this reason
the author has concluded in a number of sectors which rely intellectual capital.
Actually some of those sectors, such as the IT and Shipping sectors are some of those
who have managed to survive from the crisis.

Based on the above assumption, the author has uploaded the questionnaire on google
format and he post it to this surrounding personal and professional environment but
also on firms. In total more than 280 persons were reached with various approaches,
mostly via email, personal communication or through corporate communication.
From those the author has collected 120 responds. Actually, there were some more
responses but they did not manage to complete the questionnaire so they were left
outside of the sample.

Besides of the quantitative research, there was also an additional qualitative

component. For the latter the author has used the same communication channels but
has focused on the shipping, tourist, IT and construction industry. This was due to two
reasons. Firstly because those sectors rely on the use of knowledge management and
they had a high response rate when the researcher was looking to find participants and
secondly due of the fact that a high number of missing values came from those
sectors, hence the author would like to have a deeper understanding of what is on their
mind. Probably some of the questions used on the questionnaire were not understood
or not accurate, hence the author would have some more information from those
persons. Also emphasis was given on having a sample made of different rankings.
The sample included 2 executives/ CEO, 7 managers and 3 employees, which
constitutes a sample of 11 persons.
Regarding the interviews, many of the persons who participated did not want to have
their personal data, firm details or any other data exposed to public nor what they
have said exactly. The current labour market conditions in Greece have created a
status of fear among employees and managers. Many of them fear unsecure with
current job position and they could hardly talk about KM or any other issue regarding
their firm,. For this reason, the author has constructed a table with the participants
without giving any personal information .

83 | P a g e
Name Position
N. T CEO
D. K (Dr.) IT Consultant (executive) (also University Proffesor)
D. V. Shipping (Risk Manager)
S. Z. Civil Engineer (employee)
M. A. Multinational company (Manager)
E. T. Social and Marketing Consultant (manager)
K. S. Civil Engineer- (Manager)
K.V. Construction Firm (employee)
E. Z. Boutique Hotel Chain- Marketing Department (employee)
E.S. Construction Firm based in North Greece (project manager)
M.A. Hotel Chain – (Operations Manager)

3.6 Statistical analysis

The items of the questionnaire were used in order to study the impact of the crisis on
the examined firms and to study the behaviour of those firms in relation to Knowledge
Management. The aim is to categorise the sample, based on the answers given on
those questions, into three groups; firms which have been devastated from the crisis,
firms that have been affected by the crisis and firms which have managed to not be
exposed to the crisis, so as to examine their reaction towards KM on each one of these
categories. Overall, the author aimed to investigate whether there are statistical
relationships between some aspects of culture and knowledge management. Another
aim included examining whether the demographic and occupational information
significantly differentiates responses to variables and other factors of the
questionnaire.

For the testing of the two hypotheses, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was
selected. The selection was based on the following considerations. First, it is an
appropriate test to use when examining differentiation of the dependent variable by an
independent variable. Secondly, the independent variables in the study have more
than two conditions. In the first hypothesis the dependent variables were the items of

84 | P a g e
knowledge management and the economic crisis (Section E), which are scored on a 5-
point Likert-type scale, and the independent variables were the items of knowledge
management initiatives and knowledge management for enterprises using knowledge
management systems (Section D), which were nominal, multiple-choice items. For
the second hypothesis, the dependent variables were the items of knowledge
management (Section D), and the independent variables were the items regarding
corporate culture (Section C), also nominal, multiple-choice items.

3.7 Ethical considerations of the research

The ethical considerations that arise in a research are related to the voluntary
participation of the respondents and their informed consent, the assurance of
anonymity and confidentiality of data, the non-damaging to the participants and the
manner in which the results are recorded and analysed. As a result, specific ethical
guidelines were followed during the conduction of this research.

Firstly, it was ensured that the selected research method and the chosen
methodological tool area appropriate for the research questions that have been posed.
This is based on the assumption of Rosenthal (1994) that the design of flow quality
research, in terms of the selected method and methodological tool, is less likely to be
morally acceptable, as it can result in inaccurate outcomes and may cause harm to the
participants. Thus, the researcher was based on the international literature in order to
choose the research method, the methodological tool and the appropriate sample that
would allow the examinations and analysis of the research hypothesis. Full
compliance with the principles of DPA (Data Protection Act) had been adhered to.
The respondents’ right to privacy, right to sensitivity and right to confidentiality has
been respectfully maintained. Data obtained from secondary as well as primary
sources have been strictly used for academic purpose and not for any commercial
reasons. None of the participants in the primary research were forced or persuaded to
take part in the questionnaire survey and had the right to withdraw as per their
individual intentions. The design of questions in the questionnaire was strictly
pertaining to the research problems and there were no such questions which could
have adversely impacted the sentiments of the participants.

85 | P a g e
The second ethical guideline was the informal consent of the participants (Simons,
2005). This means that the researcher conducted the research upon the informal
consent of the participants. In order to achieve this, the research informed all the
participants about the aim of the research, the research questions, the university
department under which this research is conducted, the expected time of completing
the questionnaire, as well as the importance of their participation in the completion of
this research.

86 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 4 – STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

For the main analysis, the descriptive statistics for the demographic characteristics are
presented, followed by the detailed results for all main items and the sections of the
questionnaire. These are supplemented by cross-tabulations of whether the company
follows a knowledge management strategy or not with a number of items of interest.
For that reason, the implementation of a KM strategy by the firm is reported first.
Finally, the main hypotheses of the study are tested.

TABLE 1. DOES YOUR COMPANY FOLLOW A

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY?
Frequency Percent
Yes 58 48,3
No 43 35,8
Valid
I don't know 19 15,8
Total 120 100,0

Company follow a knowledge management

strategy
048%
050%
036%
040%

030%
016%
020%

010%

000%
Yes No I don’t know

FIGURE 1. DOES YOUR COMPANY FOLLOW A

87 | P a g e
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY?

Analysis:
From the answers presented in Table 1, it is evident that almost one in two participant
employees stated that their company follows a knowledge management strategy
(48%). The application of a knowledge management strategy in half of the responses
is a positive outcome of this research.

Findings:
This reflects that more than half of the total workforce believes that knowledge
management is being practiced. On the other hand there are employees who don’t
know what this means while the remaining stated that it is not practiced. The
implications are that HR has not spread the word of knowledge management and it
has been confined to a few of them.

4.1 Demographic data

TABLE 2. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION LEVEL?

Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
Executive officer 34 28,3 28,3
Manager 29 24,2 52,5
Technical Staff 24 20,0 72,5
Support Staff 28 23,3 95,8
Other 5 4,2 100,0
Total 120 100,0

88 | P a g e
 FIGURE 2. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION LEVEL?

Analysis:
Regarding position level, 28% of the sample were executive officers, 24% were
managers, 23% were support staff, and 20% were technical staff. Table and Figure 2
present the results for this item. The full sample was comprised of N=120
participants.

Findings:
This shows that the respondents were almost equally selected from the total sample
size and each level of organisation had the chance of equal representation.

89 | P a g e
 TABLE 3. WHAT IS YOUR INDUSTRY TYPE?
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
I.T. Sector 22 18,3 61,7
Construction 21 17,5 43,3
Shipping 20 16,7 24,2
Education 13 10,8 80,0
Tourism 9 7,5 7,5
Public Sector 8 6,7 68,3
Banking 4 3,3 85,0
Government 4 3,3 91,7
Real estate sales 4 3,3 88,3
Engineering 3 2,5 95,8
Commerce 2 1,7 81,7
Marketing/Management 2 1,7 93,3
Retail 2 1,7 25,8
Automotive 1 ,8 99,2
Consulting 1 ,8 100,0
High Tech Electronic Systems 1 ,8 96,7
Industry 1 ,8 98,3
Journalism 1 ,8 97,5
NGO 1 ,8 69,2
Total 120 100,0

Analysis:
The industry types that were reported by the sample were diverse. The most important
were the I.T. Sector, with 18%, Construction with 17.5%, Shipping with 17%,
Education with 11%, Tourism with 7.5% and the Public Sector with 7%.The full list
of reported industry types is presented in Table 3.

Findings:
This proves that majority of the industry in the respondent groups are from IT,
construction, shipping, education. Thus this will skew the answer type in favour of the
above industries.

90 | P a g e
 TABLE 4. WHAT IS YOUR TOTAL FULL-TIME WORKFORCE?
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
1- 100 people 94 78,3 78,3
101-999 14 11,7 90,0
1000-10000 9 7,5 97,5
10000 + 3 2,5 100,0
Total 120 100,0

FIGURE 3. WHAT IS YOUR TOTAL FULL-TIME WORKFORCE?

Analysis:
The majority of the sample worked in a company of which the total full-time
workforce was up to 100 people (78%, N=94). Table 4 and Figure 3 present these
data.

Findings:
Most of the companies had employee strength from 1-100, while the large ones were
represented much lesser in number. There was no reason in particular, but smaller
firms were quicker to respond and participate while larger firms were slow to respond
and represent in the questionnaire survey.
91 | P a g e
4.2 Recent changes in the firm

TABLE 5. HAS YOUR COMPANY RECENTLY GONE THROUGH A MERGER,

ACQUISITION OR DOWNSIZING?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 40 33,3 33,6 33,6
No 77 64,2 64,7 98,3
Valid
I don’t know 2 1,7 1,7 100,0
Total 119 99,2 100,0
Missing 1 ,8
Total 120 100,0

FIGURE 4. HAS YOUR COMPANY RECENTLY GONE THROUGH A MERGER,

ACQUISITION OR DOWNSIZING?

Analysis:
Concerning recent label changes. The majority of the sample had not gone through
such changes (65%). One in three (34%), however, indeed were working for a
company undergoing a merger, an acquisition or a downsizing (Table 5, Figure 4).

92 | P a g e
Findings:
The majority of the respondents replied ‘No. The cases of companies been merged
have been under a losing unit or have been merged by a bigger unit.

TABLE 6. MY MONTHLY PERSONAL INCOME HAS BEEN:

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Reduced by more than 50% 16 13,3 13,3
Reduced from 30% to 50% 21 17,5 30,8
Reduced from 10% to 30% 10 8,3 39,2
Reduced up to 10% 22 18,3 57,5
Remained the same or increased 51 42,5 100,0
Total 120 100,0

FIGURE 5. MY MONTHLY PERSONAL INCOME HAS BEEN

(REDUCED/INCREASED/REMAINED THE SAME).

93 | P a g e
Analysis:
Regarding the income of the respondents, their personal feelings of insecurity, as well
as the revenue of the company, the monthly personal income of 43% of the
respondents had either remained the same or increased (Table 6, Figure 5).

Findings:
Economic recession has taken toll on the business fundamentals according to which,
the organisations in order to avoid neutral production had to reduce the employees’
salaries substantially which went down by 50%. Yet, the majority of the respondents
had undergone the reduction while for a few organizations, salaries have been
increased.

TABLE 7.THE FIRM’S REVENUES HAVE BEEN

(REDUCED/INCREASED/REMAINED THE SAME).
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Reduced by more than 50% 23 19,2 19,3 19,3
Reduced from 30% to 50% 16 13,3 13,4 32,8
Reduced from 10% to 30% 23 19,2 19,3 52,1
Valid
Reduced up to 10% 18 15,0 15,1 67,2
Remained the same or increased 39 32,5 32,8 100,0
Total 119 99,2 100,0
Missing 1 ,8
Total 120 100,0

94 | P a g e
 FIGURE 6.THE FIRM’S REVENUES HAVE BEEN
(REDUCED/INCREASED/REMAINED THE SAME).

Analysis:
One in three respondents (33%) replied that the company’s revenue had also remained
the same or had increased, while the majority (67%) answered that it had been
reduced (Table 7, Figure 6). Thus two-thirds of the companies had had financial
losses during the past year, at least in part due to the current economic turmoil.

Findings:
The majority of the firms engaged in the survey experienced fall in revenues as
business cues were down due to the recession in the global economy and EURO
crisis. It is sector specific and dependent on host of other factors influencing it. This
had a direct impact on the national economy, business fundamentals, which also
affected the employee salary.

95 | P a g e
TABLE 8.DURING THE PAST 18 MONTHS I FEEL (MY JOB POSITION MORE
INSECURE/THE SAME/MORE SECURE).
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
Much more insecure with my job position 58 48,3 48,3
Nothing has changed 31 25,8 74,2
My job position is more secure 31 25,8 100,0
Total 120 100,0

FIGURE 7. DURING THE PAST 18 MONTHS I FEEL (MY JOB POSITION MORE
INSECURE/THE SAME/MORE SECURE).

Analysis:
Almost one in two participants (48%) found that during the past 18 months they had
felt “much more insecure” within their job position (Table 8, Figure 7). This finding
again appears to relate to the current economic crisis and people’s feeling that they
might lose their job.

96 | P a g e
Findings:
The perception of the employees reflects the general financial condition. Many of
them have been through merges and job loss. Insecurity perception leads people to the
uncertainty that this may be repeated.

Crosstabulations:
Pertaining to the “Recent Changes in the Firm” section of the questionnaire (Section
B), most companies had not undergone a merger, acquisition or downsizing,
irrespective of whether their company followed a knowledge management strategy or
not – the percentages reported were 78% and 72%, respectively. The full tables are
presented in Appendix 3.

Those whose company followed a knowledge management strategy reported much

more that their income had remained the same or increased (66%) than those whose
companies did not (23%). The firm’s revenues had also remained the same or
increased for 47% of those whose companies followed a knowledge management
strategy, compared to 235 of those whose companies didn’t. For the latter, the
reduction was up to 10% for one in three respondents (35%).

Forty-one percent (41%) of those whose company followed a knowledge management

strategy felt that during the last 1.5 year they feel that their job position is more
secured; the respective percentage for those whose companies did not use a
knowledge management strategy, was 16% (Appendix 3).

97 | P a g e
4.3 Corporate Culture

TABLE 9. DO THE PEOPLE WORKING IN YOUR FIRM KNOW THE

OBJECTIVES OF THE BUSINESS AS A WHOLE?
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
They don’t know 2 1,7 1,7 1,7
They have poor knowledge 16 13,3 13,4 15,1
They know few things 45 37,5 37,8 52,9
Valid
They have good knowledge 23 19,2 19,3 72,3
They have excellent knowledge 33 27,5 27,7 100,0
Total 119 99,2 100,0
Missing 1 ,8
Total 120 100,0

People working in your firm know the

objectives of the business

040% 038%

035%

030% 028%

025%
019%
020%
013%
015%

010%

005% 002%

000%
They don’t They have They know They have They have
know poor few things good excellent
knowledge knowledge knowledge

FIGURE 8. DO THE PEOPLE WORKING IN YOUR FIRM KNOW THE

OBJECTIVES OF THE BUSINESS AS A WHOLE?

98 | P a g e
Analysis:
Regarding corporate culture, people working in their firm know the objectives of the
business as a whole, 38% answered that they knew a few things, and 15% replied that
those people did not know (2%) or that they had poor knowledge (13%), however
overall 47% replied that the people working in their firm had at least good knowledge
of the objectives (Table 9, Figure 8).

Findings:
The majority of the employees are ignorant on the strategic business goal of the
organisation. They most probably are not directly involved within the strategic
business goals. There are however employees who according to their answers do
know about the business goals and the fundamental principles guiding them. This
reflects the organisation’s culture view of sharing its mission and objectives.

TABLE 10. DO PEOPLE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT KNOW THE STRATEGIC

GOALS OF THE DEPARTMENT AS A WHOLE?
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
They don’t know 5 4,2 4,2 4,2
They have poor knowledge 23 19,2 19,3 23,5
They know few things 35 29,2 29,4 52,9
Valid
They have good knowledge 16 13,3 13,4 66,4
They have excellent knowledge 40 33,3 33,6 100,0
Total 119 99,2 100,0
Missing 1 ,8
Total 120 100,0

99 | P a g e
 People in your department know the
strategic goals of the of the department as
a whole

35%
30%
25%
20% 033%
15% 29%
10% 19%
013%
5% 4%
0%
They don’t They have They know They have They have
know poor few things good excellent
knowledge knowledge knowledge

FIGURE 9. DO PEOPLE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT KNOW THE STRATEGIC

GOALS OF THE DEPARTMENT AS A WHOLE?

Analysis:
When asked whether the employees in their department know the strategic goals of
the department as a whole, 29% answered that the employees knew few things, and
23.5% replied that the employees did not know (4%) or that they had poor knowledge
(19%), however overall 47% replied that the people working in their firm had at least
good knowledge of the strategic goals of the company. In the previous page, Table 10
and Figure 9 presents these findings.

Findings:
The majority of the respondents are either conversant and some are well versed in the
strategic objectives which reflects their interest as an employee and organisation’s
trust to disseminate information related to strategic goals. This again depended on the
respondent’s job profile which is related to the departmental and organisational goals.

Regarding the strength of the feeling of success in their unit, in a scale of 1 to 5,

where 1=“strong” and 5=“not strong”, the mean response of the participants was 2.7,
with a standard deviation of 1.312 and minimum and maximum values of 1 and 5
respectively (N=120). Thus, the strength of the feeling of success was moderate.

100 | P a g e
As to whether the company had made clear to its employees the rewards and
punishments, in a five point scale (1=“crystal clear”, 5=“not clear at all”), the mean
response was 3.1, with a standard deviation of 1.184 and minimum and maximum
values of 1 and 5 respectively. Thus, the company was seen as only having made
moderately clear the rewards and punishments.

TABLE 11. IN GROUP PROJECTS, HOW OPEN ARE PEOPLE TO SHARE

THEIR EXPERIENCES?
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
They are open 57 47,5 47,5
They are not always open 55 45,8 93,3
Valid
They are not open 8 6,7 100,0
Total 120 100,0

People to share their experiences in group

projects
048% 046%
050%

040%

030%

020%
007%
010%

000%
They are open They are not always They are not open
open

FIGURE 10. IN GROUP PROJECTS, HOW OPEN ARE PEOPLE TO SHARE THEIR
EXPERIENCES?

Analysis:
Almost one in two participants replied that in group projects, people are open to share
their experiences (48%). A similar percentage of the sample, however, replied that

101 | P a g e
people are not always open (46%), and 7% replied that they are not open (Table 11,
Figure 10, previous page). This is a question which is crucial for knowledge
management. Since culture affects the flow of information and knowledge within the
firm, it is important to have a culture which will promote this. However, only 48% of
the sample agreed that the people are open regarding the sharing of their experiences.
This means that there is a culture which may not foster the appropriate conditions that
will favor knowledge management.

Findings:
The findings with the response data of the respondents reveal that information at
different organisational hierarchy levels had to be withheld due to its strategic
importance for the firm. This was perceived as ‘open culture’ when information of a
skill, job experience is being shared amongst the employees. This can be critical for
the organisation’s success in the equipping employees engaged in a group project.

TABLE 12. IN YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT, DO WORKERS SHARE

INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON?
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
They are sharing all the information 42 35,0 35,0
They are sharing some information 57 47,5 82,5
They are sharing a limited amount of 18 15,0 97,5
Valid
information
They are sharing nothing 3 2,5 100,0
Total 120 100,0

102 | P a g e
 Workers share information about changes
in organisation
048%
50%
35%
40%

30%
15%
20%

10% 003%

0%
They are sharing they are sharing They are sharing They are sheha
all information some limited nothing
information information

FIGURE 11. IN YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT, DO WORKERS SHARE

INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON?

Analysis:
Most participants replied that in their organizational unit, workers share some
information on the newsfeeds (48%), and 35% replied that anything happening is
common to everyone (Table 12, Figure 11).

Findings:
The aspect of information being shared within departments/ team or groups are key to
the business process functioning and management. The information shared is mainly
concerning transactional changes in the team or a group and not strategic restructures.
This is basically explained by the need of a proper functioning.

TABLE 13. ARE YOU KEPT INFORMED BY THE UPPER MANAGEMENT

ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ORGANIZATION?
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 68 56,7 56,7
Valid No 52 43,3 100,0
Total 120 100,0

103 | P a g e
 Employees are informed by the upper
management about what is happening

057%
060%
043%
050%
040%
030%
020%
010%
000%
Yes No

FIGURE 12. ARE YOU KEPT INFORMED BY THE UPPER MANAGEMENT

ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ORGANIZATION?

Analysis:
The majority of the participants (57%) were informed by their upper management
about changes within the organization (Table 13, Figure 12). This is a positive
outcome since it shows that the upper management seeks to share information with
the rest of the employees, hence encourages knowledge management on a common
basis.

Findings:
The standard approach of the top management controlling the firm includes
dissemination of information to either specifically for one department or a project, or
a small team. This is pertaining to the context, relevance of that department or team to
the organisational goals and criticality of the issue.

104 | P a g e
 TABLE 14. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR CONTROL YOUR WORK ACTIVITIES?
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
All of my activities 33 27,5 29,7 29,7
Some of my activities 66 55,0 59,5 89,2
Valid
Does not control me often 12 10,0 10,8 100,0
Total 111 92,5 100,0
Missing 9 7,5
Total 120 100,0

Supervisor control your work activities

55%
060%

050%

040%
028%
030%

020% 10%
010%

000%
All of my activities Some of my activities Does not control me
often

FIGURE 13. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR CONTROL YOUR WORK ACTIVITIES?

Analysis:
The majority of the sample (59.5%) replied that their supervisors control some of their
work activities and 30% replied that their supervisor controls all of their activities.
Only 10% answered that their supervisors do not control their activities and thus that
the employees have complete autonomy within the workplace (Table 14, Figure 13).

Findings:
From the respondent’s results it is clear for many of the employees and the firms
involved in the present study. There is a tendency to control all the activities by the

105 | P a g e
managers, which is not conducive to the creation of a professional work culture which
promotes knowledge management. The employees need to have some amount of job
autonomy within the workplace, empowered to take individual decisions rather than
processing everything with management consent. The tendency is for management to
interfere with part of the daily activities that may be psychologically detrimental for
employees.
TABLE 15. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR ENCOURAGE
YOU TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS?
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Completely agree 38 31,7 33,3 33,3
Agree 35 29,2 30,7 64,0
Neither agree nor disagree 23 19,2 20,2 84,2
Valid
Disagree 11 9,2 9,6 93,9
Completely disagree 7 5,8 6,1 100,0
Total 114 95,0 100,0
Missing 6 5,0
Total 120 100,0

Supervisor encourages employees to take

own decisions

035% 032%
029%
030%
025% 019%
020%
015% 009%
010% 006%
005%
000%
Completely Agree Neither agree Disagree Completely
agree nor disagree disagree

FIGURE 14. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR ENCOURAGE

YOU TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS?

106 | P a g e
Analysis:
The employees that participated in the present responded to Items 8 and 9. The results
for those items can be found in Tables 14 to 16. As can be seen below, overall 64% of
the employees agreed that their supervisors encourage them to make their own
decisions (Item 8), while 47% agreed that their supervisors/upper managers encourage
them to participate in information sharing (Table 15, Figure 14).

Findings:
Regarding issues of job autonomy are a prerequisite to foster a culture which
promotes knowledge management within the organisation. Encouraging words
compels the employee to perform with focus on task which is primarily to boost the
employee morale boost to face the challenge headlong to complete the task.

TABLE 16. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR/UPPER MANAGER ENCOURAGE YOU

TO PARTICIPATE IN INFORMATION SHARING PRACTICES?
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Completely agree 39 32,5 33,9 33,9
Agree 15 12,5 13,0 47,0
Neither agree nor disagree 22 18,3 19,1 66,1
Valid
Disagree 33 27,5 28,7 94,8
Completely disagree 6 5,0 5,2 100,0
Total 115 95,8 100,0
Missing 5 4,2
Total 120 100,0

107 | P a g e
 Supervisor/upper manager encourage you
to participate in information sharing
practices
033%
035%
028%
030%
025% 018%
020%
013%
015%
010% 5%
005%
000%
Completely Agree Neither agree Disagree Completely
agree nor disagree disagree

FIGURE 15. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR/UPPER MANAGER ENCOURAGE YOU

TO PARTICIPATE IN INFORMATION SHARING PRACTICES?

Analysis:
The employees that participated in the present responded to Items 8 and 9. The results
for those items can be found in Table 16 and Figure 15. Sixty-four percent (64%) of
the employees agreed that their supervisors encourage them to make their own
decisions (Item 8), while 47% agreed that their supervisors/upper managers encourage
them to participate in information sharing (Item 9).

Findings:
The responses indicate that senior managers do encourage employers on acting as an
example towards their colleagues. While some of them claim the opposite, the
majority of the employees are not sure about indication of information sharing
practices, which needs specific management practices in place for sharing information
for a business.

108 | P a g e
TABLE 17. DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR/UPPER MANAGER ENCOURAGE YOU
TO MAKE OWN DECISIONS/PARTICIPATE IN INFORMATION SHARING?
N Mean Standard
deviation
8. Does your supervisor encourage you to make your 114 2,25 1,194
own decisions?
9. Does your supervisor or upper manager encourage 115 2,58 1,351
you to participate in information sharing practices?

Analysis:
The mean response to Item 8 was 2.3, with a standard deviation of 1.19, indicating
that overall the participating employees agreed that their supervisors encourage them
to make their own decisions. The mean response to Item 9 was 2.6 with a standard
deviation of 1.35, indicating that overall the employees neither agreed nor disagreed
that their supervisors or upper managers encourage them to take part in information
sharing practices. The minimum and maximum responses to both items were 1
(“completely agree”) and 5 (“completely disagree”).

Findings:
From the answers given in the above two questions it becomes apparent that in many
cases the current culture may not allow for employee autonomy and the promotion of
knowledge management. This was truer for participation in knowledge sharing and
less so for making one’s own decisions. There is therefore room for improvement in
the corporate culture of the Greek firms under study so that knowledge management
may be better promoted.

TABLE 18. IN YOUR JOB DO YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW CERTAIN

PROCEDURES, RULES OR INSTRUCTIONS?
Frequency Percent
Yes 107 89,2
Valid No 13 10,8
Total 120 100,0

109 | P a g e
 Have to follow certain rules and procedures

089%

090%
080%
070%
060%
050%
040%
030%
011%
020%
010%
000%
Yes No

FIGURE 16. IN YOUR JOB DO YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW CERTAIN

PROCEDURES, RULES OR INSTRUCTIONS?

Analysis:
The vast majority of the participants (89%) agreed that there are certain procedures,
rules and instructions that they have to follow in their job (Table 18, Figure 16).
Therefore, most of their workplace tasks are based on the instructions given.

Findings:
The employees are aware of the internal rules. This is an organisation’s cultural
normality that is common knowledge to closely monitored employees. Their work
process, their efficiency and their lifestyle in general are closely linked to monitoring
and ruling.

TABLE 19. DO YOU TRUST YOUR COWORKERS IN ORDER TO SHARE

INFORMATION WITH THEM ACCORDING TO YOUR PROJECT/JOB?
Frequency Percent
Yes, I trust them a lot 101 84,2
Valid No, I don’t trust them 19 15,8
Total 120 100,0

110 | P a g e
 Trust your co-workers in order to share
information with them according to your
project/job

084%
100%
080%
060%
040% 016%
020%
000%
Yes, I trust them a lot No, I don’t trust them

FIGURE 17. DO YOU TRUST YOUR COWORKERS IN ORDER TO SHARE

INFORMATION WITH THEM ACCORDING TO YOUR PROJECT/JOB?

Analysis:
Trust is an important element of knowledge management. Without trust, employees
are not willing to share their knowledge and hence knowledge management to take
place. Table 19 and Figure 17 signify that the large majority of the sample (84%)
trusted their co-workers in order to share information with them regarding their work.
This is a positive outcome for knowledge management among the Greek firms
studied.

Findings:
The trust component is critical for the knowledge management process in the
organisation. The nature of the job or the task at hand is such that the employees need
to maintain interdependency factor for the process output. Confidentiality of data
therefore is important whenever there is a third party involved as it will breach Data
protection Act.

111 | P a g e
 TABLE 20. AMONG YOUR UNIT AND OTHER UNITS
DO YOU SHARE INFORMATION?
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Yes 109 90,8 92,4
Valid No 9 7,5 7,6
Total 118 98,3 100,0
Missing 2 1,7
Total 120 100,0

Among share information with your unit

and other units

091%
100%

080%

060%

040%
008%
020%

000%
Yes No

FIGURE 18. AMONG YOUR UNIT AND OTHER UNITS

DO YOU SHARE INFORMATION?
Analysis:
Participants were asked whether they share information within their units and with
other business units. The vast majority of the sample under study agreed that they do
indeed share information across units (92%, Table 20 and Figure 18).

Findings:
Majority of respondents showed that during the work process, and also before and
after completion of the job, the employees are keeping in touch. This concept in
process design approach tells the robustness of the system, as one will end the process

112 | P a g e
 which is an input for the other employee. This is a best practice for work processes to
improve and enable the knowledge sharing factor.

TABLE 21. DO YOU KNOW WHO CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH

THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION IN ANOTHER UNIT?
Frequency Percent
Yes 102 85,0
Valid No 18 15,0
Total 120 100,0

Analysis:
The large majority of the respondents (85%) also agreed that they know who can
provide them with the appropriate information in other units (Table 21).

Findings:
There are departmental heads of the different domain, who seat together to create a
culture of strategic important. Thus for employees are aware to whom to approach to
get it resolved, even if needs approval of the relevant authority. Curiousness in the
approach actually drives the firm towards a specific goal oriented approach.

TABLE 22. IN GENERAL, HOW DO THE WORKERS/MANAGERS/MEMBERS

OF STAFF IN YOUR ORGANIZATION SHARE INFORMATION?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
By expecting it will be returned to you some time later 23 19,2 19,7
By negotiating the return of your information sharing 28 23,3 23,9
By just ignoring the return and help whoever ask for 22 18,3 18,8
Valid information and for the good of the company
By not expecting anything; you are used to share all 44 36,7 37,6
your information with your coworkers
Total 117 97,5 100,0
Missing 3 2,5
Total 120 100,0

113 | P a g e
Analysis:
Asked about the manner in which the workers, managers and members of staff in their
organization share information in general, the members of the sample provided the
following responses. Thus, 37% shared information by not having any expectations,
since they were accustomed to sharing all information with coworkers; 18% did not
expect the return of information and freely helped whoever needed information for the
good of the company; 23% negotiated the return of their information sharing; and
19% expected that the information sharing will be returned to them at some later time.
Overall, 56% provided information unconditionally, while the remaining 44% either
expected or negotiated the return of information exchange (Table 22).

Findings:
The organisational culture does not allow the employees to be involved with game
plan and has systematic procedures to follow. The use of the effective communication
through the organisational hierarchy happens both ways: bottom-up and top-down
approach. Top-down is for issuing directives, while the bottom-up is the lowest level
of the organisational chart providing feedback.

From the above it is evident that there exists a large part of a culture which
encourages and utilizes the free and unconditional exchange of information and
knowledge. According to the respondents, however, within the minority of the
workers/managers/members of staff in their organization, many share information and
then negotiate or expect something in return, or expect some benefit from this.

TABLE 23. I FEEL COMFORTABLE COMMUNICATING

AND SHARING INFORMATION:
Frequency Percent
With my coworkers 84 70,0
With people from other units 25 20,8
Valid With people from other branches of 11 9,2
the same company
Total 120 100,0

114 | P a g e
 Feel comfortable communicating & sharing
information

80% 70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
021%
30%
20% 009%
10%
0%
With my coworkers With people from With people from
other units other branches

FIGURE 19. I FEEL COMFORTABLE COMMUNICATING

AND SHARING INFORMATION:

Analysis:
From the answers presented in Table 23, it is evident that the majority of the
employees felt more comfortable communicating and sharing information with their
co-workers (70%), than with people in other units (21%), and much less so with
people in other company branches (9%).

Findings:
The response is in positives tries to depict that the employees do share information
with colleagues which are relevant for the project or task at hand. It however, shared
with other units only when the task involves multidisciplinary approach until
completion. The employees feeling comfortable within the department therefore
prove, the proximity and familiarity factor.

115 | P a g e
 TABLE 24. HOW OBLIGED DO YOU FEEL TO PARTICIPATE
IN MEETINGS WITH YOUR COWORKERS?
N Mean Std. Deviation
16. How obliged do you feel to participate 117 2,04 1,335
in meetings with your coworkers?
Valid N 106

Analysis:
Asked how obliged they feel to participate in meetings with their coworkers, on
average the participants indicated that they feel obliged to do so – their mean response
was 2.0 (“obliged”), with a standard deviation of 1.34. The minimum response was 1
(“quite obliged”) and the maximum response was 5 (“not obliged at all”). Thus the
sense of obligation was high for attendance to such meetings (Table 24).

Findings:
The findings of the above results depicts that meetings held are for employees at
different organisational hierarchies and is also obligatory due the management order
from the top. The mean score of 2 which depicts a high percentage of employees feel
to oblige the management.

TABLE 25. HOW DO YOU ASSESS YOUR OPPORTUNITY

TO PARTICIPATE ON DISCUSSIONS:
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
With your coworkers? 74 61,7 62,7
With people from other units? 32 26,7 27,1
Valid With people from other branches 12 10,0 10,2
of the same company?
Total 118 98,3 100,0
Missing 2 1,7
Total 120 100,0

116 | P a g e
 Assess of opportunity to participate in
discussions

070% 062%

060%
050%
040% 027%
030%
020% 010%
010%
000%
With coworkers with people from people from other
other units branches

FIGURE 20. HOW DO YOU ASSESS YOUR OPPORTUNITY

TO PARTICIPATE ON DISCUSSIONS:
Analysis:
From the answers given on Table 25, it is evident that the majority of the respondents
prefer to attend meetings with their co-workers (63%), rather than with people from
other units (27%) or –even less so– with people from other company branches (10%).

Findings:
Familiarity and proximity of the colleagues are a perfect reason for the respondents to
work in unison, share information and collaborate towards success. This is also
relevant from a quality point of view where the relatedness of work happens within
the department. So colleagues will interact more and contribute towards departmental
output.
TABLE 26. HAVE YOU NOTICED A CHANGE IN CORPORATE
CULTURE DURING THE PAST 18 MONTHS?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 67 55,8 57,3
Valid No 50 41,7 42,7
Total 117 97,5 100,0
Missing 3 2,5
Total 120 100,0

117 | P a g e
 Noticed a change in corporate culture
during last 18 months

056%
060%
042%
050%
040%
030%
020%
010%
000%
Yes No

FIGURE 21. HAVE YOU NOTICED A CHANGE IN CORPORATE

CULTURE DURING THE PAST 18 MONTHS?

Analysis:
Table 26 asked of participants to signify whether there has been a change in the
corporate culture during the past 18 months. The reason for setting this time frame
was that the economic crisis has developed in Greece during those months, so it is
important to examine whether there have been changes during this period. The
majority (57%) agreed that indeed there had been a change in the corporate culture.
This indicates that the economic crisis has affected the culture of the firms considered
in the present study.

Findings:
The finding which has opened the big question relates to the fact of the Greece crisis
which has led to series of ripple effect in almost all the nations in the world. The
contract getting cancelled due to economic recession is a critical factor for the nation
and the company at large. Business sentiments are down with many firms shutting
down leading to wide spread losses. So employees have actually felt a change in the
organisational culture i.e. austerity.

118 | P a g e
 TABLE 27. IF SO, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
PHRASES BEST REPRESENTS THOSE CHANGES?
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
It has become more supportive 17 14,2 23,3
It pushes me to produce more and give up 45 37,5 61,6
Valid my labor rights
It has alienated me 11 9,2 15,1
Total 73 60,8 100,0
Missing 47 39,2
Total 120 100,0

Which one of following phrases represents

those changes

038%
040%
035%
030%
025%
020% 014%
015% 009%
010%
005%
000%
It has become It pushes me to It has aliented me
supportive produce more & give
up my labour rights

FIGURE 22. IF SO, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING

PHRASES BEST REPRESENTS THOSE CHANGES?

Analysis:
Within this context, it is significant to examine what type of changes have taken
place, and Table 27 and Figure 22 summarize the responses of the sample in that
regard. The majority of 62% answered that the corporate culture changes during the
previous 18 months push them to become more productive and at the same time to
give up their labour rights. Additionally, 15% replied that the change has alienated

119 | P a g e
them. On the other hand, 23% of the sample of employee participants stated that the
company has become more supportive.

Findings:
The results show that employees are concerned about the change so much that they
dread of the future to be more challenging for them. Some are also concerned about
their labour rights, but most of them felt that it has alienated them. The reason being
the fear of change factor is causing the negative perceptions in their mind.

Crosstabulations:
Regarding the section of Corporate Culture (Section C), numerous items were
crosstabulated that bear interesting results. Those whose company followed a
knowledge management strategy had a stronger feeling of succeeding in their unit
(35%) compared to those with companies not using knowledge management (16%);
both groups had at least a feeling of succeeding (47% and 39%); and 33% and 23%
respectively did not have a strong feeling of succeeding (Appendix 3).

Participants whose companies utilized a knowledge management strategy reported

that people in their company were much more open to share their experiences in
group projects (71%) than those whose companies were not following such a strategy
(23%). The majority of participants whose companies followed a knowledge
management strategy reported that in their organizational unit, workers share all
information about what is going on (53%), compared to 26% of the other group
(Appendix 3).

The large majority of respondents whose companies used a knowledge management

strategy were kept informed by the upper management about what is happening in the
organisation (76%), compared to 49% of those without knowledge management.
Overall, participants whose companies used knowledge management had supervisors
or upper managers who encouraged them to participate on information sharing
practices (70%) more so than participants whose companies did not use knowledge
management (29%).

120 | P a g e
Almost all participants employed at companies with a knowledge management
strategy (97%) reported that they trusted their coworkers in order to share information
with them according to their project/job; the majority of the non-knowledge-
management group also trusted their coworkers in this sense (61%, Appendix 3).

Both groups agreed that they share information between their unit and other units –
98% of those with knowledge-management companies and 79% of those without
knowledge management. Both groups knew who can provide them with appropriate
information in another unit – 84% of knowledge-management companies and 91% of
those without it (Appendix 3). Both groups also felt quite or moderately obliged to
participate in meetings with their coworkers – 69% of those with knowledge-
management companies and 82% of those without knowledge management. It is
interesting to note that 26% of the participants working in companies with a
knowledge-management strategy did not feel that obliged to participate in such
meetings, compared to 10% of the non-knowledge-management group.

Most of the participants from companies with knowledge management (91%) felt
comfortable to communicate and share information with their coworkers – the
respective percentage for the non-knowledge-management group was 35%. On the
other hand, many from the non-knowledge-management group felt more comfortable
to communicate with people from other units (40%) or with people from other
branches of the same company (26%).

Furthermore, the large majority of the knowledge-management-strategy group

assessed their opportunity to participate on discussions with their coworkers (83%),
compared to 35% of the non-knowledge-management group. Most from the latter
group assessed their opportunity to participate on discussions with people from other
units (51%). The majority of the knowledge-management group (57%) had noticed a
change in corporate culture during the last 18 months, while the majority of the non-
knowledge-management group had not noticed something like that (56%).

121 | P a g e
4.4 Knowledge Management Initiatives

The questions that follow below concern how knowledge management is being
implemented on the Greek firms under study. As seen previously, 48% of the sample
replied that their company follows a knowledge management strategy (N=58); 36%
replied that it did not (N=43); and 16% answered that they did not know.

TABLE 28. ARE THERE ANY OFFICER POSITIONS THAT

ARE RELATED TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT?
Frequency Percent
Yes 34 28,3
Valid No 86 71,7
Total 120 100,0

Any position/dept in the firm named as

knowledge management

071%
080%
070%
060%
050%
040% 028%
030%
020%
010%
000%
Yes No

FIGURE 23. ARE THERE ANY OFFICER POSITIONS THAT

ARE RELATED TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT?

Analysis:
However, seventy-two percent (72%) of the sample replied that there are no officer
positions that relate to knowledge management in their company. This is a negative

122 | P a g e
outcome since there is a necessity to have someone who will lead and guide the
knowledge management processes of the firm.

Findings:
This proves that the firm does not have a clear-cut strategy of creating a knowledge
management department or a position which is understood from its strategy. On the
other hand, many employees confused it with training and development which is not
the case.

For those participants that answered that there the company they work for employs a
Knowledge Management Officer (28%, N=34 of the sample), there were a variety of
persons who took this role. These were the Office managers (N=15), the Director of
Support (N=4), a senior Executive (N=4), Business Development Consultants (N=3),
a member of the personnel department (N=1) and the Senior Manager (N=1).

TABLE 29. WHICH OF THE BELOW CHARACTERISE YOUR STAGE OF

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) IN YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Already developed a KM program 34 28,3 29,8
Already implemented but not developed 27 22,5 23,7
organization-wide KM program
Stage of KM implementation 13 10,8 11,4
Valid
Examining the KM program 7 5,8 6,1
There is no consideration yet about it 32 26,7 28,1
Already considered but negative decision 1 ,8 ,9
Total 114 95,0 100,0
Missing 6 5,0
Total 120 100,0

123 | P a g e
 CHARACTERIZE YOUR STAGE OF KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT (KM) IN YOUR ORGANIZATION
028%
030% 027%
023%
025%
020%
015% 011%
010% 006%
005% 001%
000%

FIGURE 24. WHICH OF THE BELOW CHARACTERISE YOUR STAGE OF

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) IN YOUR ORGANIZATION?

Analysis:
Regarding the level or stage of knowledge management (KM) utilized within their
organization, the answers provided were diverse. Thus, 30% replied that KM has been
already developed, 24% replied that it is implemented but that an organization-wide
program is not in place as of yet, 11% replied that they are at the stage of KM
implementation and 6% that they are examining the KM program. On the other hand,
28% answered that so far there has been no consideration for the implementation of a
knowledge management programme, and 1% (N=1) replied that a decision was taken
to not utilize a KM program. Overall, 65% of the examined firms have implemented
or are in the process of developing and implementing a knowledge management
program (Table 29).

124 | P a g e
Findings:
The findings show a trend that very few companies are serious about designing, put
things in agenda and carrying on the flame of KM. Therefore this topic is not a
burning issue for the companies though it would help firms to cope immensely with
the business challenges.

TABLE 30. HOW CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT
YOUR ORGANIZATION USES FOR THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
It serves the purpose of the 13 10,8 11,5
knowledge management strategy
It is an organizational need 60 50,0 53,1
Valid It only serves the basic 27 22,5 23,9
organizational operations
None of the above 13 10,8 11,5
Total 113 94,2 100,0
Missing 7 5,8
Total 120 100,0

THE INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT YOUR

ORGANIZATION USES FOR THE INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
50%
050%

040%

030% 023%

020% 011% 011%

010%

000%
Serves purpose Org need Serves basic org None of above
for KM operations

FIGURE 25. HOW CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT
YOUR ORGANIZATION USES FOR THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT?

125 | P a g e
 Analysis:
A vital part of knowledge management is the nature of the information system being
used. In the present case, 53% of the sample replied that the information system is an
organizational need, and only 11.5% responded that it serves the purpose of the
knowledge management strategy of the firm. Twenty-four percent (24%) answered
that it only serves basic organizational functions, and 11.5% replied that none of the
above apply (Table 30). According to these results, it follows that firms would have to
look more carefully into their information systems as well as to align them to the
needs of their knowledge management practices.

Findings:
The organisation needs KM as their part of agenda and business strategy to survive in
the dynamic business environment. Most of them understood that the need is there but
to operationalise KM has not happened for a simple reason that a majority of
consensus has not been reached at the board level.

TABLE 31.WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS THE TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE

THAT YOUR COMPANY USES FOR SUPPORTING THE KM:
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Intranet 26 21,7 21,7
Email messaging 26 21,7 56,7
Instant messaging 15 12,5 34,2
Storytelling 11 9,2 84,2
Videoconferencing 11 9,2 93,3
Subversion Tools 8 6,7 100,0
Search engines-intelligent agents 6 5,0 61,7
Data mining tools 5 4,2 72,5
Database Management System (Oracle, ERP, SAP) 4 3,3 67,5
Data Warehouses 3 2,5 64,2
Online Chat 3 2,5 75,0
Help-Desk applications 1 ,8 68,3
Teleconferencing 1 ,8 35,0
Total 120 100,0

126 | P a g e
 Type of knowledge that your company uses
for supporting the KM
025%
022% 022%

020%

015% 013%
009% 009%
010%
007%
5% 004%
005% 003% 003% 003%
001% 001%
000%

FIGURE 26. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS THE TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE

THAT YOUR COMPANY USES FOR SUPPORTING THE KM:

Analysis:
Regarding the types of knowledge that the company uses for the support of
Knowledge Management, there was a high level of intranet and email-messaging
usage (each 22%). On the other hand, sophisticated and more advanced systems, such
as DMS and Data Warehouses were not used very much (3% and 2.5%, respectively).
This means that the firms included in the present study do not use state-of-the-art
information systems, but rely on simplest methods (Table 31, next page).

Findings:
The two most widely used methods for transferring knowledge is through intranet
(within company communication system), and email which helps to send data as
attachment on real time basis at fraction of the cost. To spread the culture there are
storyboarding, videoconferencing used for employees and stakeholders respectively.
Search engine and subversion tool are necessary to find data, while data mining and

127 | P a g e
DMS are used to handle large amount of data related to company for analysis
purpose.
TABLE 32. DOES YOUR COMPANY MOTIVATE
YOU FOR SHARING YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Yes 77 64,2 65,8
Valid No 40 33,3 34,2
Total 117 97,5 100,0
Missing 3 2,5
Total 120 100,0

Company motivates for motivating for

sharing knowledge

064%
070%
060%
050%
033%
040%
030%
020%
010%
000%
Yes No

FIGURE 27. DOES YOUR COMPANY MOTIVATE

YOU FOR SHARING YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

Analysis:
Regarding whether the company motivates employees towards the sharing of
information, 66% agreed that there are motives for sharing knowledge (“Yes”). This
is a promising result indicating that firms tend to encourage their employees to share
their knowledge.

128 | P a g e
Findings:
This reflects the culture of the organisation and the management style which supports
the fact that they need to motivate the employees at all levels. This is crucial as
positive approach towards work or task will help to foster the changes to be subtly
brought in, along with the benchmarking the best practices in the firm. This helps to
increase the productivity and efficiency of the firm which is a boost for the company
in long term perspective.

TABLE 33. HOW COMFORTABLE DO YOU FEEL TO COMMUNICATE

AND PARTICIPATE IN THESE KM SYSTEMS?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Comfortable 82 68,3 90,1
Valid Not comfortable 9 7,5 9,9
Total 91 75,8 100,0
Missing 29 24,2
Total 120 100,0

Comfortable in communicating and

participating in KM systems

068%
070%
060%
050%
040%
030%
020% 008%
010%
000%
Comfortable Not comfortable

FIGURE 28. HOW COMFORTABLE DO YOU FEEL TO COMMUNICATE

AND PARTICIPATE IN THESE KM SYSTEMS?

129 | P a g e
Analysis:
Regarding how comfortable the participants/employees feel to communicate and
participate in the KM system, from those employees whose company employed a KM
system, the vast majority felt comfortable in that regard (90%, valid percent). This
was a positive outcome for the interaction of the employees with KM systems (Table
33).

Findings:
The majority of respondents stated that they feel comfortable when KM system is
incorporated in their daily work process. This means that KM system is perceived as a
useful tool for the company and that employees perceive it for using for better
management outcomes for their organisation.

TABLE 34. DO YOU SHARE INFORMATION

THROUGH THE KM SYSTEM?
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Yes 91 75,8 91,9
Valid No 8 6,7 8,1
Total 99 82,5 100,0
Missing 21 17,5
Total 120 100,0

130 | P a g e
 Sharing information through KM system

076%
080%
070%
060%
050%
040%
030%
020% 007%
010%
000%
Yes No

FIGURE 29. DO YOU SHARE INFORMATION

THROUGH THE KM SYSTEM?

Analysis:
Another positive result is that the employees who participated in the present research
indeed utilized the KM systems in order to share information – the valid percentage
who stated that they do use the KM systems to share information was 92% (Table 34).

Findings:
The KM system which uses host of other features to communicate are relied upon by
the employees as the major channels of communication to disseminate the
information. They are also aware that the information is captured is stored in the data
base which is used later on for analysis.

131 | P a g e
TABLE 35. WHAT ARE THE MAIN OBSTACLES OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING
THROUGH THE SET OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS?
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Lack of trust 12 10,0 13,2
Feeling of being controlling from the 2 1,7 2,2
supervisor or upper managers
Lack of training 6 5,0 6,6
Valid Your organisational culture 17 14,2 18,7
System design 7 5,8 7,7
Technical difficulties/problems 41 34,2 45,1
Feeling of being monitored 6 5,0 6,6
Total 91 75,8 100,0
Missing 29 24,2
Total 120 100,0

MAIN OBSTACLES OF KNOWLEDGE-

SHARING
034%
35%
30%
25%
20%
014%
15% 10%
10% 5% 006% 5%
5% 002%

0%
Lack of Feeling of Lack of Org system technical Feeling of
trust controlled training culture design problems monitored

FIGURE 30. WHAT ARE THE MAIN OBSTACLES OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING

THROUGH THE SET OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS?

132 | P a g e
Analysis:
The next item examined the obstacles that the knowledge-sharing process has on the
KM systems of the Greek firms under study. The reasons were many, however
technical difficulties/problems (45%), the organizational culture (19%) and the lack of
trust (13%) were the most prominent obstacles (Table 35, Figure 30).

Findings:
The KM systems involve knowledge sharing process which faces a lot of barriers
during the designing, implementation and during actual functioning of the process.
The technical challenge to design a KM system and the employee driven
organisational culture are two biggest threats for KM system implementation. There is
also lack of trust, when employees feel being monitored or controlled.

Crosstabulations:
With respect to the section of Knowledge Management Initiatives (Section D), it is
interesting to note that one in two participants whose companies followed a
knowledge management strategy reported that there were no officer positions that are
related to knowledge management in their company (50%); the remaining 50%
reported that their company did in fact have such officer positions. Finally, the large
majority of the knowledge-management group agreed that their company motivates
them to share their knowledge (91%), while the respective percentage for the non-
knowledge-management group was 35%.

4.5 Knowledge Management and the Economic Crisis

This final part of the questionnaire examines the relationship of Knowledge

Management with the economic crisis.

133 | P a g e
 TABLE 36. THE ECONOMIC CRISIS HAS FORCED US
TO REDUCE THE KM INITIATIVES.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Strongly agree 8 6,7 7,2 7,2
Agree 21 17,5 18,9 26,1
Neither agree nor disagree 40 33,3 36,0 62,2
Valid
Disagree 30 25,0 27,0 89,2
Strongly disagree 12 10,0 10,8 100,0
Total 111 92,5 100,0
Missing 9 7,5
Total 120 100,0

Economic crisis forced to reduce KM

initiatives
033%
035%
030% 25%
025%
018%
020%
015% 10%
010% 007%

005%
000%
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly
nor disagree disagree

FIGURE 31. THE ECONOMIC CRISIS HAS FORCED US

TO REDUCE THE KM INITIATIVES.
Analysis:
Almost one in three participants (31.5%) replied that they would prefer to reduce
some other operation rather than the KM function, while almost one in four disagreed
(24%) and 44% neither agreed nor disagreed (Table 36). This means that a large
proportion of the sample found knowledge management to be very important.

134 | P a g e
 Findings:
The KM is an issue for the companies as there are costs involved in implementation
of the system. The maximum number of responses which are neither agreeing nor
disagreeing are the dilemma whether KM will be useful in implementation at the time
of economic crisis.

TABLE 37. I PREFER TO ELIMINATE OTHER FUNCTIONS

RATHER THAN THE KM FUNCTION.
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly agree 4 3,3 3,6 3,6
Agree 31 25,8 27,9 31,5
Neither agree nor disagree 49 40,8 44,1 75,7
Valid
Disagree 24 20,0 21,6 97,3
Strongly disagree 3 2,5 2,7 100,0
Total 111 92,5 100,0
Missing 9 7,5
Total 120 100,0

Eliminate other functions rather than KM

function

045% 041%
040%
035%
030% 026%
025% 20%
020%
015%
010% 003% 003%
005%
000%
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly
nor disagree disagree

FIGURE 32. I PREFER TO ELIMINATE OTHER FUNCTIONS

RATHER THAN THE KM FUNCTION.

135 | P a g e
 Analysis:
The firms which are contemplating to eliminate some of the functions and is serious
about implementing KM had 25.8% agreeing with 3.3% strongly supporting it.
Majority could not be sure whether it will be viable 40.8%, while 20% disagreed to it.

Findings:
The findings corroborate the fact that nobody is sure if KM is implemented with a
huge cost for implementation and what will be the results consequently. This is
important for the firm strictly in terms of financials, but top management needs to
decide whether to go for KM as a companywide policy.

TABLE 38. KM FUNCTIONS HAVE A HIGH COST

AND THUS WE PREFER TO REDUCE THEM.
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly agree 4 3,3 3,6 3,6
Agree 12 10,0 10,9 14,5
Neither agree nor disagree 37 30,8 33,6 48,2
Valid
Disagree 48 40,0 43,6 91,8
Strongly disagree 9 7,5 8,2 100,0
Total 110 91,7 100,0
Missing 10 8,3
Total 120 100,0

136 | P a g e
 KM function have high cost so preference
to reduce them
40%
040%
035% 031%
030%
025%
020%
015% 10%
008%
010% 003%
005%
000%
Strongly agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
disagree

FIGURE 32. KM FUNCTIONS HAVE A HIGH COST

AND THUS WE PREFER TO REDUCE THEM.

Analysis:
The impact of an economic crisis may force companies to find ways to reduce their
relevant costs. However, it is evident in the present sample that knowledge
management is not one of the functions that have to be restricted since only 14.5%
agreed with the reduction of KM function costs (Table 38, Figure 32).

Findings:
The present situation in the global economic outlook is gloomy, which is affecting the
national sentiments and the business sentiments as well. KM function therefore is
perceived as an expensive investment at this point of time which may affect the
financials of a firm.

137 | P a g e
TABLE 39. KM CAN PROVIDE SOLUTIONS FOR THE ECONOMIC CRISIS.
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly agree 17 14,2 15,5 15,5
Agree 51 42,5 46,4 61,8
Valid Neither agree nor disagree 39 32,5 35,5 97,3
Disagree 3 2,5 2,7 100,0
Total 110 91,7 100,0
Missing 10 8,3
Total 120 100,0

KM can provide solutions for economic

crisis
043%
045%
040% 033%
035%
030%
025%
020% 014%
015%
010% 003%
005%
000%
Strongly agree agree Neither Disagree

FIGURE 33. KM CAN PROVIDE SOLUTIONS FOR THE ECONOMIC CRISIS.

Analysis:
Significantly, the majority of the sample agreed that Knowledge Management can
provide solutions for the economic crisis (62%). From this result it follows that
employees of the Greek firms included in the study regard knowledge as a significant
factor in the betterment of economic conditions.

138 | P a g e
 Findings:
The results for the above question proves that many of them believe that effective KM
can change the business scenario which will help the company to ease out of the
economic crisis like the firms in Greece.

TABLE 40. THE USE OF KM MEANS THAT WE CAN REDUCE

SEVERAL COSTS AND COPE WITH THE ECONOMIC CRISIS.
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly agree 27 22,5 23,1 23,1
Agree 53 44,2 45,3 68,4
Neither agree nor disagree 29 24,2 24,8 93,2
Valid
Disagree 1 ,8 ,9 94,0
Strongly disagree 7 5,8 6,0 100,0
Total 117 97,5 100,0
Missing 3 2,5
Total 120 100,0

Use of KM will reduce costs and cope with

economic crisis
044%
045%
040%
035%
030% 023% 024%
025%
020%
015%
010% 006%
005% 001%
000%
Strongly agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
disagree

FIGURE 34. THE USE OF KM MEANS THAT WE CAN REDUCE

SEVERAL COSTS AND COPE WITH THE ECONOMIC CRISIS.

139 | P a g e
Analysis:
Finally, 68% of the employees agreed that the use of knowledge management can
help reduce costs and promote organizations’ ability to cope with the economic crisis.
Hence this is a positive finding for the use of knowledge management in times of
crisis.

Findings:
Majority of the respondents believed that KM in long term will help the organisation
to cope with crisis and reduce costs. These are obvious choices when they know that
real time information sharing between employees and the stakeholders will help to
eliminate the uncertainty factor in decision making process within the organisation.

4.6 Missing value analysis

Due to the fact that a sizable number of missing values were observed during the
descriptive analysis of the data, a missing value analysis was performed in order to
ascertain where these invalid responses and/or non-responses originated from. The
table with all missing values is available in Appendix 2. Most missing values
originated for the four items of “Knowledge Management Initiatives for Enterprises
Using Knowledge Management Systems”, with 21 to 31 missing values. To a degree
this is to be expected since some participants were employed in companies that did
not use a knowledge management system. The first four out of five items of
“Knowledge Management and the Crisis” had between 9 and 10 missing values each,
and the fifth item had 3 missing values. In “Corporate Culture”, items 7, 8 and 9 had 6
to 9 missing values. In the section of “Knowledge Management Initiatives”, items 3 and
4 had 6 and 7 missing values respectively.

The analysis showed that according to the sample characteristics of position and
industry type, the missing values were embedded as follows.

Overall, from the total number of 195 missing values spread over 120 participants in
41 items, many missing values originated from respondents who belonged to the
support staff (N=26 missing). The manager position equally created 26 missing values

140 | P a g e
and the position of technical staff produced 24 missing values. Those belonging to the
position of executive officer originated the most (36) missing values.

Furthermore, it can be noted that according to industry type, those belonging to the
I.T. sector had the most missing values (21), followed by the Shipping and the
Construction sectors with 20 missing values each (Appendix 2).

4.6 Results from the Interviews

There were eleven respondents (N=11), employees and managers, that participated in
the interview. Their question responses are categorized according to the following
research themes.

Research theme 1: The use of Knowledge Management before the crisis

In question 1, “Where did your company learn about Knowledge Management

strategy from?”, eight (N=9) interviewees had been informed about knowledge
management through in-house seminars, “from competitors” and from the best
practices in their business sector. One interviewee seemed to have researched
knowledge management on his own (“I had to design and implement a personal
Knowledge Management strategy, which would help me in my upcoming work”).
Two interviewees did not know the term “knowledge management” before the crisis
but indicated that they already practiced some aspects of it (“I was not aware of the
term KM before the crisis. However, once I got informed I realised that I knew more
than I thought about it and recently we started using KM practices”).

An important hint is derived from question 4. To the question “Did your company
implement the fundamentals of Knowledge Management before the economic crisis?”,
eight (N=8) interviewees stated that their company had implemented a KM program
prior to the crisis (“since 2009”; “Yes”; “Yes, to the extent my company’s size
allowed to do so”). The remaining three interviewees replied that their company
implemented a KM program during or after the crisis (“No, we implemented it during
the crisis”; “No, we did it after the crisis. There was a need to rethink and reorganized

141 | P a g e
our orientation”; “My office set up during the economic crisis”). Moreover the
participants had some experience with KM which was necessary for this interview.

Some of the participants mentioned that the case of knowledge management was
brought to them by outsiders. Someone who has worked for a shipping company
mentioned that “Our company has to follow some guidelines made from IMO and
from our certification body”. In some cases the firms had to install a Knowledge
management system and procedures not as a result of the company’s willingness to
install it but as a perceived pressure from the external environment and from
stakeholders.

Moreover, it seemed that not all firms were enthusiastic about knowledge
management, but felt that they had to implement it due to outside pressures and not
due to a feeling that it would improve their performance.

Research theme 2: Implementation of Knowledge Management

In question 2, “Did things change after the implementation of Knowledge

Management compared to how things worked before?”, all interviewees (N=11)
indicated that knowledge management, especially when it is applied “formally”
(N=4), “systematically” (N=3), and “continuously” (N=1), brought about positive
changes (e.g.: “Yes, we became more efficient. Raised empathy for our clients”;
“…whenever I implemented knowledge management systematically and in a more
organized manner, I came up with better results since KM allowed me to operate in a
greater scale”; “A few months after the implementation of the KM program several
improvements have been noticed especially in the field of communicating lessons
learnt and previous experience”; and “archiving previous work, benchmarks and
innovative ideas in my domain… helpful in the implementation of projects or tasks
that I undertook or proposed to my clients”).

In question 3, “Did Knowledge Management help your personnel to feel more secure
about their positions?”, ten out of the eleven interviewees agreed that they indeed feel
more secure (“yes” N=6; “To a certain degree it did”, “it did”). Two of those also

142 | P a g e
mentioned that businesses can become healthier (“KM produces healthier
businesses”; two replied that valuable information can be drawn from the KM
database (“and facilitate the problem solving process”), and an executive mentioned
that “The awareness, creativity and autonomous decisions were increased”. One
participant did not signify if the employees or in that case the external partners felt
secure (“external partners… contribute in the enrichment of the knowledge database
that I keep, sustaining my Knowledge Management Strategy”).

Moreover it was clear that the use of Knowledge management brings mostly positive
feelings. The personnel seems to feel more secure and that they capitalize on the
benefits of such practice. Both the personnel and the managers and executives
believed that knowledge contributes not only by increasing personal reflection but
also by increasing mental capacity, making employees and the firm in general more
creative and innovative, something that is necessary in today’s environment.

Research theme 3: The use of Knowledge Management during the crisis

In question 5, “Did the implementation of Knowledge Management help the company

overcome the economic crisis?”, all interviewees agreed to some extent that it was
helpful. Specifically, six (N=7) agreed that it did help the company (“Yes it has”;
“Yes. I managed to understand our competitive advantage and diversify from our
competitors”; “KM helped my business to deepen its operation in certain sectors… it
gave me means to survive economically speaking”; “overall I would say that it has
been helpful”; “the Knowledge Management is a tool, which helped me several times
to face and overcome difficulties in my work. The effective implementation of the
Knowledge Management in my daily work contributed in making my office more
competitive”). Additionally, two managers agreed that it has been helpful but they
could not agree to the phrasing of the question because “It would be too remote to
make such a statement. It obviously helped by increasing efficiency but there is not
any direct correlation between these variables”; and “I would not go so far as to say
that we overcame the crisis”.

143 | P a g e
In question 6, “What were the main points of Knowledge Management that helped the
company overcome the economic crisis?”, the participating interviewees provided
diverse responses and all mentioned some benefit or benefits. Six discussed
improvements to the efficiency of the organization (“The overall efficiency of the
organization was improved as a result of the KM scheme”; “More efficient
organization led to customer empathy and resulted to more and better services for our
clients”; “cost reduction, improvement of employee performance and improvement of
overall efficiency through the use of state of the art IT systems”). Two interviewees
noted the reassessment of previous strategies (e.g.: “Review and assessment of the
company’s previous strategies during periods of recession”). Two employees
mentioned the benefit to networking (e.g.: “It made networking more understandable
and meaningful… information and data were transformed into knowledge, sharing
and synthesis became possible and easier. KM changed the way information was
stored in order to be more meaningful thus more precious”). Finally, one executive
indicated the value of benchmarking in knowledge management, as well as
highlighted its competitive advantage (“the previous work… may be used as
benchmarks for the future projects. It helps engineers and engineering companies to
become more competitive”).

In question 7, “What were the main outcomes of the implementation of the Knowledge
Management strategy that became obvious during the economic crisis?”, five
interviewees, two managers and three employees, mentioned the feeling of security in
the company regarding costs (e.g.: “The company felt more secure in implementing a
cost-reduction strategy and knew exactly what to expect and where to focus”; “we felt
more safe and confident to deal with and limit our costs”), while another two
managers mentioned the apparent outcome of improved services (“services came
more in line with what customers want”; and “Our organization offered more
demand-driven services”).

Three interviewees mentioned that the knowledge gained through the implementation
of a KM program sharpens their focus when dealing with aspects of business: “the
resulting knowledge becomes more focused and helps us to deal with clients and
coworkers”; “the Knowledge Management helps the engineers to use information and
details of their previous works and to adapt them in their new projects”; and

144 | P a g e
“Markets, clients, funding methods, stakeholders, contacts and leads, all these factors
become a troublesome equation. KMS helps you sort out this by bringing forward a
clearer picture of each situation. By transforming information to knowledge, business
becomes more precise to the needs it deals with”. Finally, one mentioned the
psychological benefits in that it “brings the people involved closer psychologically
which is, after all, the basis of commerce”.

In question 8, “What were, according to your opinion, the main mounds of the
economic crisis that Knowledge Management strategy had to deal with so as to come
up with positive results?”, four interviewees mentioned cost-effectiveness (“the
implementation of a successful cost-effective strategy” and “to assist management in
developing and implementing an appropriate cost-reduction strategy”), as well as the
appropriate informational support of the employees in order for the program to be
successful (“the provision of adequate information to all workers so that the program
can actually be implemented”; “to assist employees by providing them all the
necessary information and backup towards the implementation of the new strategy”).

For two participants, the main challenges of the KM strategy were the heightened
competition (“fierce competition”; “there was a great deal of competition for any
work to be found”), as well as the fact that the customers were better informed due to
the reduction of income (“people weigh their choices more carefully”; “more
informed customers due to the fewer disposable income”).

Two employees emphasised time constraints as a challenge of the economic crisis that
Knowledge Management had to succeed in dealing with (“It is hard to practice a
knowledge management strategy and expect immediate results”; “The pressure of
time (need for quick results) on an organization that otherwise needs calmness to take
advantage of the collective wisdom KM can bring”). Another two participants
mentioned the challenge of having the ‘right’ people to run the program (“One of the
main challenges is to properly train and inform and to select the right people for the
right tasks”; “the people needed to operate properly”), and interviewee viewed
investing in infrastructure as a challenge for engineers: “it became difficult for
freelance engineers to invest in infrastructures, like special Knowledge Management

145 | P a g e
software tools etc. that will support significantly the Knowledge Management of their
office”.

Research theme 4: Knowledge management on the aftermath of the crisis and its
impact on performance

In question 9, “How did the positive results affect the personal development of your
employees?”, five interviewees emphasised the positive influence on creativity
(“many of them displayed a significant degree of creativeness and innovation”;
“employees… could be more creative in their work”; “increased creativity”, “more
creative”). Three interviewees mentioned how their employees felt more secure
(“Employees felt more secure”; “employees were more at ease”; “It stimulates…
sense of job security”). Two also mentioned the raising of employee self-esteem (“It
stimulates their self-esteem”; “the employees’ sense of self-worth is heightened”).
Two employees replied that the positive results gave courage to their contacts or
collaborators (“my business contacts, people integral in the business, were
encouraged” and “Speaking of them I can see that when positive results come, it gives
them courage which often is more valuable than profit”). Finally, a “reduction of
employee turndown and errors” was noted by one executive.

In question 10, “Were the positive results of Knowledge Management related to the
productivity of your personnel?”, all eleven interviewees agreed (“Yes, in fact the
overall employee productivity rose by more than 10% after the implementation of the
KM program”; “Yes, that was definitely the case”; “Of course… It helps them work
efficiently which is depicted in the results of their work”; “Productivity increased”;
“Yes. More tasks are being implemented in a daily basis, new quality services offered,
less mistakes and setbacks”; “The benefits of the KM program were not only confined
to productivity”; “KM is directly linked to productivity as every business function is”.
Two interviewees additionally noted the importance of creativity of the employees
(“The increase of ease and creativity among the employees was a refreshing change”;
and “productivity alone is not enough. It has to be creative productivity. KM is a
creative process… A more visionary and inspiring management is rather essential”).

146 | P a g e
In question 11, “How did Knowledge Management affect the productivity of your
personnel?”, five interviewees noted the significance of team work in increased
productivity (“team-work was instrumental in bringing about a higher output”, “It
made the personnel working closely together (as a team) to achieve the requested
results and reduce absenteeism and errors at work”, as well as that the “collaborative
tools that we used increased the level of team working among our employees”) and
hence team dynamics were improved as a result.

Another four participants indicated that the influence to productivity was indirect
through the gaining of a deeper understanding, or a better psychological state of the
personnel or their colleagues (“KM led to the creation of a holistic understanding of
the vision, milestones and procedures to the personnel”; “it was through the deeper
understanding on the operation of the company by the personnel that productivity was
increased”; “primarily through strengthening the courage and the resolve of the
employees”; “Speaking of colleagues and not employees, I got the impression that the
quality KM brought to their everyday job, kept their spirit up under the gloomy days
of economic crisis. I think it had a very positive effect indirectly on their
productivity”). Finally, two participants stated that indeed productivity was aided
through the fast access to information (“the quick and easy finding of information
required for the prospect work, it helps to complete our work fast, successfully and
economically”; “simply, that faster access to information meant a faster provision of
services”).

In question 12, “Were the positive results of Knowledge Management related to the
performance of the company?”, all eleven participants agreed (“Yes”; “Definitely”;
“Of course”; “the implementation of knowledge management in my office contributed
in raising the productivity of myself and my partners and improving my office
performance”). Individual responses included the following: “positive results of KM
and company performance, are related”; “employee efficiency improved overall
performance”; “there is definitely a positive influence on performance”; “this boost in
efficiency has by all means improved the company’s overall performance”; “the
program has an observable effect on overall performance”; and “Of course, in terms

147 | P a g e
of net revenues – more sales as well as restructuring of the organizations’ cost
structure”.

In question 13, “What were the main characteristics of Knowledge Management that
were related to the performance of the company?”, the interviewees brought up
interesting and diverse characteristics. Two participants mentioned that KM results in
the ‘smartening’ of management in general (“KM by large makes tasks be more
informed and better decisions are reached”; “It made the whole performance smarter.
The very nature of KM is a smarter process than let’s say business information
management. This I would say is the main characteristic of KM that put the whole
team into a smarter pathway and improved its performance both in physical work
done and psychological process”). Other singular characteristics of KM related to
performance discussed by the interviewees were the following: “emphasis on people
(motivation and satisfaction from work)”, “mentor-mentee relations”;
“implementation of support systems for group work”; “re-organization of structure”
and “management by objectives”; “focus on quality”; and “Knowing how to use these
information, their tasks become much easier and their results are faster and
improved”.

In question 14, “Were the changes based on the application of Knowledge

Management reflected on the rendering of services of your company?”, all eleven
participants agreed (N=11). Specifically, there was an increase “in terms of quantity
and quality”, improved service though “more quick and efficient response to customer
needs”, an “increase of customer loyalty and satisfaction”, a “reduction of customer
complaints” and a “reduction of operational cost – more competitive pricing to
customers”. For one interviewee, the changes brought about by KM were reflected on
performance: “the improved rendering demanded more KM application, so it moved
the wheel of performance”.

In question 15, “What would be the main characteristics that Knowledge Management
strategies should assimilate in the future?”, different participants provided different
responses. Specifically, four interviewees emphasized the need for future knowledge
management strategies to be practical (“be practical and focus on real-world
problems- not theories”; “focus on practical, real-life situations”; “knowledge

148 | P a g e
management strategies should be developed and adapted depending on the nature of
the engineering companies, their needs and to the innovations of the sectors that each
company is involved”; “they should be practical and grounded on accurate and easy-
to-access information”). Another two respondents noted that KM in the future should
offer a competitive advantage (“It should continue to provide significant advantage to
the company”; “offer a clear competitive advantage so that employees can appreciate
their benefit”). Knowledge management strategies should also be “easy to implement
by personnel” as well as have the manager’s approval, while they should also
“Transform explicit to tacit knowledge” (N=2). Finally, two interviewees commented
that KM needs to be agile and focused (“Being focused, right on target, is not always
easy to achieve but knowledge management strategies need exactly that”; “As KM is
a product of our fast changing times, it has to show agility without losing its target”).

Research theme 5: Knowledge management and culture

In the case of the 16th question, “What was the influence of culture on the
implementation of knowledge management?”, of the eleven participants, seven argued
that the culture of the firm is not always favorable and promoting of the sharing of
new ideas and the creation of knowledge. As one of those participants put it, “Despite
having advanced KM systems, still the employees afraid to share their ideas. There is
always the fear that top management will not like their ideas and they do not feel
comfortable with sharing ideas”.

In a similar vein, another interviewee provided the following analysis: “The mother-
company is found in Germany and they encourage us to share ideas, while they tend
to send manuals so as to generate new ideas on this. However, the economic crisis has
changed our social interactions. We feel isolated while there is a spirit that if we say
something or propose a new idea, then our position will be under threat. So, we prefer
not to talk or share ideas even though the management pretends that it encourages it. I
have the reality that the management does not want to share ideas or generate
knowledge” On the other hand, one executive argued that the causes for this are not to
be found solely with the management: “We want to have our staff to generate and
share knowledge. However they do not want to. I think the overall culture in Greece

149 | P a g e
does not promote such activities. Nonetheless, when there is an employee or a
manager who is coming with an idea I think that we have some of the best minds
which generate some of the best ideas. However, it is important for me as an
executive to motivate them to generate ideas and to forget their culture”. One
interviewee stressed the need for expert advice that will effectively illuminate the true
functions and benefits of knowledge management to everyone: “Several companies
and offices try to organize their knowledge management strategies without any
expert's advice, facing a huge lack of expertise and information… people who are
involved in knowledge management area should take actions in disseminating the
meaning, the functions and the applicability of knowledge management in the daily
operation”.

What we see is that the culture affects the mentality of people. The firms have the
systems and most of them want to have KM. However, the employees regard the use
of KM as a threat for them. The economic crisis has inflamed this condition and
negatively impacted the relationship between the members of the organization. Hence,
the worsening of the workplace climate appears to affect variables related to KM,
such as trust and socialization.

4.7 Hypothesis Testing

For the testing of the two hypotheses of the research, two sets of analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests were performed. All statistically significant results of these tests can
be found in Appendix 4. For the first hypothesis, the dependent variables were the
items pertaining to knowledge management and the economic crisis (Section E, Items
1 to 5), and the independent variables were the items of knowledge management
initiatives and KM for enterprises using knowledge management systems (Section D,
Items 1 to 10).

For Hypothesis H1: The economic crisis, as reported by employees and managers,
affects the need of companies for knowledge management, the ANOVA tests
revealed multiple statistically significant differentiations in the sample’s responses to
knowledge management, by knowledge management during a crisis. All items of KM

150 | P a g e
during a crisis were to a higher or lesser extent statistically significant. Specifically,
Item 1, “The economic crisis has forced us to reduce the KM initiatives”, had all 8
statistically significant effects; Item 5, “The use of KM means that we can reduce
several costs and cope with the economic crisis”, had 7 significant effects; Item 4,
“KM can provide solutions for the economic crisis” had 6 statistically significant
effects. Furthermore, Item 2, “I prefer to cut some other functions rather than the KM
function” had 5 statistically significant effects; and Item 3, “KM functions have a
high cost and thus we prefer to reduce them”, had 4 statistically significant effects (all
results p≤0.05, Appendix 4).

Therefore, Hypothesis H1 is accepted, and the economic crisis, as reported by

employees and managers, affects the need of companies for knowledge management.

For the second hypothesis, the dependent variables were the perceptions of knowledge
management and for enterprises using knowledge management systems (Section D,
Items 1-10) and the independent variables were the items of corporate culture (Section
C, Items 1-19). In Hypothesis H2: Managers’ perceptions of knowledge
management affect the organizational culture, as measured through employee
and manager self-reports, the manager sample was selected, through the SPSS
software, from the broader sample. The ANOVA tests performed showed that there
were numerous statistically significant differences in responses to organizational
culture, by perceptions of knowledge management. Specifically, these were Items: 17
(8 statistically significant results); 16 (7 significant results); 10 (7 significant results);
7, 14 and 18 (6 significant results); 1b, 4 and 9 (5 statistically significant results); 2, 5,
6 and 15 (4 statistically significant results); 1a, 3 and 8 (3 statistically significant
results); and 13 (2 statistically significant results, all p≤0.05, Appendix 4).

Therefore, Hypothesis H2 is also accepted, and managers’ perceptions of knowledge

management affect the organizational culture, as measured through manager self-
reports.

Furthermore, a number of statistical tests were performed in order to ascertain the

influence that the demographic characteristics of the sample may have had on the
responses to the main items of the questionnaire. Towards that aim, the position level

151 | P a g e
 (“executive officer” N=34, “manager” N=29, “technical staff” N=24, “support staff”
N=28, “other” N=5), the merger/acquisition status of the company (“yes” N=40, “no”
N=77, “don’t know” N=2), and the security felt by the respondents (“much more
insecure with my job position” N=58, “nothing has changed” N=31, “my job position
is more secure” N=31) were examined. The items pertaining to the industry type and
the total full-time workforce were not included in the analysis since the responses to
those questions were too numerous to extract any valid inferential results.

One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were employed for the testing. In the
tables that follow, all significant p-values are marked in bold. The full tables of the
inferential analysis can be found in Appendix 4. Regarding the Position in the
Company, the ANOVA tests showed that almost all responses to the main items were
statistically significantly differentiated. Table 41 below presents the main findings.

TABLE 41. POSITION LEVEL AND MAIN ITEMS (ANOVA TESTS).

df F Sig.
1a. Do the people working in your firm know the objectives of the 4 15.987 .000
business as a whole?
1b. Do people in your department know the strategic goals of the 4 10.017 .000
department as a whole?
2. How strong is the feeling of succeeding in your unit? 4 5.746 .000
3. Has the company made clear to its employees the rewards and 4 12.570 .000
punishments?
4. In group projects, how open are people to share their 4 6.066 .000
experiences?
5. In your organizational unit, do workers share information about 4 2.893 .025
what is going on?
6. Are you kept informed by the upper management about what is 4 21.103 .000
happening in the organisation?
7. Does your supervisor control your work activities? 4 .859 .491
8. Does your supervisor encourage you to make your own 4 4.421 .002
decisions?

152 | P a g e
9. Does your supervisor or upper managers encourage you to 4 8.317 .000
participate on information sharing practices?
10. In your job do you have to follow certain procedures, rules or 4 6.709 .000
instructions?
11. Do you trust your coworkers in order to share information with 4 6.563 .000
them according to your project/job?
12. Among your unit and other units do you share information? 4 3.300 .013
13. Do you know who can provide you the appropriate information 4 2.230 .070
in another unit?
14. In general, do the workers/managers/members of staff in your 4 3.724 .007
organization share information?
15. Do you feel comfortable to communicate and share 4 1.258 .290
information?
16. How obliged do you feel to participate in meetings with your 4 2.845 .027
coworkers?
17. How do you assess your opportunity to participate on 4 6.790 .000
discussions?
18. Have you noticed a change to corporate culture during the past 4 5.958 .000
18 months?
If yes, which one of the following phrases represents those 4 34.119 .000
changes?
1. Does your company follow a knowledge management strategy? 4 12.413 .000
2. Are there any officer positions that are related to KM? 4 7.861 .000
3. Which of the below characterise your stage of Knowledge 4 12.580 .000
management (KM) in your organization?
4. How can you describe the information system that your 4 20.447 .000
organisation uses for the information management:
5. Which of the following is the type of knowledge that your 4 4.029 .004
company uses for supporting the KM:
6. Does your company motivate you for sharing your knowledge? 4 4.471 .002
7. If a knowledge management system is currently used in your 4 14.854 .000
company what is your opinion about

153 | P a g e
8. How comfortable do you feel to communicate and participate in 4 2.169 .079
these KM systems?
9. Do you share information through the system? 4 3.607 .009
10. What do you think are the main obstacles of your knowledge- 4 5.853 .000
sharing through the set of knowledge management systems?
1. The economic crisis has forced us to reduce the KM initiatives. 4 2.838 .028
2. I prefer to cut some other functions rather the KM function. 4 7.791 .000
3. KM functions have a high cost; thus we prefer to reduce them. 4 2.269 .067

4. KM can provide solutions for the economic crisis. 4 9.499 .000

5. The use of KM means that we can reduce several costs and cope 4 1.477 .214
with the economic crisis.

Out of the total of thirty-five (35) main questionnaire items, only six items were not
statistically significant by position level. The non-significant items were three out of
twenty items for Corporate Culture (Items 7, 13 and 15); one item out of ten
pertaining to Knowledge Management Initiatives, and specifically Enterprises Using
Knowledge Management Systems(Item 8); and two items out of five pertaining to
Knowledge Management and the Economic Crisis (Items 3 and 5).

Thus only ‘Knowledge Management and the Economic Crisis’ was less affected by
the position level of the respondent, with 2 out of 5 items being non-significant.
Responses to Corporate Culture and Knowledge Management Initiatives were highly
influenced by position type.

The non-parametric post-hoc tests that were performed provided a complex picture
(Appendix 4). Thus, as per Position level in Corporate Culture:

 The support staff and the executive officers responded more (statistically
significantly) positively than managers and technical staff that the people
working in their firm know the objectives of the business as a whole.
 The support staff responded more positively that managers and technical staff
and the executive officers responded more positively than managers that

154 | P a g e
 the people in their department know the strategic goals of the department
as a whole
 The support staff, technical staff and executive officers responded more
favorably than managers that the feeling of succeeding in their unit is
strong
 The support staff answered more favorably than the technical staff and the
managers that the company has made clear to its employees the rewards
and punishments
 The executive officers, managers and support staff were more positive than
the technical staff that in group projects, people are open to share their
experiences.
 The executive officers were more positive than the technical staff that in their
organizational unit, workers share information about what is going on
 The executive officers and support staff were more positive than the technical
staff and the managers that they are kept informed by the upper
management about what is happening in the organization
 The managers were more positive than the technical staff that their supervisor
encourages them to make their own decisions
 The support staff, the executive officers and the managers were more positive
than the technical staff that their supervisor or upper manager encourages
them to participate in information sharing practices
 The technical staff and the support staff were more positive than the managers
that in their job they have to follow certain procedures, rules or
instructions
 The executive officers and the managers were more positive than the technical
staff that they trust their coworkers in order to share information with
them according to their project/job
 The technical staff felt less obliged than the managers to participate in
meetings with their coworkers, and
 The support staff were more positive than managers that they had noticed a
change to corporate culture during the past 18 months.

Regarding Position level and Knowledge Management Initiatives:

155 | P a g e
  The support staff, the executive officers and the managers were more inclined
than the technical staff to respond that their company follows a knowledge
management strategy
 The support staff were more inclined than the technical staff and the
managers, and the executive officers more inclined than the technical staff
to answer that there are officer positions related to knowledge
management in the company, and
 The executive officers were more inclined than the technical staff to reply that
their company motivates them for sharing their knowledge.

Regarding Position level and Knowledge Management and the Economic Crisis:

 The managers were more inclined than the support staff to agree that the
economic crisis has forced them to reduce the KM initiatives
 The executive officers were more likely than the support and the technical
staff and the managers were more likely than the support staff to agree that
they prefer to cut some other functions rather the KM function, and
 The executive officers and the support staff were more inclined than technical
staff and managers to respond that KM can provide solutions for the
economic crisis.

With respect to the Merge/Acquisition Status of the company, only one item out of
the thirty-five main items was statistically significant (Corporate Culture, Item 18,
F=3.09, df=2, p=0.049). The post-hoc test did not reveal a statistically significant
difference in the responses to this item depending on whether the company had or had
not undergone a merger or acquisition. Thus, the merge/acquisition status of the
company did not significantly differentiate the responses to the main items of the
study (Appendix 4).

Concerning Job Security/Insecurity of the employees, the battery of ANOVA tests

showed that out of the thirty-five main items of the questionnaire, twenty-five (25)
were statistically significantly differentiated. The remaining ten (10) items were not
statistically significant. The non-significant items were four out of twenty for

156 | P a g e
 Corporate Culture (Items 11, 12, 17, and 19 – the “If yes” item), four items out of ten
pertaining to Knowledge Management Initiatives, specifically one item for
Knowledge Management Initiatives (Item 5) and three items regarding to Enterprises
Using Knowledge Management Systems (7 to 9), and finally two items out of five
relating to Knowledge Management and the Economic Crisis (Items 4 and 5, Table
42).

TABLE 42. JOB SECURITY AND MAIN ITEMS (ANOVA TESTS).

df F Sig.
1a. Do the people working in your firm know the objectives of the 2 11.285 .000
business as a whole?
1b. Do people in your department know the strategic goals of the 2 10.319 .000
department as a whole?
2. How strong is the feeling of succeeding in your unit? 2 11.924 .000
3. Has the company made clear to its employees the rewards and 2 6.859 .002
punishments?
4. In group projects, how open are people to share their experiences? 2 16.437 .000
5. In your organizational unit, do workers share information about what is 2 17.728 .000
going on?
6. Are you kept informed by the upper management about what is 2 9.720 .000
happening in the organisation?
7. Does your supervisor control your work activities? 2 17.171 .000
8. Does your supervisor encourage you to make your own decisions? 2 23.176 .000
9. Does your supervisor or upper managers encourage you to participate 2 29.682 .000
on information sharing practices?
10. In your job do you have to follow certain procedures, rules or 2 5.165 .007
instructions?
11. Do you trust your coworkers in order to share information with them 2 1.379 .256
according to your project/job?
12. Among your unit and other units do you share information? 2 1.989 .142
13. Do you know who can provide you the appropriate information in 2 8.011 .001
another unit?

157 | P a g e
14. In general, do the workers/managers/members of staff in your 2 32.835 .000
organization share information?
15. Do you feel comfortable to communicate and share information 2 5.533 .005
16. How obliged do you feel to participate in meetings with your 2 10.039 .000
coworkers
17. How do you assess your opportunity to participate on discussions? 2 2.033 .136
18. Have you noticed a change to corporate culture in the past 18 months? 2 7.445 .001
If yes, which one of the following phrases represents those changes? 2 .980 .381
1. Does your company follow a knowledge management strategy? 2 11.681 .000
2. Are there any officer positions related to knowledge management? 2 43.387 .000
3. Which of the below characterise your stage of Knowledge management 2 8.398 .000
(KM) in your organization?
4. How can you describe the information system that your organisation 2 3.853 .024
uses for the information management:
5. Which of the following is the type of knowledge that your company 2 .902 .408
uses for supporting the KM:
6. Does your company motivate you for sharing your knowledge? 2 26.425 .000
7. If a knowledge management system is currently used in your company 2 1.222 .300
what is your opinion about
8. How comfortable do you feel to communicate and participate in these 2 2.378 .099
KM systems
9. Do you share information through the system? 2 1.585 .210
10. What do you think are the main obstacles of your knowledge-sharing 2 16.763 .000
through the set of knowledge management systems?
1. The economic crisis has forced us to reduce the KM initiatives 2 7.774 .001
2. I prefer to cut some other functions rather the KM function 2 5.231 .007
3. KM functions have a high cost and thus we prefer to reduce them 2 4.052 .020
4. KM can provide solutions for the economic crisis 2 1.627 .201
5. The use of KM means that we can reduce several costs and cope with 2 1.491 .230
the economic crisis

Thus ‘Knowledge Management Initiatives’ and ‘Knowledge Management and the

Economic Crisis’ were less affected by the feelings of the respondents regarding job

158 | P a g e
security, while responses to Corporate Culture were highly influenced by feelings of
job security/insecurity.

The non-parametric post-hoc tests that were performed provided the following
information (Appendix 4). Therefore, as per Feelings of More
Security/Insecurity/No Change in the Last 18 Months and Corporate Culture:

 Those who felt more secure and those who felt that nothing had changed
during the past 18 months, were more positive than those who felt more
‘job-insecure’ that the people working in their firm have good knowledge
regarding the objectives of the business as a whole, as well as that the
people in their department knew the strategic goals of the department as a
whole
 Those who felt secure were more likely than those who felt insecure and those
who felt that nothing had changed, to respond that the feeling of
succeeding in their unit is strong and that the company had made clear to
its employees the rewards and punishments
 Those who felt secure and those who felt that nothing had changed were more
positive than those who felt insecure that in group projects people are to
share their experiences, that in their organizational unit workers share
information about what is going on, that they are kept informed by the
upper management about what is happening in the organization
 Those who felt that nothing had changed were more likely than the secure and
insecure respondents and the insecure respondents were more likely than
secure respondents to report that their supervisor controls their work
 Those who felt more secure were more likely than the insecure respondents
and those who felt that nothing had changed, and those that felt that
nothing had changed were more likely than the insecure respondents to
report that their supervisor encourages them to make their own decisions
 Those who felt secure and those who felt that nothing had changed during the
last 18 months, were more positive than those who felt more insecure, that
their supervisor or upper manager encourages them to participate in

159 | P a g e
 information sharing practices, as well as that they knew who can provide
them with the appropriate information in another unit
 Those who felt more secure during the past 18 months, felt more obliged than
the more insecure and the ‘no-change’ groups to participate in meetings
with their coworkers, and
 Those who felt more insecure during the last 18 months were more likely than
those who felt that nothing had changed to have noticed a corporate
culture change during the same time period.

Regarding security/insecurity and Knowledge Management Initiatives:

 Those who felt more secure in the past 18 months were more likely than those
who felt more insecure and those who felt there had been no change, to
respond that their company follows a knowledge management strategy, as
well as that there are officer positions in their company that are related to
knowledge management, and
 Those who felt more secure and those who felt that nothing had changed in
the previous 18 months were more likely than those who felt more
insecure to state that their company motivates them for sharing their
knowledge.

Finally, regarding security/insecurity and Knowledge Management and the

Economic Crisis:

 Those respondents who felt more insecure with their job during the last 18
months agreed more than those feeling more secure that the economic
crisis has forced them to reduce the KM initiatives and that they prefer to
cut some other functions rather the KM function and, along with those
feeling that nothing had changed, agreed more that KM functions have a
high cost and that they thus prefer to reduce them.

160 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS

The current chapter deals with summarising the entire study on the basis of findings
obtained from primary and secondary research. Quantitative data collected through
the distribution of survey questionnaire provided extensive empirical data to resolve
the identified problems. Through conclusions, an attempt has been to explain the
impact of economic crisis on the knowledge management of companies based in
Greece. Moreover, the role of knowledge management for countering the economic
turmoil has been discussed on the basis of arguments obtained from primary research.
Research hypothesis relevant to the study, formulated in chapter 1 has also been
proved on the basis of empirical findings.

5.1 Discussion of results and research hypothesis

The present sample was comprised of 120 participants, 28% executive officers, 24%
managers, 23% support staff, and 20% technical staff, belonging to the I. T. Sector
(18%), Construction (17. 5%), Shipping (17%) and Education (11%) among other
sectors, and working in a company of which the total full-time workforce was less
than 100 people (78%).

Concerning Recent Changes in the Firm, the majority of the sample had not gone
through such changes (65%), but one in three (34%) were working for a company
undergoing such changes. The monthly personal income of 43% of the respondents
had either remained the same or increased, and one in three (33%) answered that the
company’s revenue has also remained the same or has increased; in both cases, the
majority (67%) answered that income had been reduced. Almost one in two
participants (48%) had felt “much more” insecure with their job position during the
last 18 months.

Regarding the Corporate Culture, 38% of the participants replied that the people
working in their firm knew few things and 15% that they knew nothing about or had
poor knowledge about the objectives of the business as a whole; on the other hand,
47% answered that the people in their firm had at least good knowledge of the

161 | P a g e
objectives. Furthermore, 29% of the employee participants answered that the
employees in their department knew few things and 24% that they knew nothing
about or had a poor knowledge of the strategic goals of the department as a whole;
conversely, 47% answered that those people had at least good knowledge of the
overall strategic goals of the company.

The strength of the feeling of success in their unit was reported as being moderate,
with a mean of 2.7, and the company was viewed as only having made moderately
clear the rewards and punishments, with a mean of 3.1. Furthermore, 48% of the
employee participants reported that in group projects, people are open to share their
experiences, while 46% stated that people are not always open and 7% that they are
not at all open. In this vein, and given that culture affects the flow of information and
knowledge within the firm, the percentage of 48% is not really high for a culture that
promotes knowledge and knowledge management.

On the basis of this finding it can be inferred that the scope for knowledge/
information sharing is limited that may also hamper the decision making process.
Economic crisis brings a sense of urgency where time constrained decisions and
subsequently actions need to be taken to save the rapidly exhausting business
resources. Participative corporate culture fosters the knowledge management process
by bringing together employees at different organisational levels for collaborative
decision making. However, it is apparent that the current culture of the companies in
the research may not foster the appropriate conditions that will favor knowledge
management.

Many employees reported that workers in their organizational unit share some
information (48%), and 35% answered that the workers share all the information
available. The upper management of the organization kept most employees informed
regarding what is happening in the organization (57%), a positive finding that
illustrates the fact that the upper management aimed to share information across the
company and thus, indirectly, to encourage knowledge management. The individuals
working in the higher managerial level, particularly the senior managers are
responsible for making strategies, plans and organisational objectives which is
cascaded to the middle and lower levels for implementation. It can be inferred that

162 | P a g e
senior managers of these firms encourage open communication, despite the presence
of top down approach to communication process.

Six out of ten employees (60%) signified that their supervisors control a proportion of
their work activities and 30% found that all of their activities are controlled by their
supervisors. Only 10% reported their supervisors as not controlling their activities.
There was thus a tendency on behalf of the supervisors to control many work
activities, a fact that does not positively serve the establishment of a culture that
promotes knowledge management, where the individual has a relative autonomy
within the workplace in which he or she can share his or her experiences.

As regards job autonomy and its significance in a culture that promotes knowledge
management, 64% of the participants stated that their supervisors encourage them to
make their own decisions, while a lesser percentage of 47% stated that their
supervisors or upper managers encouraged them to take part in information sharing.
Autonomy also helps employees to be creative in their day to day operational
activities and be innovative as per the changing business environment. The
operational staffs who are consumer facing and are in a better position to take quick
decisions in order to adjust with changes in technology, augmenting production in
presence of resource constraints, financial constraints etc.

During tough economic times, employee autonomy is essential to encourage them to

take their own decision and quickly adjust with the changing business environment in
terms of continuing production using lean techniques. Supervisors’ encouraging their
subordinates to take their own decisions can play an instrumental role in the process
of knowledge management. It is evident from these percentages the current culture of
the organizations under study may not always allow for employee autonomy and the
promotion of knowledge management; this was more pronounced for employee
participation in knowledge sharing. The conclusion here is that the corporate culture
of the Greek firms under study can be improved so as to provide better knowledge
management.

Nine out of ten participants (89%) reported that their jobs entail specific rules,
instructions and procedures that need to be followed. In this vein, most of their tasks

163 | P a g e
in the workplace were based on those guidelines. Eight out of ten participants (84%)
reported that they trusted their coworkers when it comes to sharing work-relevant
information with them. Trust is a prerequisite for effective knowledge management,
and this is a positive result for the Greek firms studied.

Nine out of ten participants (92%) agreed that they share information within their
units and with other business units, as well as that they know who can provide them
with the appropriate information in other units (85%). Most employees reported that
they felt more comfortable communicating and sharing information with coworkers
(70%), rather than with people in other units (21%) or other company branches (9%).
Employees feeling comfortable to share information and feedback with other strategic
business units (SBU’s) help in effective problem solving that arise during economic
crisis. Coordinating the different business units helps to evaluate the risks associated
with a certain decision and thereby helps in mitigating risks in the face of economic
turmoil. Feedback collated from different units/departments of the same organisation
also helps in proper budgeting and budget allocation, cost reduction, risk management
and taking the most strategic decision during economic chaos.

Regarding the way in which the employees, the managers and the members of staff
shared information in general, overall the majority was reported as providing
information unconditionally (56%), while 44% either expected something in return or
negotiated the return of information exchange. More specifically, 37% shared
information without expectations and having been accustomed to sharing all
information with coworkers; 18% did not expect any information return and provided
assistance for everyone in need of information “for the good of the company”; 23%
negotiated some return; and 19% expected that the information sharing would be
reciprocated later.

From those results, the emerging culture here consists in large part of a free-flowing
and unconditional exchange of information and knowledge; on the other hand, in the
minority of the responses there could be surmised a more exchange-orientated culture
of information exchange, where the employee, manager or other member of staff
providing the information expects something in return, negotiates, or expects some
benefit from this provision. Many employees fail to share explicit knowledge for fear

164 | P a g e
of repercussions which may either have a negative or a positive impact on their job
responsibilities. It depends on the organisational culture and the managerial behaviour
as to how open an employee is in terms of sharing key information that may be vital
for taking tough decisions during hard economic times.

As to how obligated they felt to take part in meetings with co-workers, the employees
participating in the present study indeed felt showed a high sense of obligation for
attendance to such meetings. Most participants preferred to take part in meetings with
their co-workers (63%), as opposed to people from other units (27%) or other
branches of the company (10%). Employees who align their individual goals with the
values and objectives of the organisation are more likely to participate in business
meetings. Sharing experiences relating to a particular business problem helps decision
makers to establish COP (communities of practice). COP’s help in better
understanding of business problems, exchange ideas and develop a common goal.

When asked to signify whether there has been a change in the corporate culture during
the past 18 months, during which time the economic crisis had struck Greece, most
agreed that this had been the case (57%), indicating that the economic crisis may have
indeed affected the culture of those firms. In relation to this, while 23% reported that
the company had become more supportive, most employees responded that the
changes had pushed them to produce more and to give up their labor rights (62%), and
15% answered that the changes had alienated them.

Regarding Knowledge Management Initiatives, and how they are being

implemented in Greece firms under study, 48% of the employees reported that the
company they work for operationalized a knowledge management strategy; this fact
was a positive finding for the use of Knowledge management. On the other hand, 72%
of the employees stated that their company does not have a Knowledge Management
Officer who will lead and guide the knowledge management processes of the firm; a
negative finding if the implementation of any KM strategy is to be effective. for those
who signified that their organization employs a Knowledge Management Officer
(28%), this position was take up primarily by the office managers (N=15), and to a
lesser extent by a senior executive or the director of support (N=4), or by business
development consultants (N=3).

165 | P a g e
As to the degree of knowledge management utilization within the company, overall
65% of the companies included in the study had implemented or were in the process
of developing and implementing a knowledge management program, while 29% had
not implemented such a programme. Knowledge management is a continuous process
and the implementation of knowledge management practices needs dynamic business
leaders who can manage information sharing, resistance to change, and coordinate
groups having conflicting interests, especially in times of economic crisis.

The majority of the employees asked found that the information system is an
organizational need (53%) and 24% that it only serves basic organizational functions;
only 12% found it to serve the purpose of the knowledge management strategy of the
firm. Given that the nature of information system under use is a significant aspect of
knowledge management, it is concluded that companies may have to look more
carefully into their information systems as well as to align those systems to the needs
of their knowledge management practices.

As to the support of Knowledge Management, 22% of the employees reported that

their organization used intranet and email-messaging; on the other hand, systems such
as DMS and Data Warehouses, which are more advanced, sophisticated systems, were
not really used (about 3%). It is thus concluded here that the organizations in the
present study did not invest in state-of-the-art information systems, but instead relied
on simplest, cheapest methods of Knowledge Management support. Implementing
information technology and information systems help in much better information
exchange, storing, and recording, saving and disseminating information in a timely
manner across various organisational levels. HRSS (Human resource shared services)
provides an effective tool for information storage and sharing where employees across
all departments/units and at different hierarchical levels share best practices. Using
intranet for internal communication also fosters knowledge sharing which influences
strategic thinking and policy making during uncertain business environment.

The majority of the respondents agreed that the company motivates employees
towards the sharing of information (66%), which was a positive finding that shows
that firms encourage their employees to share their knowledge. Another positive

166 | P a g e
finding of the research was that in the companies that utilized Knowledge
Management systems, nine out of ten employees used (90%) and felt comfortable
participating in and communicating through the KM system (92%).

Finally, the main obstacles identified in the knowledge-sharing process of the KM

systems of the studied Greek firms, were technical problems and difficulties (45%),
the organizational culture (19%) and the lack of trust (13%). Technical problems
result in hindrance to knowledge sharing in terms of keying information, knowledge
transmission across various organisational levels, difficulty in accessing information
etc. Lack of trust may be caused due to misuse of confidential data or manipulation of
original information during the knowledge transfer process. Lack of trust ruins
employee confidence in terms of disclosing true information and participating in
decision making during uncertain/urgent economic situation.

Regarding the relationship between Knowledge Management and the Economic

Crisis, 26% of the employees reported that the economic crisis had reduced the KM
initiatives of their organization; conversely, 38% disagreed that this was the case,
while 36% remained neutral on this issue. Thus, the economic crisis had had some
impact on the KM initiatives of the companies under study. About a third of the
sample (32%) reported that they would sooner reduce some other operation rather
than the KM function, while about one in four disagreed (24%) and 44% assumed a
neutral stance. Therefore, a large proportion of the sample ascribed great importance
to knowledge management. This is evident in the sample’s view on KM practice cost
reduction – only 15% agreed that knowledge management functions should be
restricted, even though in times of economic crises organizations are forced to find
ways to reduce their costs.

Crucially, 62% of the employees stated that Knowledge Management can provide
solutions for the inhospitable environment of the economic crisis. The conclusion for
this finding is that the employees of the Greek firms under study regarded knowledge
as a significant factor in the betterment of economic conditions. Finally, 68% of the
sample also agreed that the use of knowledge management can help to reduce
organizational costs as well as to promote the organization’s ability to cope with the
economic crisis.

167 | P a g e
From this it is concluded that the use of knowledge management can be instrumental
in times of crisis. It can be inferred that having a knowledge management framework
in place helps to explain the decision failures, avoiding past mistakes and facilitate
correct decision making during economic challenges. Greek firms believe in
knowledge management practices which imply that they have the capability to plan,
organise, motivate and control operations and processes and capitalise on its
knowledge sharing assets, its employees. Greek firms were also found to be capable
of taking business decisions by forming a consensus across organisational levels. The
most significant aspect of knowledge management is the implementation of lean
principles in production and operations by sharing best practices across strategic
business units.

Concerning the Interviews of the eleven employee, executives and manager

participants, and taking into consideration the review of the literature, the fondings
were categorized in the following unifying themes. In the first research theme, “The
use of Knowledge Management before the crisis”, most (9) had been informed about
knowledge management through in-house seminars, from the competitors, from the
best practices in their business sector. One had researched knowledge management on
his own, and two were not familiar with the terminology but utilized some of its
aspects. Most interviewees (8) were part of companies that implemented the
fundamentals of knowledge management before the economic crisis, while 3
interviewees replied that their companies implemented a KM program during or after
the crisis. Not all firms were enthusiastic about implementing a knowledge
management strategy though, although they did follow the company policy as a
means to improve performance.

In the second theme, “The Implementation of Knowledge Management”, all

interviewees agreed that compared to how things worked before, the implementation
of knowledge management brought about positive changes and feelings. Almost all
(10) interviewees agreed that knowledge management helped their personnel or
external partners to feel more secure about their positions.

168 | P a g e
In the third theme, “The use of Knowledge Management during the crisis”, all agreed
that to some extent the implementation of knowledge management helped the
company overcome the economic crisis. Many interviewees (6) noted the importance
of improvements to the efficiency of the organization in overcoming the economic
crisis with the aid of knowledge management, while others mentioned the
reassessment of previous strategies, the benefit to networking and the value of
benchmarking. Five managers and employees argued that one of the main outcomes
of the implementation of the knowledge management strategy that became obvious
during the economic crisis was the feeling of security regarding costs, and two
managers reported the onset of improved services. Another positive outcome for some
interviewees (3) was the sharpening of the focus in business. Furthermore, the main
mounds of the economic crisis that the knowledge management strategy had had to
deal with was cost-effectiveness (4), the informational support of the employees (2),
the heightened competition (2), the time constraints (2), the challenge of finding the
right people for the running of the program (2), and the capacity to produce
infrastructure (1).

In the fourth theme, “Knowledge management on the aftermath of the crisis and its
impact on performance”, the personal effects of the positive effect of the KM program
were on creativity (5), on the feeling of security (3), as well as the heightened
employee courage and self-esteem (2). All interviewees agreed that the positive
results of knowledge management were reflected on the productivity of their
personnel and on the performance of the company, while the changes brought about
though the application of knowledge management indeed reflected positively on the
rendering of services of their company. Regarding increased productivity, many
highlighted the importance of team work and the improvement of team dynamics (6),
while others noted the gaining of a better understanding and an improved
psychological state (4).

The main characteristics of knowledge management that were regarded as related to

the performance of the company were varied and included the smart use of
management (2), the motivation and satisfaction from work, the mentor-mentee
relationship, the existence of group-work support systems, the management by

169 | P a g e
objectives, the structural reorganization, the focus on quality, and the knowledge of
how to use information. For the interviewees, the main characteristics of knowledge
management strategies in the future should include practicality (4), competitive
advantageousness (2), easy implementation, focus and agility, and transforming
explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge.

In the fifth theme, “Knowledge management and culture”, many interviewees argued
that the influence of the organizational culture on the implementation of the
knowledge management strategy was not always favorable and did not always
promote the creation of knowledge and the sharing of new ideas (7).

Regarding the two Research Hypotheses put forward, Hypothesis H1 was accepted
since all items of Knowledge Management during a crisis, were to a higher or lesser
extent statistically significant: therefore, the economic crisis, as reported by
employees and managers, affected the need of companies for knowledge
management. Furthermore, Hypothesis H2was also accepted since there were
numerous statistically significant differences in the responses to organizational
culture, according to knowledge management: therefore, Managers’ perceptions of
knowledge management affected the organizational culture, as measured
through manager self-reports.

Additional tests that were performed to assess the influence of the general
characteristics of the sample on the main questions of the research, revealed that the
position in the company and the feelings of security/insecurity/no change in the last
18 months made a significant difference. On the other hand, the merge/acquisition
status of the company did not play a statistically significant role in shaping the
answers to the main questions of the research.

The position of the company influenced the participants’ responses regarding

Corporate Culture, Knowledge Management Initiatives, and (to a lesser but still high
extent) Knowledge Management and the Economic Crisis. More analytically, and
regarding corporate culture, it was shown that the support staff answered more
favorably than most other subgroups in 9 items: that the people working in their firm
know the objectives of the business as a whole, the people in their department know

170 | P a g e
the strategic goals of the department as a whole, the feeling of succeeding in their unit
is strong, the company has made clear to its employees the rewards and punishments;
that in group projects, people are open to share their experiences; that they are kept
informed by the upper management about what is happening in the organization; that
their supervisor or upper manager encourages them to participate in information
sharing practices; that they had noticed a change to corporate culture during the past
18 months; and that in their job they have to follow certain procedures, rules or
instructions. Knowledge management helped them to understand and apply the
available knowhow to the best advantage, while providing the decision makers an
effective tool to direct the organisational activities during chaotic situation. The
managers also have the responsibility to distribute rights to individual decision
making, so that knowledge can be leveraged, renewed and developed as per the
availability of assets and resources.

The second more favorably-orientated subgroup were the executive officers, with 8
items, including most of the above but also that they trust their coworkers in order to
share information with them according to their project/job, as well as that in their
organizational unit, workers share information about what is going on. Third
favorable subgroup were the managers, with 4 items, including that that they trust
their coworkers in order to share information with them according to their project/job;
that in group projects, people are open to share their experiences; that their supervisor
or upper manager encourages them to participate in information sharing practices; and
that their supervisor encourages them to make their own decisions. Finally, the
technical staff were favorable that the feeling of succeeding in their unit is strong and
that in their job they have to follow certain procedures, rules or instructions, while
they felt less obliged to participate in meetings with their coworkers. The executive
staffs comprise the most important part of the creation and dissemination of
knowledge that are more proactive to responding during economic threats. The staffs’
acts as carries of knowledge as well as executors whose efforts add value to the
knowledge management process.

The executive officers and the support staff were also more inclined than other
subgroups to respond favorably to the items (where such an inclination could be
discerned with the post-hoc tests), regarding knowledge management initiatives: the

171 | P a g e
executive officers and the support staff were more inclined than the technical staff to
respond that their company follows a knowledge management strategy, and that there
are officer positions related to knowledge management in the company; and the
executive officers replied more so than others that their company motivates them for
sharing their knowledge. Concerning knowledge management and the economic
crisis, the executive officers were more likely to agree that they prefer to cut some
other functions rather the KM function, as well as to respond that KM can provide
solutions for the economic crisis, and the managers were inclined to agree that the
economic crisis has forced them to reduce the KM initiatives and that they prefer to
cut some other functions rather the KM function. The intention to retain the KM
function during economic crisis indicates that it is a cost effective business function
that involves resource creation instead of using scarce resource. Knowledge itself is a
resource provided by social form of assets, i.e. employees whose ideas, knowhow,
expertise, skills and competencies can be utilized for further knowledge development.
The managers just have to be cautious about the transmission of extraneous
knowledge that may hamper decision making during challenging business conditions.

The feelings of the respondents regarding their job security in the previous 18
months had had an impact on their responses regarding primarily Corporate Culture;
Knowledge Management Initiatives and Knowledge Management and the Economic
Crisis were less impacted by the feelings of the respondents regarding job security.

Regarding corporate culture, those who felt more secure with their job during the
last 18 months were more positive in their responses to 10 items, particularly as
opposed to those who felt more insecure. Specifically: that the people working in their
firm have good knowledge regarding the objectives of the business as a whole; that
the people in their department knew the strategic goals of the department as a whole;
that the feeling of succeeding in their unit is strong and that the company had made
clear to its employees the rewards and punishments; that in group projects people are
to share their experiences; that in their organizational unit workers share information
about what is going on; that they are kept informed by the upper management about
what is happening in the organization; that their supervisor encourages them to make
their own decisions; that their supervisor or upper manager encourages them to
participate in information sharing practices; and that they knew who can provide them

172 | P a g e
with the appropriate information in another unit, while they also felt more obliged to
participate in meetings with their coworkers.

The intellectual capability of the decision makers is enhanced by building interactions

with the co-workers, senior employees such as individuals at the strategic level, and
conducting further research in the field of knowledge management. The utilisation of
varied knowledge is deliberate and is dependent on the initiative and keenness of the
decision maker. In this context, as per the current findings it can be inferred that the
managers motivate the employees at various departments/ different organisational
levels for knowledge sharing, and support decision making during uncertain economic
pressures. Managers also follow effectual people management practices while the
organisational members must possess relevant skills, shared language, technical
knowhow and access to a common platform for sharing knowledge.

The subgroup that felt that nothing had changed as per their job security during the
last 18 months, was also agreeable on 8 of the above items, but agreed more so than
others that their supervisor controls their work. Those who felt more insecure in the
last 18 months also reported that their supervisor controls their work, but noticed
more so than others a change in the corporate culture during the last 18 months.

With respect to knowledge management initiatives, the secure were more likely to
report that the company they worked for follows a knowledge management strategy,
as well as motivates them for sharing their knowledge, and also that there are officer
positions in their company that are related to knowledge management. Those having
felt no job-security change were more likely than the insecure subgroup to find that
their company motivates them for sharing their knowledge.

As per knowledge management and the economic crisis, those who felt more
insecure during the last 18 months agreed more than did the job-secure subgroup, that
the economic crisis had forced them to reduce the KM initiatives, that they preferred
to cut some other functions rather the KM function and that KM functions have a high
cost and thus they prefer to reduce them.

173 | P a g e
Knowledge management helps in cost reduction which is a critical aspect for the firms
at the time of crisis. There are distinct ways through which KM helps which are worth
pondering. The reduced travel costs for the business travel can now be disseminated
through the video conferencing (webinars and also through e-learning courses). This
is particularly important when there is a considerable amount of gap between the
parent company and the subsidiary company. Reducing the time to find key
information is another tool which will help the employees for planning their daily,
weekly scheduled work hours.

A good document management system is necessary to cope with the huge amount of
data needed for the decision making process. KM also helps to reduce the cost
overheads, as it allows all the stakeholders to receive just in time support which are
essential for the company especially when the company is engaged with stakeholders.
It also helps HR to do competency profiling which is necessary to allocate the right
job profile to the right candidate which increases the efficiency of the organisation in
the long run. The cost savings are not only for the organisation at large but also for the
stakeholders engaged with the firm.

The key issue therefore which emerges are the benefits of the KM through the use of
IT, where solutions to the problem are more transparently exchanged to create a
platform for performance monitoring for all the stakeholders. The integration of KM
therefore happens through the use of a unified software which will align all the tasks
and functions to be captured, stored, retrieved, and exchanged on a real time basis.
Better risk management is cost avoidance strategy, which also reduces the
redundancies, errors, and increases productivity and time saving in routine work. This
can be translated to cost savings for any effort which is has been put in. The re-use of
the internal knowledge repository and ability to create the duplicates of the
benchmarked performer will help the organisations to reduce the transaction costs,
increase process transparency, reduced errors and hence increased quality.

Optimising the process for the turnover, market share, optimised marketing efforts are
some of the advantages the companies gain after implementing KM. Through
continuous improvement it is possible to upgrade the average employee skill set to a
new level which helps for quicker TAT (turnaround time). This creates speed of

174 | P a g e
delivery with consistent quality which is an organisational achievement for equipping
the process with more edge to combat the market share game. Competency profiling
will ensure the right skill for the right individual for the right kind of job is done
through knowledge management which helps to increase the organisational efficiency
in terms of multi skilling employees. KM evokes positive vibes, in culture and by
enhancing the employee’s skills it helps to increase the personal market value of the
employee.

Responsiveness and resilience in an organisation therefore comes from within that

increases the organisational learning speed saving on costs in long run. New products
and services are the outcomes of the KM initiatives which are spawned only when the
empowered employees with multi skilled techniques contribute to generate an
innovative idea for company. It may be realistically superior suggestion that helps to
save money for the business. KM therefore is fostering the increased quality of
products and services to the customer segment which is creating good will for the
company. The better understanding of the employees in terms of KM leads to
enhanced customer information and the ability to satisfy customer demands. This
proves that KM is beneficial for an organisation in the long run, with cost savings that
reflects in profit after the several years.

5.2 Further discussion

Human capital is a crucial factor for the increase of competitiveness and performance
of an organisation, while at the same time it ensures long – term growth and
sustainability. Thus, it cannot be doubted that knowledge management plays perhaps
the major role on the input side. However, in time periods of economic crisis, the
organisation pay little attention to retaining of human capital and consequently of
knowledge, as Fodor and Poór (2009) argue.

During an economic crisis, there is the need for the organisations to depend on the
sharing of information, their human capital and the management of their knowledge
assets, which are the key elements for driving the companies to innovation, to
appropriate and rational decision – making R&D and ultimately to the achievement of

175 | P a g e
the corporate goals possible (Fodor and Poór, 2009). The decision makers during the
economic crisis must also be aware and informed about their firm’s position in
comparison to competitors operating in the same market. In the process of knowledge
management stress needs to be placed on the creation of a knowledge sharing culture
so that business strategies can be implemented to counter the crisis situation.
Moreover, the different dimensions of knowledge management must be clearly
defined to develop resources in terms of technology, human resource and internal
operations.

According to Kidwell et al. (2000:28), knowledge management is the process of

transforming information and intellectual assets into enduring value. It connects
people with the knowledge that they need to take action, when they need it. In the
corporate sector, managing knowledge is considered key to achieving breakthrough
competitive advantage”. From this point of view, knowledge is incorporated in
humans and consequently in teams and the whole organisation. This knowledge
includes skills, experiences, strategies, products, values and beliefs of individuals, as
well as ideas and work processes.

As a result, effective and efficient knowledge management determines the know-how

in the production process and identifies the ways in which this know-how can be
applied to all work processes (Kidwell et al., 2000). The above definition stems from
the definition of Leidner et al. (2006:18) for knowledge, which is “a form of high
value information (either explicit or tacit) combined with experience, context,
interpretation, and reflection that is ready to apply to decisions and actions”. Most of
Organisations operating during the economic crisis at Greece followed a formal
practice to knowledge sharing and were able to leverage their employees’ intellectual
resources for business survival as well as growth.

The following table summarizes the reasons for which companies should apply
knowledge management techniques to all the operations of the organisation, including
corporate ethics and risk management.

176 | P a g e
Table 43. Reasons for the implementation of knowledge management techniques
(Source: Neef, 2005:114).

The research that has been conducted with companies based in Greece provides
evidence that knowledge management helps companies to reduce several costs and
cope with the economic crisis, since the organisations tend to believe the knowledge
management can offer solutions during the time of an economic crisis. For this reason
the respondents were also willing to cut off other functions, rather than a KM
function.

The outcome of the research indicated that there is a positive statistically significant
relation between the firms’ revenue and the existence of a knowledge management
strategy. The revenue of organisations that have adopted and implemented a
knowledge management programme had not decreased during the economic crisis,
compared with the companies that did not implement a knowledge management
system. Apart from this, companies which motivate the employees to share
knowledge and had adopted systems for knowledge sharing have either the same or
increased revenue.

177 | P a g e
The results of this research coincide with the results of other researchers. To be more
precise, Kidwell et al. (2000) examined the implementation of KM systems in
institutions of higher education, showing that among the benefits of KM was a
reduction in the cost and more specifically in the administrative costs. Das and Puri
(2003) stated that knowledge leads to innovation and this in turns allows for cost
reduction in the automotive industry.

Sveiby (2001) argues that the use of knowledge can result in reduced cost, while at
the same time companies with high revenue can create new knowledge. This
argument, however, comes along with the statement of Wastyn and Czarnitzki (2010),
that there are three knowledge management techniques: a) a certain knowledge
management policy in an organisation, b) the motivation of employees to share
knowledge and finally c) the acquisition of new knowledge from the external
environment. Within this framework, sharing and acquisition of knowledge, cost
reduction and higher profitability constitute a vicious cycle. Due to the
interrelationship among these variables, KM is a concept that becomes a strategic
issue for the organisation.

As such, KM is closely related to the organisational culture, which has been also
indicated by the outcomes of this research. More precisely, the results of the research
in Greek companies showed that the organisational culture is positively correlated
with the perception of the managers with regard to knowledge management.However,
from the interviews there is some evidence that many Greek firm’s culture did not
promote the use of KM, something that Cohen et al (2014) had indicated. When it
comes for Greek firms and their personal to share creativity and ideas, then something
comes and stop this. The use of a KM strategy, the decision of the companies to cut
other functions than a KM function and the belief that KM is an answer to the
economic crisis are positively related with the fact that the employees are aware of the
organisation’s objectives and the strategic goals of the department they work for, that
employees are kept informed by the upper management about what is happening in
the organisation and the sharing of this information, as well as the fact that managers
encourage the employees to make their own decisions and participate on information
sharing practices.

178 | P a g e
It can be concluded that more knowledge may not always result in better decision
making while new knowledge mostly external to the organisation provides new
standpoint for problem solving as well as removing barriers to effective decision
making. Knowledge management can be used as an analytical tool for problem
solving and taking calculative decision that leads to cost reduction during the decision
implementation stage. Tacit knowledge is intangibly engrossed in the internal
resources of the organisation and essential to effectively drive internal operations
during crisis situation.

Tacit knowledge is hidden in the internal organisation in the form of human intellect
possessed by employees who fail to share knowledge due to lack of trust, job
insecurity or fearing change in their current job roles and responsibilities, something
that has been given as evidence in the quantitative research but actually it has been
confirmed from the qualitative research. . Tacit knowledge may also remain
unexploited due to technical difficulties, lack of medium or channels for exchange or
other technological failures. Under such situations, such knowledge becomes hard to
verbalise, difficult to access and disseminate when it is most needed during
challenging situations.

Explicit knowledge, during the crisis period is essential to obtain external as well as
internal comprehension of the organisational situation. It also depends on the process
of communication approach followed as per the existing organisational culture to gain
access to knowledge for the purpose of strategic decision making. Combining the
nature of tacit and explicit knowledge, the analytical perspective of knowledge
management can be determined in terms of making critical decisions. Any lag in the
availability of tacit and explicit knowledge can successfully determine the success or
failure of a decision which is implemented for cost reduction or resource control
during economic crisis.

The above results do not contradict the findings of other researchers. Holowetzki
(2002) point out that the initiatives concerning knowledge management can be
applied only when these initiatives are supported by the culture of the organisation.
This culture includes elements such as the structure of the organisation, the
information systems used, the reward systems, the employees and the leadership.

179 | P a g e
Consequently, organisational culture is a complex concept, which can either
encourage the implementation of KM initiatives, or become a barrier to the adoption
and use of KM programmes. (Leidner et al., 2006)

5.3 Recommendations

The organization is facing challenges due to economic recession and to deal with
them effectively. Therefore the first recommendation is to develop a knowledge
management strategy. KM will help to address the key issues of the organization, and
the critical aspect of initial need analysis. For any firm which is engaged into
production or services requires, sharing of information on real time basis across
locations in the form of data is the key to the success.

 KM needs to be applied to the front line staff, where the interaction of the
internal employees happens with the customers either through face to face,
over the phone or videoconferencing. In large organizations where the front
line staff is the face of the company therefore, the culture to be altruistic,
helpful should be merged with consistency, accuracy and repeatability.
 The rate of change in the organization can be facilitated through KM, the
internal and the external stakeholders should have focus on ‘people skills’.
This is the key which is happening inside the organization. Effective KM will
help to duplicate the economic value added of the human capital in the
company into trained multiple duplicates.
 The knowledge of tenured employees can be harnessed in the knowledge
management department where they can share the information of their
experiences and expertise. Skill transfer from retired staff can create a
repository of knowledge bank, which will help the workforce to look back and
learn how to deal with the situation. This is a structured process and a useful
mechanism to capture the knowledge and useful for organization.
 Developing a knowledge management strategy is essential but prior to this it
needs to create organizational environment which is conducive to that. Either
way top down or bottoms up approach for building a KM programme. This
will entail, identifying key staff groups who are involved with most important

180 | P a g e
 business activities. Secondly, conduct a holistic analysis for selected staff
groups, and critical success factors identification. The senior management
team to give shape to this carries on to give input. Suitable strategies are
selected from many options which will particularly address issues and needs
of the problem. Implementation will be tactical in nature, and there will be
wide spread holistically designed system that will be interdependent on each
other.
 Application of need analysis techniques for staff interviews, surveys, focus
groups, task and job analysis, contextual inquiry are used in KM to facilitate
the discussions. The possibility of short and long term initiatives is essentially
to improve policies, procedures, systems, skill of coaching and mentoring. It
will also lead to newer learning approaches, team collaboration through use of
IT tools, engaging the knowledge brokers within the organization. After action
review process the loop holes or gaps need to be plugged for better process
driven approach.
 Based on the qualitative research, there is a evidence that the KM had a
positive contribution on the coping with the crisis. Howver, there is a need to
reconsider some elements, such as the role of culture which is often an
obstacle on KM . Also, from the interviews it was obvious that many
respondents were not sure over what is KM and how it used. They seem to
understand it, but still there is a need to learn more about this.

Thus if an overall view in taken then the aspect of macro and micro level enquiry
reveals that the underlined strategy for KM implementation will benefit any company
as it will help to take faster decisions, smoother execution of the projects. The cost
involved is a concern especially when IT driven architecture will cost upwards.

5.4 Limitations

Due to the complexity of organisational culture and its relation to the implementation
of KM initiatives, it was not able through this research to examine exactly the impact
of all the organisational culture elements on the implementation of KM programmes.
In addition to that, the present research focuses on the overall cost of the organisation

181 | P a g e
and not on the various cost categories. The researcher had difficulty in finding key
corporate information related to the context of the topic. This is primarily because
there was no KM department per se, but lot of the interdependent issues and practices
between the departments are actually KM initiatives. Singling out is the key to the
information gathering. Lack of sharing of information at different levels of the
organisational hierarchy led to inconsistent and unstructured approach to information
management. The researcher also found that there were difficulties in understanding
the KM related knowledge and there was ineffective dissemination of corporate and
regional news. There are cultural barriers between the HQ and the branches which led
to difference in understanding the implications of KM. Since the flow of information
was not there, the business decision making process was slower that led to confusions
between the different stakeholders. On the other side, the company faced still
resistance from the employees who are aged which is hindering the progress for KM
implementation strategy. The globalised MNC firms are likely to find barriers like
cultural differences which are specific to that country, information not passed from
the corporate to the distant office, duplication of effort at both the places are rendering
KM redundant.

It must also be noted that regarding the relatively high number of missing values
found in the present study, these are likely due to two main reasons. The first reason
involves the errors in writing and questionnaire completion on the part of the
participants. Examples of participants’ errors can be found in item 12, “Among your
unit and other units do you share information?”, where one participant had
erroneously selected both the “yes” and “no” responses; and item 17, “How do you
assess your opportunity to participate on discussions?”, where one participant
provided no response. The second reason for the high number of missing values may
have to do with the fact that the questionnaire included a direction to regard items
with an asterisk as necessary (Appendix 1). However, not all items of the
questionnaire actually had the asterisk. Overall, the use of the asterisk system was
ineffective and may have contributed to the number of missing values.

Finally, another limitation was the hesitation of many people to take part on the
interviews. Most of those who were asked to participate were negative and even from
those who took part many of them did not want to have their views seem on public

182 | P a g e
nor to have their details of company’s profile given. Only the high ranking persons
seemed to be willing to share some of their details but most of them did not want to
do so.

Scope for future research

Shortcomings or limitations present in the current research provide scope for

conducting further research in the same area. Findings from this research can be used
as a source of secondary information by the future researchers to conduct further
research on areas untouched by the current study. The current research focuses on
implying knowledge management perspectives to Greek economic crisis only, despite
that the economic downturn had affected business environment of counties across
international borders. The present research focuses much on information sharing,
decision making, and employee behaviour and cost reduction as elements of
knowledge management during the economic crisis, mainly at the micro level. The
current study also centres on the performance and conduct of organisations in their
internal context. The implementation of knowledge management for solving
environmental issues such as optimum utilisation of scarce resource, human capital
management, sustainable business operations etc still remains unexplored by the
current research. Areas such as the use of knowledge management practices for
controlling nationwide unemployment, fostering global trade, reviving industrial
sectors during economic turmoil at a macro level, etc can be taken up by future
researchers.

183 | P a g e
184 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

1. Addicott, R., McGivern, G. and Ferlie, E. (2006). Networks, organizational

learning and knowledge management: NHS cancer networks. Public Money and
Management, 26, 87-94.
2. Ambos, T.C. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (2009). Managing knowledge in
international consulting firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 491-508.
3. Ang, Z. and Masshingham, P. (2007). National culture and the standardization
versus adaptation of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11, 5-21.
4. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial
opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18,
105-123.
5. Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T. and Stuedemann, R. (2006).
Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of
practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 94-107.
6. Barber, Β. (1995). All economies are embedded: The career of a concept, and
beyond. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 62, 387-413.
7. Barney, J.B. (2002). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage (2nd ed). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Barrett, C.W., Musso, C.S. and Padhi A. (2009). Upgrading R&D in a downturn.
The McKinsey Quarterly, 2302. Accessed on February 1, 2015 at:
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Upgrading_RD_in_a_dowturn_2302.
9. Baskerville, R.F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 28, 1–14.
10. Baumard, P. (1996). From infowar to knowledge warfare: preparing for the
paradigm shift. Accessed on February 1, 2015 at:
http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/10/baumard.htm.
11. Bellinger, G. (2004). Knowledge management: Emerging perspectives. Accessed
on February 1, 2015 at: http://www.systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm.
12. Benbasat, I. and Weber, R. (1996). Research commentary: Rethinking diversity in
information systems research. Information Systems Research, 7, 389-399.

185 | P a g e
13. Bennett, A. and Bennett, D. (2004). Organizational survival in the New World: The
intelligent complex adaptive system. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
14. Bhatt, D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the
interaction between technologies, techniques and people. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5, 68-75.
15. Bhatt, G. (2000). Organizing knowledge in the knowledge development cycle.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4, 15-26.
16. Biemer, P. and Lyberg, L. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. New York:
Wiley.
17. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organisations: An overview
and interpretation. Organisation Studies, EGOS.
18. Boda, Gy. (2006). Without the management of intellectual capital there is no
efficient cost management. In E. Noszkay (ed), Catching the intangibles.
Budapest: N. & B. Publisher
19. Bonoma, T. (1985). Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a
process. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 199-208.
20. Borghoff, U. and Pareschi, R. (eds) (1998). Information technology for knowledge
management. New York: Springer.
21. Bornemann, M., Graggober, M., Hartlieb, E., Humpl, B., Koronakis, P., Primus,
A., et al. (2003). An illustrated guide to knowledge management. Accessed on
February 1, 2015 at: http://wm-forum.org/files/2014/01/
An_Illustrated_Guide_to_Knowledge_ Management.pdf.
22. Bourandas, D. and Papalexandris, N.A. (2002). Management of human resources.
Benou Publications, ISBN: 9789608249240.
23. Brewerton, P. and Millward, L. (2001). Organisational research methods. London:
Sage.
24. Bryman, A. (1992). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge.
25. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
26. Cabolis, C. and Travlos, N. (2010). The causes of the recent financial crisis.
Accessed on February 1, 2015 at: http://www.alba.edu.gr/faculty/Documents/
cabolis%20siite.pdf.
27. Carter, C. and Scarbrough, H. (2001). Towards a second generation of KM? The
people management challenge. Education and Training, 43, 215-224.

186 | P a g e
28. Chatzikostas, E. (2005). Through knowledge superiority comes: Knowledge
Management in Greece. EcoQ Journal, 50, 26-27.
29. Choi, B. and Lee, H. (2002). Knowledge management strategy and its link to
knowledge creation process. Expert Systems with Applications, 23, 173-187.
30. Clark-Carter, D. (2004). Quantitative psychological research. New York:
Psychology Press.
31. Cockram, D. and van den Heuvel, C. (2012). Crisis management: What is it and
how is it delivered? Accessed on February 1, 2015 at: http://www.bcifiles.com/
CrisisManagementMarch2012.pdf.
32. Cohen, S., Naoum V. and Vlismas V. (2014). Intellectual capital, strategy and
financial crisis from a SMEs perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15,
294-315.
33. Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism. London: Verso.
34. Collier, A. (1994). Why realism? Why transcendental? Chapter 1, Critical Realism.
London: Verso.
35. Creswell, J.W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. London: Sage.
36. Das, M. and Puri, R. (2003). Using innovation management for cost reduction in
the auto industry. Technical Report, Infosys.
37. Davenport, T. and Grover, V. (2001). General perspectives of knowledge
management: Fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18, 5-21.
38. Davenport, T. and Probst, G. (2001). Knowledge management case book (MCD).
Berlin: Verlag and Wiley and Sons.
39. Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M. (1998). Title: Successful
knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39, 43.
40. Davenport, T.H., Harris, J.G., De Long, D.W. and Jacobson, A.L. (2001). Data to
knowledge to results: building an analytic capability. California Management
Review, 43, 117-138.
41. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organisations
manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press.
42. De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge
management. The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 113-127.

187 | P a g e
43. De Long, D.W. and Seeman, P. (2000). Confronting conceptual confusion and
conflict in knowledge management. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 33-44.
44. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of
Qualitative Work, Thousand Oaks.
45. Desouza, K.C. and Awazu, Y. (2006). Knowledge management at SMEs: five
peculiarities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 32-43.
46. Despres, C.J.N. (1995). Information, technology and culture. Switzerland: IMD.
47. Dubé, L, and Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case
research: Current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27,
597.
48. Dunn, D. (2002). Business strategies through knowledge management. In
Proceedings of Business Information Technology Management Conference,
Ecuador, June.
49. Edgington, T., Choi, B., Henson, K., Raghy, T. and Vinze, A. (2003). Adopting
ontology to facilitate knowledge sharing. Communications of the ACM, 47, 85-
90.
50. Ellingsen, G. (2003). Coordinating work in hospitals through a global tool:
implications for the implementation of electronic patient records in hospitals.
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 15, 39-54.
51. Feibleman, J. (1949). A defense of ontology. Journal of Philosophy, 46, 41-51.
52. Fensel, D. (2004). Ontologies: A silver bullet for knowledge management and
electronic commerce. Berlin: Springer.
53. Flinn, S. (2010). The learning layer: Building the next level of intellect in your
organisation. Palgrave Macmillan.
54. Fodor, P. and Poór, J. (2009). The impact of the economic and financial crisis on
HRM and knowledge-management in Hungary and Slovakia: Empirical research
2008-2009. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 6, 69-91.
55. Frankel, R.M. and Devers, K.J. (2000). Study design in qualitative research. 1:
Developing questions and assessing resource needs. Education for Health, 13,
251-261.
56. Gesteland, R.R. (2002). Cross-cultural business behavior: Marketing, negotiating,
sourcing and managing across cultures (3rd ed). Copenhagen: Copenhagen
Business School Press.

188 | P a g e
57. GKI Research (2009). Employment practice of large firms in light of the financial
and economic crisis (in Hungarian). Labour Review Newsletter, February 10,
Munkaügyi Szemle Hírlevele.
58. Goles, T. and Hirschheim, R. (2000). The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...
long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan. Omega, 28, 249-268.
59. Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social
research. London: Open University Press.
60. Graves, D. (1986). Corporate culture: Diagnosis and change. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
61. Grewal, R., and Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for
managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic
flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65, 67-80.
62. Griffin, P. (2009). Gendering the World Bank: Neo-liberalism and the gendered
foundations of global governance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
63. Griffiths, D.S., Winstanley, D. and Gabriel, Y. (2004). Learning shock: The
trauma of return to formal learning. Tanaka Business School Discussion
Papers: TBS/DP04/31. London: Tanaka Business School. Accessed on February
1, 2005 at: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/40419.PDF.
64. Grix, J. (2002). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research.
Politics, 22, 175-186.
65. Gummesson, E. (2014). Commentary on ‘The role of innovation in driving the
economy: Lessons from the global financial crisis’. Journal of Business
Research, 67, 2743-2750.
66. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational
corporations. Strat. Mgmt. J., 21, 473-496.
67. Hamvas, B. (1983). The world crisis. Budapest: Magvető Publisher.
68. Handy, C. (1999). Understanding organizations (4th ed). London: Penguin Group.
69. Hawkes, J. (2001). The fourth pillar of sustainability: Culture’s essential role in
public planning. Melbourne: Common Ground P/L.
70. Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form
corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 73-90. Accessed on February 1,
2015 at: http://alondra.udea.edu.co/entornoparacapitalizarconocimiento/
res/Hedlund,%20G_%20%281994%29.pdf.

189 | P a g e
71. Hite, S.J. (2001). Reviewing quantitative research to inform educational policy
processes. Paris: UNESCO.
72. Hitiris S.L. (2001). Administration of human resources. Athens: Interbooks
Publications.
73. Hofstede, G. (1993). Intercultural conflict and synergy in Europe. In D.J. Hickson
(ed), Management in Western Europe: Society, culture and organisation in
twelve nations, pp. 1-8. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
74. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
75. Holowetzki, A. (2002). The relationship between knowledge management and
organizational culture: An examination of cultural factors that support the flow
and management of knowledge within an organization. Oregon: Applied
Information Management Program, Capstone Report, University of Oregon.
76. Horwitch, M. and Armacost, R. (2002). Helping knowledge management be all it
can be. Journal of Business Strategy, 23, 26-32.
77. Hsu, S.-H. and Shen, H.-P. (2005). Knowledge management and its relationship
with TQM. Total Quality Management, 16, 351-361.
78. Huczynski, A.A. and Buchanan, D.A. (2007). Organizational behaviour (6th ed).
Essex: FT Prentice Hall.
79. Hussain, F., Lucas, C. and Ali, M.A. (2004). Managing knowledge effectively.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 5.
80. Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing
hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 60-73.
81. Hyde, K.F. (2000). Recognizing deductive processes in qualitative research.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3, 82.
82. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Staples, D.S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational
ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18, 151-183.
83. Jarzombek, J. (1999). Software knowledge management: Strengthening our
community of practice. Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software
Engineering, 12.
84. Kidwell, J.J., Linde, K.M.V. and Johnson, S.L. (2000). Applying corporate
knowledge management practices in higher education. Educause Quarterly, 4,
28-33.

190 | P a g e
85. Kienzle, H. (1970). Epistemology and sociology. The British Journal of Sociology,
21, 413-424.
86. Kim, H.M. and Fox, M.S. (2002). Towards a data model for quality management
Web services: An ontology of measurement for enterprise modelling. In A.
Banks Pidduck, et al. (eds), CAISE 2002, LNCS 2348, 230-244.
87. Kitchin, J. (1923). Cycles and trends in economic factors. Review of Economics
and Statistics, 5, 10-16.
88. Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and
evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS quarterly, 23,
67-93.
89. Kluge, J., Stein, W. and Licht, T. (2001). Knowledge unplugged: The McKinsey &
Company global survey on knowledge management. Houndmills: Palgrave.
90. Kondratiev, N.D. (1998). Dynamics of economic development: Long cycles and
industrial growth in historical context. London: Macmillan.
91. Kreie, J. and Cronan, T.P. (2000). Making ethical decisions: How companies might
influence the choices one makes. Communications of the Association for
Computing (ACM), 43, 66-71.
92. Künne, W. (2003). Conceptions of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
93. Lee, A.S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly,
13, 33-50.
94. Leidner, D., Alavi, M. and Kayworth, T. (2006). The role of culture in knowledge
management: A case study of two global firms. International Journal of e-
Collaboration, 2, 17-40.
95. Lewin, C. (2005). Elementary quantitative methods. In: B. Somekh, C. Lewin
(eds), Research methods in the social science, London: Sage.
96. Liebowitz, J. (1999). Building organisational intelligence: A knowledge
management primer. New York: CRC Press LLC.
97. Lytras, M. and Pouloudi, N. (2006). Towards the development of a novel
taxonomy of knowledge management systems from a learning perspective.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 64-80.
98. Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge management for e-business performance:
Advancing information strategy to internet time. The Executive’s Journal, 16, 5-
16.

191 | P a g e
99. Mammadov, K. and Galusca, T. (2005). Knowledge management and national
culture in SMEs: A case study of Turkish SMEs in Sweden. Accessed on
February 1, 2015 at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:20063/
Fulltext01.pdf.
100. Marler, K. (1999). Rapid emerging knowledge deployment. Crosstalk: The
Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 12, 14-16.
101. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.
102. Mason, J. (2006). Qualitative researching (2nd ed). London: Sage.
103. McConnell, C.R. and Brue. S.L. (2001). Economics. McGraw-Hill College; 15th
edition (1600).
104. McDermott, R. (1999). Learning across teams: How to build communities of
practice in team organizations. Knowledge Management Review, 8, 32-36.
105. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55,
89-117.
106. Mentzas, G.N. (2000). Leveraging knowledge for competitive advantage. Presented
at the conference of New Times, New Challenges, Athens Greece.
107. Moorman, R.H. and Podsakoff, P.M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical
test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in
organisational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organisational
Psychology, 65, 131-149.
108. Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of
Management Review, 5, 491-500.
109. Neef, D. (2005). Managing corporate risk through better knowledge management.
The Learning Organisation, 12, 112-124.
110. Ngulube, P., & Lwoga, E. (2002). Knowledge management models and their utility
to the effective management and integration of indigenous knowledge with
other knowledge systems. Indilinga: African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge
Systems. Accessed on February 1, 2015 at: steve3067095.pbworks.com/f/
Knowledge+management+models+-+Indilinga.pdf.
111. Nickerson, R. (2001). Business and information systems (2nd ed). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
112. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review,
69, 96-104.

192 | P a g e
113. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
114. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Organization Science, 5, 14-37.
115. Nove, A. (1982). The economics of feasible socialism. London: Allen and Unwin.
116. Oliver, J. (1960). The problem of epistemology. The Journal of Philosophy, 57,
297-304.
117. Orlikowski, A. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in
distributed organizing. Organisation Science, 13, 249-273.
118. Pantzalis, C. and Park, J.C. (2009). Equity market valuation of human capital and
stock returns. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33, 1610-1623.
119. Park, H., Ribiere, V. and Schulte, W. (2004). Critical attributes of organisational
culture that promote knowledge management technology implements success.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 106-117.
120. Pauleen, D.J. and Murphy, P. (2005). In praise of cultural bias. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 46.
121. Pérez-Bustamante, G. (1999). Knowledge management in agile innovative
organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 6-17.
122. Peters, R.S. (1967). What is an educational process? In R.S. Peters (ed), The
concept of education, pp. 1-23, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
123. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge.
124. Potter, G. (2000). The philosophy of social science. Pearson.
125. Process Renewal Group (2015). Becoming process centric. Accessed on February
1, 2015 at: http://www.processrenewal.com/services/becoming-process-
centric/.
126. Remery, C., Henkens, K., Schippers, J. and Ekamper, P. (2001). Managing an
ageing workforce and a tight labour market: Views held by Dutch employers.
Population Review and Policy Review, 22, 21-40.
127. Rogers, M. (1998). The definition and measurement of innovation. Melbourne
Institute Working Paper No. 10/98. Accessed on February 1, 2015 at:
www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp1998n10.pd
f.
128. Romaldi, V. (2002). Collaborative technologies for knowledge management:
Making the tacit explicit. InSITE, 1358-1365.

193 | P a g e
129. Root, F.R. (1994). Entry strategies for international markets. New York:
Lexington Books.
130. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting
psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127-164.
131. Salojärvi, S., Furu, P. and Sveiby, K.E. (2005). Knowledge-management and
growth in Finnish SMEs (in Hungarian). Journal of Knowledge Management,
9, 1-9.
132. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research method for business
students (3rd ed). New York: Prentice Hall.
133. Schein, H. (1986). Organisational culture and leadership. London: Jossey-Bass.
134. Schumpeter, J.A. (1954). History of economic analysis. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
135. Seth, A. (1894). Epistemology and ontology. The Philosophical View, 3, 568-582.
136. Simonin, B.L. (1999). Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic
alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 463-489.
137. Simons, H. (2005). Ethical responsibility in social research. In B. Somekh and C.
Lewin (eds), Research methods in the social science. London: Sage.
138. Skyrme, J. (2002). Knowledge management: Approaches and policies. London:
David Skyrme Associates Limited.
139. Smith, D. (1990). Beyond contingency planning: toward a model of crisis
management. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, Vol. 4, 263-275.
140. Standards Australia (2001). Knowledge management: A framework for succeeding
in the knowledge era (HB275-2001). Sydney: Standards Australia.
141. Stecking, L. (2000). Geteiltes Wissenistdoppeltes Wissen (in German).
Management Berater, Issue August.
142. Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organisations. New
York: Doubleday.
143. Sveiby, K.E. (2002). Creating knowledge focused strategies: Good and bad
practices. Henley KM Forum, 2nd Annual Conference, Henley Management
College, UK.
144. Sveiby, K.-E. (2001). A knowledge‐based theory of the firm to guide in strategy
formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 344-358.
145. Takahashi, T. and Vandenbrink, D. (2001). Formative knowledge: From
knowledge dichotomy to knowledge geography-knowledge management
194 | P a g e
 transformed by the ubiquitous information society. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 8, 64-76.
146. The World Bank (2011). The state of World Bank knowledge services: Knowledge
for development. Accessed on February 1, 2015 at: http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/12/19
/000333038_20111219020854/Rendered/PDF/651950Revised0box361556B00
Public005.pdf.
147. Thierauf, R.J. (1999). Knowledge management systems for business. London:
Quorum Books.
148. Tomka, J. (2009). Shared knowledge is power. Budapest: Harmat Publisher.
149. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural
diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishers.
150. Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist.
Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–25.
151. Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed
knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organisational memory.
In the Proceedings of the 1999 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, 1999.
152. University of Leicester (2006). Manual for the doctorate in social sciences: Unit 2:
Foundation of social research. Centre for Labour Market Studies.
153. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2008). Structured interviews: A practical
guide. Accessed on February 1, 2015 at: http://apps.opm.gov/adt/contentfiles/
siguide09.08.08.pdf.
154. Usoro, A. and Kuofie, M.H.S. (2006). Conceptualization of cultural dimensions as
a major influence on knowledge management. International Journal of
Knowledge Management, 2, 16-25.
155. von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation:
How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of
innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
156. Wafa, M. and Akram, J. (2011). The influence of knowledge management system
(KMS) on enhancing decision making process (DMP). International Journal of
Business & Management, 6, 216.
157. Wang, W.-T. and Belardo, S. (2005). Strategic integration: A knowledge
management approach to crisis management. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii

195 | P a g e
 International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 252-260. Big Island, Hawaii:
IEEE Computer Society.
158. Wastyn, A. and Czarnitzki, D. (2010). Does professional knowledge management
improve innovation performance at the firm level? Conference on Opening Up
Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology at Imperial College London
Business School, June 16-18, 2010. Accessed on February 1, 2015 at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=1536976.
159. Watson, S. (1998). Getting to ‘aha!’: Companies use intranets to turn information
and experience into knowledge and gain a competitive edge. Computer World,
32, 1.
160. Wilson, N. and McLean S. (1994). Questionnaire design: a practical introduction.
University of Ulster Press: Newtown Abbery.

196 | P a g e
 Appendix 1- Doctorate Questionnaire
Dear Sir/ Madam, I am interested in exploring the extent to which and how Knowledge management
(KM) has been incorporated into business practices. My expectation is that the exploitation of KM may
entail several opportunities, but it can simultaneously create many questions and flaws. I am
conducting a piece of research for the Doctorate in Social Sciences Programme in University of
Leicester under the supervision of Dr. Jason Hughes, on Knowledge Management and the economic
crisis. The research is about the recent changes on the economic and business climate and how those
changes have affected knowledge management on Greek firms. The acquired information will be
strictly used for the purpose of the thesis, complying with the Data Protection Act (1988) and the Greek
legislation (Προστασία ευαίσθητων και προσωπικών δεδομένων) which ensures that the data is
anonymous and will not be used for any other reason. Your participation in this research, by
completing the following questionnaire, would be greatly appreciated. A copy of the results can be
made available on request; these might be of potential interest to your own corporation. The author
would like to confirm that all of your answers will remain absolutely confidential, and all data will be
anonymised. The research is planned to be completed by September 2012. For any further information,
you can contact me via e-mail: [email protected] Thank you for your help. Yours faithfully,
Chris Mantas.

* Required

A. RESPONDENT AND ORGANISATIONAL PROFILE:

1. What is your position level? *

Executive officer
Manager
Technical Staff
Support Staff
Other (please specify)

2. What is your industry type? *

Tourism
Shipping
Retail
Construction
I.T. Sector
Public Sector
NGO
Other:

197 | P a g e
 3. What is your total full-time workforce?

1- 100 people
101-999
1000-10000
10000 +

B. RECENT CHANGES IN THE FIRM

1. Has your company recently gone through a Merger, Acquisition or downsizing?

Yes

No

I don’t know

2. Please answer the following questions *

Reduced by Reduced Reduced Remained the

Reduced up
more than from 30% to from 10% to same or
to 10%
50% 50% 30% increased

My monthly
personal income
has been:

The firm’s
revenues have:

3. During the past 18 months I feel *

Much more insecure with my job position

Nothing has changed
My job position is more secured

198 | P a g e
C. CORPORATE CULTURE
1. Please answer the following questions

They
They They have They have They have
know
don’t poor good excellent
few
know knowledge knowledge knowledge
things

Do the people
working in your
firm know the
objectives of the
business as a whole

People in your
department know
the strategic goals of
the department as a
whole

2. How strong is the feeling of succeeding in your unit? *

1 2 3 4 5

Strong Not Strong

3. Has the firm made clear to its employees the rewards and punishments? *

1 2 3 4 5

Crystal clear Not clear at all

4. In group projects, how open are people to share their experiences?

They are open

They are not always open

They are not open

199 | P a g e
 5. In your organizational unit, do workers share information about what is going on?

They are sharing all the information

They are sharing some information

They are sharing a limited amount of information

They are sharing nothing

6. Are you kept informed by the upper management about what is happening in
organisation? *

Yes

No

7. Does your supervisor control your work activities?

Yes, he / she controls all of my activities

He / She is controlling some of my activities

He / She does not control me often

8. Does your supervisor encourage you to make your own decisions?

1 2 3 4 5

Yes he / No, he / she does not

she does encouraging me

9. Does your supervisor or upper managers encourage you to participate on information

sharing practices?

1 2 3 4 5

Yes he / No, he / she does not

she does encouraging me

10. In your job do you have to follow certain procedures, rules or instructions?

Yes

No

200 | P a g e
 11. Do you trust your coworkers in order to share information with them according to
your project/job?

Yes, I trust them a lot

No, I don’t trust them

12. Among your unit and other units do you share information?

Yes

No

13. Do you know who can provide you the appropriate information in another unit?

Yes, I know

No, do not know

14. In general, how do the workers/ managers/members of staff in your organization share
information? (Tick only one answer)

By expecting that it will be returned to you some time later

By negotiating the return of your information sharing

By just ignoring the return and helping whoever asks for information and for the good of the
company

By not expecting anything; you are used to share all your information with your coworkers

15. Do you feel comfortable to communicate and share information?

Within your coworkers

With people from other units

With people from other branches of the some company

16. How obliged do you feel to participate in meetings with your coworkers?

1 2 3 4 5

Quite obliged Not obliged at all

201 | P a g e
 17. How do you assess your opportunity to participate on discussions?

With your coworkers

With people for other units

With people from other branches of the some company

18. Have you noticed a change to corporate culture during the past 18 months? *

Yes

No

If yes, which one of the following phrases represents those changes?

It has become more supportive

It pushes me to produce more and give in my labour rights

It has alienated me

Other:

D. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

1. Does your company follow a knowledge management strategy?

Yes

No

I don't know

2. Are there any officer positions that are related to knowledge management?

Yes

No

If yes, please state the position

202 | P a g e
 3. Which of the below characterise your stage of Knowledge management (KM)
in your organization?

Already developed KM program

Already implemented but not organizational wide developed KM program

Stage of KM implementation

Examining the KM program

There is no considering yet about such a program

Already considered but the decision was against

4. How can you describe the information system that your organisation uses for
the information management?

It serves the purpose of the knowledge management strategy

It is an organisational need

It only serves the basic organisations operations

None of them

5. Which of the following is the type of knowledge that your company uses for
supporting the KM: *

Intranet

Knowledge mapping tool

Instant messaging

Teleconferencing

Email- messaging

Search engines- intelligent agents

Data Warehouses

Database Management System (Oracle, ERP, SAP)

Help-Desk applications

Data mining tool

Communities of practice (For interests in the some topics)

Online Chat

Storytelling

Videoconferencing

Groupware e.g. Lotus Notes

Other:

203 | P a g e
 6. Does your company motivate you for sharing your knowledge?

Yes

No

FOR ENTERPRISES USING KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS

1. If a knowledge management system is currently used in your company what is

your opinion about

The volume of knowledge available through

The usage of the knowledge available

The participation of employees in it

2. How comfortable do you feel to communicate and participate in these KM

systems?

Comfortable

Non- Comfortable

3. Do you share information through the system?

Yes

No

4. What do you think are the main obstacles of your knowledge sharing through
the set of Knowledge management systems? Please check up to 3 answers

Lack of trust

Feeling of being controlling from the supervisor or upper managers

Lack of training

Your organisational culture

System design

Technical difficulties/problems

Feeling of being monitoring

204 | P a g e
 Please elaborate your answer

E. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

Please consider the following statements.

Neither
Strongly Strongly
Agree agree nor Disagree
Agree Disagree
disagree

The economic crisis

has forced us to reduce
the KM initiatives

I prefer to cut some

other functions rather
than the KM function

KM functions have a
high cost and thus we
prefer to reduce them

KM can provide
solutions for the
economic crisis

The use of KM means

that we can reduce
several costs and cope
with the economic
crisis

205 | P a g e
Appendix 2 – Missing Value Analysis

Missing
Section Questionnaire Item N
N %

1. The economic crisis has forced us to reduce the KM initiatives 111 9 7.5

2. I prefer to cut some other functions rather than the KM function 111 9 7.5
Knowledge Management
3. KM functions have a high cost and thus we prefer to reduce them 110 10 8.3
and the Crisis
4. KM can provide solutions for the economic crisis 110 10 8.3

5. The use of KM means that we can reduce several costs and cope with the economic crisis 117 3 2.5

Recent Changes in the

1. Has your company recently gone through a Merger, Acquisition or downsizing? 119 1 .8
Firm 2. The firm’s revenues are reduced, increased or remained the same 119 1 .8

1a. Do the people working in your firm know the objectives of the business as a whole? 119 1 .8

1b. People in your department know the strategic goals of the department as a whole 119 1 .8
Corporate Culture
7. Does your supervisor control your work activities? 111 9 7.5

8. Does your supervisor encourage you to make your own decisions? 114 6 5.0
 9. Does your supervisor or upper managers encourage you to participate on information sharing
115 5 4.2
practices?

12. Among your unit and other units do you share information? 118 2 1.7

14. In general, how do the workers/managers/members of staff share information? 117 3 2.5

16. How obliged do you feel to participate in meetings with your coworkers? 117 3 2.5

17. How do you assess your opportunity to participate on discussions? 118 2 1.7

18. Have you noticed a change to corporate culture during the past 18 months? 117 3 2.5

3. Which of the below characterise your stage of Knowledge management (KM) in your
114 6 5.0
organization? (Knowledge Management Initiatives)
Knowledge Management
Initiatives 4. How can you describe the information system that your firm uses for information management? 113 7 5.8

6. Does your company motivate you for sharing your knowledge? 117 3 2.5

1. If a knowledge management system is currently used in your company what is your opinion: 89 31 25.8

Knowledge Management 2. How comfortable do you feel to communicate and participate in these KM systems? 91 29 24.2
Initiatives For Enterprises
Using Knowledge 3. Do you share information through the system? 99 21 17.5
Management Systems
4. What do you think are the main obstacles of your knowledge sharing through the set of
91 29 24.2
Knowledge management systems?

207 | P a g e
 Missing Values by Position
Executive Technical Support
Manager Other
officer Staff Staff
3 8 13 20 1
5 4 3 1
4 3 2
3
5
8
6
1 3 1
6
2
6
3

Missing Values by Total Full-time Workforce

1000-
1- 100 101-999 10000 +
10000
34 2 9
9 1 3
5 4
3
5
8
6
3 2
6
1 1
6
3
 5
4

209 | P a g e
TOURISM

3
SHIPPING

17 1
RETAIL

6
1
13
CONSTRUCTION

1
3
8
3
3
2
1
I.T. SECTOR

1
3
4
PUBLIC SECTOR

1
NGO

6
6
EDUCATION
4

BANKING
4
4 REAL ESTATE SALES
GOVERNMENT

1
1

MARKETING/MANAGEMENT
Missing Values by Industry Type

ENGINEERING
1

JOURNALISM
1

INDUSTRY
1

AUTO-MOTIVE
 Appendix 3 – Crosstabulations

B. RECENT CHANGES IN THE FIRM

1. Has your company recently gone through a Merger, Acquisition or downsizing?

1. Has your company recently gone through
a Merger, Acquisition or downsizing? Total
Don’t know No Yes
Frequency 1 2 16 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 5.3% 10.5% 84.2% 100.0%
company follow a
Frequency 0 31 12 43
knowledge No
Percent 0.0% 72.1% 27.9% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 1 45 12 58
Yes
Percent 1.7% 77.6% 20.7% 100.0%
Frequency 2 78 40 120
Total
Percent 1.7% 65.0% 33.3% 100.0%

2. Please answer the following questions [My monthly personal income has been]
2. Please answer the following questions [My monthly
personal income has been]
Reduced Reduced Remained Reduced Total
Reduced
by more from 30% the same or from 10%
up to 10%
than 50% to 50% increased to 30%
1. Does your I don't know Frequency 5 9 1 3 1 19
company Percent 26.3% 47.4% 5.3% 15.8% 5.3% 100.0%
follow a Frequency 5 11 10 10 7 43
No
knowledge Percent 11.6% 25.6% 23.3% 23.3% 16.3% 100.0%
management Frequency 6 1 11 38 2 58
strategy? Yes
Percent 10.3% 1.7% 19.0% 65.5% 3.4% 100.0%
Frequency 16 21 22 51 10 120
Total
Percent 13.3% 17.5% 18.3% 42.5% 8.3% 100.0%

210 | P a g e
 2. Please answer the following questions [The firm’s revenues have]
2. Please answer the following questions [The firm’s revenues
have]
Reduced Reduced Reduced Remained Total
Reduced from
by more from 30% up to the same or
10% to 30%
than 50% to 50% 10% increased
1. Does your I don't know Frequency 9 6 1 2 1 19
company Percent 47.4% 31.6% 5.3% 10.5% 5.3% 100.0%
follow a Frequency 2 8 15 10 8 43
No
knowledge Percent 4.7% 18.6% 34.9% 23.3% 18.6% 100.0%
management Frequency 12 2 2 27 15 58
strategy? Yes
Percent 20.7% 3.4% 3.4% 46.6% 25.9% 100.0%
Frequency 23 16 18 39 24 120
Total
Percent 19.2% 13.3% 15.0% 32.5% 20.0% 100.0%

3. During the past 18 months I feel

3. During the past 18 months I feel
Much more
My job position Nothing has Total
insecure with
is more secured changed
my job position
Frequency 17 0 2 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 89.5% 0.0% 10.5% 100.0%
company follow a
Frequency 21 7 15 43
knowledge No
Percent 48.8% 16.3% 34.9% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 20 24 14 58
Yes
Percent 34.5% 41.4% 24.1% 100.0%
Frequency 58 31 31 120
Total
Percent 48.3% 25.8% 25.8% 100.0%

211 | P a g e
C. CORPORATE CULTURE

2 How strong is the feeling of succeeding in your unit?

2 How strong is the feeling of
succeeding in your unit? Total
1 2 3 4 5
Frequency 1 8 1 4 5 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 5.3% 42.1% 5.3% 21.1% 26.3% 100.0%
company follow a
Frequency 7 14 12 3 7 43
knowledge No
Percent 16.3% 32.6% 27.9% 7.0% 16.3% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 20 7 12 19 0 58
Yes
Percent 34.5% 12.1% 20.7% 32.8% 0.0% 100.0%
Frequency 28 29 25 26 12 120
Total
Percent 23.3% 24.2% 20.8% 21.7% 10.0% 100.0%

4. In group projects, how open are people to share their experiences?

4. In group projects, how open are
people to share their experiences?
They are Total
They are They are
not always
not open open
open
Frequency 9 4 6 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 47.4% 21.1% 31.6% 100.0%
company follow a
Frequency 29 4 10 43
knowledge No
Percent 67.4% 9.3% 23.3% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 17 0 41 58
Yes
Percent 29.3% 0.0% 70.7% 100.0%
Frequency 55 8 57 120
Total
Percent 45.8% 6.7% 47.5% 100.0%

212 | P a g e
 5 In your organizational unit, do workers share information about what is going on?
5 In your organizational unit, do workers share information
about what is going on?
They are sharing They are They are They are Total
a limited amount sharing all the sharing sharing some
of information information nothing information
Frequency 2 0 0 17 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 89.5% 100.0%
company follow
Frequency 11 11 3 18 43
a knowledge No
Percent 25.6% 25.6% 7.0% 41.9% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 5 31 0 22 58
Yes
Percent 8.6% 53.4% 0.0% 37.9% 100.0%
Frequency 18 42 3 57 120
Total
Percent 15.0% 35.0% 2.5% 47.5% 100.0%

6. Are you kept informed by the upper management about what is happening in
organisation?
6. Are you kept informed by the
upper management about what is
Total
happening in organisation?
No Yes
Frequency 16 3 19
I don't know
1. Does your Percent 84.2% 15.8% 100.0%
company follow a Frequency 22 21 43
No
knowledge Percent 51.2% 48.8% 100.0%
management strategy? Frequency 14 44 58
Yes
Percent 24.1% 75.9% 100.0%
Frequency 52 68 120
Total
Percent 43.3% 56.7% 100.0%

213 | P a g e
9. Does your supervisor or upper managers encourage you to participate on
information sharing practices?
9. Does your supervisor or upper managers
encourage you to participate on information
Total
sharing practices?
1 2 3 4 5
1. Does your I don't know Frequency 2 0 7 10 0 19
company Percent 10.5% 0.0% 36.8% 52.6% 0.0% 100.0%
follow a Frequency 10 1 6 15 6 38
No
knowledge Percent 26.3% 2.6% 15.8% 39.5% 15.8% 100.0%
management Frequency 27 14 9 8 0 58
strategy? Yes
Percent 46.6% 24.1% 15.5% 13.8% 0.0% 100.0%
Frequency 39 15 22 33 6 115
Total
Percent 33.9% 13.0% 19.1% 28.7% 5.2% 100.0%

11 Do you trust your coworkers in order to share information with them according to
your project/job?
11 Do you trust your coworkers in
order to share information with them
according to your project/job? Total
No, I don’t trust Yes, I trust them
them a lot
Frequency 0 19 19
I don't know
1. Does your Percent 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
company follow a Frequency 17 26 43
No
knowledge Percent 39.5% 60.5% 100.0%
management strategy? Frequency 2 56 58
Yes
Percent 3.4% 96.6% 100.0%
Frequency 19 101 120
Total
Percent 15.8% 84.2% 100.0%

214 | P a g e
 12. Among your unit and other units do you share information?
12. Among your unit and other
units do you share information? Total
No Yes Missing
Frequency 0 19 0 19
1. Does your I don’t know
Percent 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
company follow a
Frequency 9 34 0 43
knowledge No
Percent 20.9% 79.1% 0.0% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 0 57 1 58
Yes
Percent 0.0% 98.3% 1.7% 100.0%
Frequency 9 110 1 120
Total
Percent 7.5% 91.7% 0.8% 100.0%

13. Do you know who can provide you the appropriate information in another unit?
13. Do you know who can provide
information in another unit? Total
No, do not know Yes, I know
Frequency 5 14 19
I don’t know
1. Does your Percent 26.3% 73.7% 100.0%
company follow a Frequency 4 39 43
No
knowledge Percent 9.3% 90.7% 100.0%
management strategy? Frequency 9 49 58
Yes
Percent 15.5% 84.5% 100.0%
Frequency 18 102 120
Total
Percent 15.0% 85.0% 100.0%

15. Do you feel comfortable to communicate and share information?

15. Do you feel comfortable to communicate
and share information
With people With people from Total
Within your
from other other branches of
coworkers
units the same company
Frequency 3 0 16 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 15.8% 0.0% 84.2% 100.0%
company follow a
Frequency 17 11 15 43
knowledge No
Percent 39.5% 25.6% 34.9% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 5 0 53 58
Yes
Percent 8.6% 0.0% 91.4% 100.0%
Frequency 25 11 84 120
Total
Percent 20.8% 9.2% 70.0% 100.0%

215 | P a g e
 16. How obliged do you feel to participate in meetings with your coworkers?
16. How obliged do you feel to participate
in meetings with your coworkers
Total
Not at
Quite 1 2 3 4
all 5
Frequency 6 3 10 0 0 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 31.6% 15.8% 52.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
company follow
Frequency 25 8 3 1 3 40
a knowledge No
Percent 62.5% 20.0% 7.5% 2.5% 7.5% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 29 11 3 7 8 58
Yes
Percent 50.0% 19.0% 5.2% 12.1% 13.8% 100.0%
Frequency 60 22 16 8 11 117
Total
Percent 51.3% 18.8% 13.7% 6.8% 9.4% 100.0%

17. How do you assess your opportunity to participate on discussions?

17. How do you assess your opportunity to participate
on discussions?
With people
With people Total
from other With your
Missing for other
branches of the coworkers
units
some company
Frequency 1 7 0 11 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 5.3% 36.8% 0.0% 57.9% 100.0%
company follow
Frequency 0 22 6 15 43
a knowledge No
Percent 0.0% 51.2% 14.0% 34.9% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 0 4 6 48 58
Yes
Percent 0.0% 6.9% 10.3% 82.8% 100.0%
Frequency 1 33 12 74 120
Total
Percent 0.8% 27.5% 10.0% 61.7% 100.0%

216 | P a g e
18. Have you noticed a change to corporate culture during the past 18 months?
18. Have you noticed a change to Total
corporate culture in the past 18 months?
No Yes Missing
Frequency 4 15 0 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 21.1% 78.9% 0.0% 100.0%
company follow a
Frequency 24 19 0 43
knowledge No
Percent 55.8% 44.2% 0.0% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 22 33 3 58
Yes
Percent 37.9% 56.9% 5.2% 100.0%
Frequency 50 67 3 120
Total
Percent 41.7% 55.8% 2.5% 100.0%

D. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

2. Are there any officer positions that are related to knowledge management?
2. Are there any officer
positions related to KM? Total
No Yes
Frequency 18 1 19
I don't know
1. Does your Percent 94.7% 5.3% 100.0%
company follow a Frequency 39 4 43
No
knowledge Percent 90.7% 9.3% 100.0%
management strategy? Frequency 29 29 58
Yes
Percent 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Frequency 86 34 120
Total
Percent 71.7% 28.3% 100.0%

6. Does your company motivate you for sharing your knowledge?

6. Does your company motivate
you for sharing your knowledge? Total
Missing No Yes
Frequency 0 10 9 19
1. Does your I don't know
Percent 0.0% 52.6% 47.4% 100.0%
company follow a
Frequency 3 25 15 43
knowledge No
Percent 7.0% 58.1% 34.9% 100.0%
management
strategy? Frequency 0 5 53 58
Yes
Percent 0.0% 8.6% 91.4% 100.0%
Frequency 3 40 77 120
Total
Percent 2.5% 33.3% 64.2% 100.0%

217 | P a g e
 Appendix 4 – Inferential Analyses

ANOVA TESTS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ECONOMIC CRISIS 1-5

BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 22,756 2 11,378 11,632 ,000
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 105,640 108 ,978
initiatives Total 128,396 110
Between Groups ,158 2 ,079 ,104 ,901
2. I prefer to cut some other
Within Groups 82,112 108 ,760
functions rather the KM function
Total 82,270 110
3. KM functions have a high Between Groups 1,937 2 ,969 1,141 ,323
cost and thus we prefer to reduce Within Groups 90,826 107 ,849
them Total 92,764 109
Between Groups 11,036 2 5,518 11,847 ,000
4. KM can provide solutions for
Within Groups 49,837 107 ,466
the economic crisis
Total 60,873 109
5. The use of KM means that we Between Groups 7,371 2 3,686 3,810 ,025
can reduce several costs and Within Groups 110,287 114 ,967
cope with the economic crisis Total 117,658 116

BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Positions

Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 20,136 1 20,136 20,274 ,000
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 108,260 109 ,993
initiatives Total 128,396 110
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups ,322 1 ,322 ,429 ,514
functions rather the KM Within Groups 81,948 109 ,752
function Total 82,270 110
3. KM functions have a high Between Groups 6,955 1 6,955 8,753 ,004
cost and thus we prefer to Within Groups 85,809 108 ,795
reduce them Total 92,764 109
Between Groups ,922 1 ,922 1,661 ,200
4. KM can provide solutions for
Within Groups 59,950 108 ,555
the economic crisis
Total 60,873 109
5. The use of KM means that we Between Groups 2,188 1 2,188 2,179 ,143
can reduce several costs and Within Groups 115,470 115 1,004
cope with the economic crisis Total 117,658 116

218 | P a g e
 BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Stage
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 33,176 5 6,635 7,317 ,000
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 95,220 105 ,907
initiatives Total 128,396 110
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups 1,059 5 ,212 ,274 ,927
functions rather the KM Within Groups 81,211 105 ,773
function Total 82,270 110
3. KM functions have a Between Groups 10,502 5 2,100 2,655 ,027
high cost and thus we prefer Within Groups 82,261 104 ,791
to reduce them Total 92,764 109
4. KM can provide Between Groups 6,112 5 1,222 2,676 ,026
solutions for the economic Within Groups 44,772 98 ,457
crisis Total 50,885 103
5. The use of KM means Between Groups 14,359 5 2,872 3,208 ,010
that we can reduce several Within Groups 93,983 105 ,895
costs and cope with the 108,342 110
economic crisis Total

BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Information System

Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 30,878 3 10,293 11,294 ,000
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 97,518 107 ,911
initiatives Total 128,396 110
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups 6,823 3 2,274 3,225 ,025
functions rather the KM Within Groups 75,447 107 ,705
function Total 82,270 110
3. KM functions have a Between Groups ,629 3 ,210 ,241 ,867
high cost and thus we prefer Within Groups 92,134 106 ,869
to reduce them Total 92,764 109
4. KM can provide Between Groups 5,334 3 1,778 3,903 ,011
solutions for the economic Within Groups 45,551 100 ,456
crisis Total 50,885 103
5. The use of KM means Between Groups 11,881 3 3,960 4,393 ,006
that we can reduce several Within Groups 96,461 107 ,902
costs and cope with the 108,342 110
economic crisis Total

219 | P a g e
 BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Knowledge Type Used
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 35,071 12 2,923 3,069 ,001
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 93,325 98 ,952
initiatives Total 128,396 110
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups 31,108 12 2,592 4,966 ,000
functions rather the KM Within Groups 51,162 98 ,522
function Total 82,270 110
3. KM functions have a Between Groups 45,685 12 3,807 7,844 ,000
high cost and thus we prefer Within Groups 47,079 97 ,485
to reduce them Total 92,764 109
4. KM can provide Between Groups 19,302 12 1,609 3,753 ,000
solutions for the economic Within Groups 41,571 97 ,429
crisis Total 60,873 109
5. The use of KM means Between Groups 54,394 12 4,533 7,452 ,000
that we can reduce several Within Groups 63,264 104 ,608
costs and cope with the 117,658 116
economic crisis Total

BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Motivate Share Knowledge

Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 29,680 1 29,680 33,251 ,000
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 94,617 106 ,893
initiatives Total 124,296 107
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups 4,765 1 4,765 6,519 ,012
functions rather the KM Within Groups 77,485 106 ,731
function Total 82,250 107
3. KM functions have a Between Groups 4,054 1 4,054 4,828 ,030
high cost and thus we prefer Within Groups 88,170 105 ,840
to reduce them Total 92,224 106
4. KM can provide Between Groups ,997 1 ,997 1,755 ,188
solutions for the economic Within Groups 59,675 105 ,568
crisis Total 60,673 106
5. The use of KM means Between Groups 2,123 1 2,123 2,092 ,151
that we can reduce several Within Groups 113,632 112 1,015
costs and cope with the 115,754 113
economic crisis Total

220 | P a g e
 BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Attitude KM System
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 9,253 2 4,627 3,434 ,037
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 115,871 86 1,347
initiatives Total 125,124 88
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups 8,362 2 4,181 5,666 ,005
functions rather the KM Within Groups 63,458 86 ,738
function Total 71,820 88
3. KM functions have a Between Groups 3,094 2 1,547 2,178 ,119
high cost and thus we prefer Within Groups 61,085 86 ,710
to reduce them Total 64,180 88
4. KM can provide Between Groups 1,859 2 ,930 2,026 ,139
solutions for the economic Within Groups 36,250 79 ,459
crisis Total 38,110 81
5. The use of KM means Between Groups 15,191 2 7,596 8,004 ,001
that we can reduce several Within Groups 81,618 86 ,949
costs and cope with the 96,809 88
economic crisis Total

BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Comfortable In KM System

Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 4,135 1 4,135 3,196 ,077
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 115,161 89 1,294
initiatives Total 119,297 90
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups 1,887 1 1,887 2,216 ,140
functions rather the KM Within Groups 75,783 89 ,851
function Total 77,670 90
3. KM functions have a Between Groups ,259 1 ,259 ,347 ,557
high cost and thus we prefer Within Groups 66,488 89 ,747
to reduce them Total 66,747 90
4. KM can provide Between Groups ,036 1 ,036 ,080 ,778
solutions for the economic Within Groups 36,667 82 ,447
crisis Total 36,702 83
5. The use of KM means Between Groups ,372 1 ,372 ,329 ,568
that we can reduce several Within Groups 100,661 89 1,131
costs and cope with the 101,033 90
economic crisis Total

221 | P a g e
 BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Share Information
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups ,227 1 ,227 ,176 ,676
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 125,187 97 1,291
initiatives Total 125,414 98
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups ,002 1 ,002 ,002 ,964
functions rather the KM Within Groups 77,776 97 ,802
function Total 77,778 98
3. KM functions have a Between Groups 1,798 1 1,798 2,613 ,109
high cost and thus we prefer Within Groups 66,747 97 ,688
to reduce them Total 68,545 98
4. KM can provide Between Groups 3,852 1 3,852 9,446 ,003
solutions for the economic Within Groups 36,702 90 ,408
crisis Total 40,554 91
5. The use of KM means Between Groups 5,455 1 5,455 5,480 ,021
that we can reduce several Within Groups 96,545 97 ,995
costs and cope with the 102,000 98
economic crisis Total

BY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Main Obstacles Knowledge

Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1. The economic crisis has Between Groups 64,277 6 10,713 16,023 ,000
forced us to reduce the KM Within Groups 56,162 84 ,669
initiatives Total 120,440 90
2. I prefer to cut some other Between Groups 21,528 6 3,588 5,443 ,000
functions rather the KM Within Groups 55,373 84 ,659
function Total 76,901 90
3. KM functions have a Between Groups 7,812 6 1,302 1,881 ,094
high cost and thus we prefer Within Groups 58,144 84 ,692
to reduce them Total 65,956 90
4. KM can provide Between Groups 8,495 6 1,416 3,931 ,002
solutions for the economic Within Groups 30,252 84 ,360
crisis Total 38,747 90
5. The use of KM means Between Groups 26,463 6 4,410 16,874 ,000
that we can reduce several Within Groups 21,955 84 ,261
costs and cope with the 48,418 90
economic crisis Total

222 | P a g e
 1. What is your position level?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Executive officer 34 28.3 28.3 28.3
Manager 29 24.2 24.2 52.5
Technical Staff 24 20.0 20.0 72.5
Valid
Support Staff 28 23.3 23.3 95.8
Other 5 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0

Oneway ANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1a. Do the people working in Between Groups 49.948 4 12.487 15.987 .000
your firm know the objectives of Within Groups 89.044 114 .781
the business as a whole? Total 138.992 118
1b. Do people in your department Between Groups 48.281 4 12.070 10.017 .000
know the strategic goals of the Within Groups 137.366 114 1.205
department as a whole? Total 185.647 118
Between Groups 34.111 4 8.528 5.746 .000
2. How strong is the feeling of
Within Groups 170.681 115 1.484
succeeding in your unit?
Total 204.792 119
3. Has the company made clear to Between Groups 50.741 4 12.685 12.570 .000
its employees the rewards and Within Groups 116.059 115 1.009
punishments? Total 166.800 119
4. In group projects, how open Between Groups 7.839 4 1.960 6.066 .000
are people to share their Within Groups 37.152 115 .323
experiences? Total 44.992 119
5. In your organizational unit, do Between Groups 6.337 4 1.584 2.893 .025
workers share information about Within Groups 62.963 115 .548
what is going on? Total 69.300 119
6. Are you kept informed by the Between Groups 12.473 4 3.118 21.103 .000
upper management about what is Within Groups 16.993 115 .148
happening in the organisation? Total 29.467 119
Between Groups 1.288 4 .322 .859 .491
7. Does your supervisor control
Within Groups 39.739 106 .375
your work activities?
Total 41.027 110
8. Does your supervisor Between Groups 22.493 4 5.623 4.421 .002
encourage you to make your own Within Groups 138.630 109 1.272
decisions? Total 161.123 113
9. Does your supervisor or upper Between Groups 48.292 4 12.073 8.317 .000
managers encourage you to Within Groups 159.674 110 1.452

223 | P a g e
participate on information 207.965 114
Total
sharing practices?
10. In your job do you have to Between Groups 2.193 4 .548 6.709 .000
follow certain procedures, rules Within Groups 9.398 115 .082
or instructions? Total 11.592 119
11. Do you trust your coworkers Between Groups 2.972 4 .743 6.563 .000
in order to share information with Within Groups 13.020 115 .113
them according to your 15.992 119
Total
project/job?
Between Groups .870 4 .217 3.300 .013
12. Among your unit and other
Within Groups 7.444 113 .066
units do you share information?
Total 8.314 117
13. Do you know who can Between Groups 1.101 4 .275 2.230 .070
provide you the appropriate Within Groups 14.199 115 .123
information in another unit? Total 15.300 119
14. In general, do the Between Groups 18.348 4 4.587 3.724 .007
workers/managers/members of Within Groups 137.959 112 1.232
staff in your organization share 156.308 116
Total
information?
15. Do you feel comfortable to Between Groups 2.122 4 .530 1.258 .290
communicate and share Within Groups 48.470 115 .421
information Total 50.592 119
16. How obliged do you feel to Between Groups 19.075 4 4.769 2.845 .027
participate in meetings with your Within Groups 187.712 112 1.676
coworkers Total 206.786 116
17. How do you assess your Between Groups 10.353 4 2.588 6.790 .000
opportunity to participate on Within Groups 43.071 113 .381
discussions? Total 53.424 117
18. Have you noticed a change to Between Groups 5.024 4 1.256 5.958 .000
corporate culture during the past Within Groups 23.609 112 .211
18 months? Total 28.632 116
Between Groups 18.359 4 4.590 34.119 .000
If yes, which one of the following
Within Groups 9.148 68 .135
phrases represents those changes?
Total 27.507 72
1. Does your company follow a Between Groups 19.398 4 4.849 12.413 .000
knowledge management Within Groups 44.927 115 .391
strategy? Total 64.325 119
2. Are there any officer positions Between Groups 5.232 4 1.308 7.861 .000
that are related to knowledge Within Groups 19.135 115 .166
management? Total 24.367 119
3. Which of the below Between Groups 95.739 4 23.935 12.580 .000
characterise your stage of Within Groups 207.392 109 1.903

224 | P a g e
Knowledge management (KM) in 303.132 113
Total
your organization?
4. How can you describe the Between Groups 33.545 4 8.386 20.447 .000
information system that your Within Groups 44.295 108 .410
organisation uses for the 77.841 112
Total
information management:
5. Which of the following is the Between Groups 368.782 4 92.195 4.029 .004
type of knowledge that your Within Groups 2631.585 115 22.883
company uses for supporting the 3000.367 119
Total
KM:
Between Groups 3.624 4 .906 4.471 .002
6. Does your company motivate
Within Groups 22.700 112 .203
you for sharing your knowledge?
Total 26.325 116
7. If a knowledge management Between Groups 19.253 4 4.813 14.854 .000
system is currently used in your Within Groups 27.219 84 .324
company what is your opinion 46.472 88
Total
about
8. How comfortable do you feel Between Groups .743 4 .186 2.169 .079
to communicate and participate Within Groups 7.367 86 .086
in these KM systems Total 8.110 90
Between Groups .979 4 .245 3.607 .009
9. Do you share information
Within Groups 6.375 94 .068
through the system?
Total 7.354 98
10. What do you think are the Between Groups 65.498 4 16.375 5.853 .000
main obstacles of your Within Groups 240.612 86 2.798
knowledge-sharing through the 306.110 90
set of knowledge management Total
systems?
Between Groups 12.419 4 3.105 2.838 .028
1. The economic crisis has forced
Within Groups 115.978 106 1.094
us to reduce the KM initiatives
Total 128.396 110
Between Groups 18.692 4 4.673 7.791 .000
2. I prefer to cut some other
Within Groups 63.579 106 .600
functions rather the KM function
Total 82.270 110
3. KM functions have a high cost Between Groups 7.381 4 1.845 2.269 .067
and thus we prefer to reduce Within Groups 85.383 105 .813
them Total 92.764 109
Between Groups 16.175 4 4.044 9.499 .000
4. KM can provide solutions for
Within Groups 44.698 105 .426
the economic crisis
Total 60.873 109
5. The use of KM means that we Between Groups 5.895 4 1.474 1.477 .214
can reduce several costs and cope Within Groups 111.764 112 .998
with economic crisis Total 117.658 116

225 | P a g e
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dunnett C
Dependent (I) 1. What is (J) 1. What is Mean Std. 95% Confidence
Variable your position your position Difference Error Interval
level? level? (I-J) Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Manager 1.071* .204 .48 1.66
Technical Staff 1.208* .247 .49 1.93
Executive officer
Support Staff -.357 .247 -1.07 .36
Other .200 .518 -2.02 2.42
Executive officer -1.071* .204 -1.66 -.48
Technical Staff .137 .213 -.49 .77
Manager
Support Staff -1.429* .213 -2.05 -.81
1a. Do the people Other -.871 .503 -3.07 1.33
working in your Executive officer -1.208* .247 -1.93 -.49
firm know the Manager -.137 .213 -.77 .49
Technical Staff
objectives of the Support Staff -1.565* .255 -2.31 -.82
business as a Other -1.008 .522 -3.24 1.22
whole? Executive officer .357 .247 -.36 1.07
Manager 1.429* .213 .81 2.05
Support Staff
Technical Staff 1.565* .255 .82 2.31
Other .557 .522 -1.67 2.78
Executive officer -.200 .518 -2.42 2.02
Manager .871 .503 -1.33 3.07
Other
Technical Staff 1.008 .522 -1.22 3.24
Support Staff -.557 .522 -2.78 1.67
Manager .884* .255 .15 1.62
Technical Staff .706 .349 -.31 1.73
Executive officer
Support Staff -.794 .282 -1.61 .02
Other .306 .640 -2.42 3.03
1b. Do people in
Executive officer -.884* .255 -1.62 -.15
your department
Technical Staff -.179 .297 -1.06 .70
know the Manager
Support Staff -1.679* .215 -2.31 -1.05
strategic goals of
Other -.579 .613 -3.26 2.11
the department as
Executive officer -.706 .349 -1.73 .31
a whole?
Manager .179 .297 -.70 1.06
Technical Staff
Support Staff -1.500* .321 -2.44 -.56
Other -.400 .658 -3.16 2.36
Support Staff Executive officer .794 .282 -.02 1.61

226 | P a g e
 Manager 1.679* .215 1.05 2.31
Technical Staff 1.500* .321 .56 2.44
Other 1.100 .625 -1.60 3.80
Executive officer -.306 .640 -3.03 2.42
Manager .579 .613 -2.11 3.26
Other
Technical Staff .400 .658 -2.36 3.16
Support Staff -1.100 .625 -3.80 1.60
Manager -.816* .233 -1.49 -.14
Technical Staff .319 .318 -.62 1.26
Executive officer
Support Staff .664 .325 -.28 1.61
Other .135 .692 -2.90 3.17
Executive officer .816* .233 .14 1.49
Technical Staff 1.135* .345 .12 2.15
Manager
Support Staff 1.480* .351 .46 2.50
Other .952 .704 -2.10 4.00
2. How strong is Executive officer -.319 .318 -1.26 .62
the feeling of Manager -1.135* .345 -2.15 -.12
Technical Staff
succeeding in Support Staff .345 .412 -.87 1.56
your unit? Other -.183 .737 -3.29 2.92
Executive officer -.664 .325 -1.61 .28
Manager -1.480* .351 -2.50 -.46
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.345 .412 -1.56 .87
Other -.529 .740 -3.64 2.58
Executive officer -.135 .692 -3.17 2.90
Manager -.952 .704 -4.00 2.10
Other
Technical Staff .183 .737 -2.92 3.29
Support Staff .529 .740 -2.58 3.64
Manager -.163 .238 -.85 .53
Technical Staff -.895* .266 -1.68 -.11
Executive officer
Support Staff 1.004* .213 .38 1.62
Other .747 .758 -2.59 4.09
Executive officer .163 .238 -.53 .85
3. Has the
Technical Staff -.731 .313 -1.65 .19
company made Manager
Support Staff 1.167* .270 .38 1.96
clear to its
Other .910 .776 -2.46 4.28
employees the
Executive officer .895* .266 .11 1.68
rewards and
Manager .731 .313 -.19 1.65
punishments? Technical Staff
Support Staff 1.899* .295 1.03 2.77
Other 1.642 .785 -1.74 5.02
Executive officer -1.004* .213 -1.62 -.38
Support Staff Manager -1.167* .270 -1.96 -.38
Technical Staff -1.899* .295 -2.77 -1.03

227 | P a g e
 Other -.257 .769 -3.61 3.10
Executive officer -.747 .758 -4.09 2.59
Manager -.910 .776 -4.28 2.46
Other
Technical Staff -1.642 .785 -5.02 1.74
Support Staff .257 .769 -3.10 3.61
Manager -.007 .134 -.40 .38
Technical Staff -.642* .141 -1.05 -.23
Executive officer
Support Staff -.023 .162 -.50 .45
Other -.359 .222 -1.28 .56
Executive officer .007 .134 -.38 .40
Technical Staff -.635* .139 -1.04 -.23
Manager
Support Staff -.016 .161 -.49 .45
Other -.352 .221 -1.27 .57
4. In group
Executive officer .642* .141 .23 1.05
projects, how
Manager .635* .139 .23 1.04
open are people Technical Staff
Support Staff .619* .166 .13 1.11
to share their
Other .283 .225 -.65 1.21
experiences?
Executive officer .023 .162 -.45 .50
Manager .016 .161 -.45 .49
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.619* .166 -1.11 -.13
Other -.336 .239 -1.29 .62
Executive officer .359 .222 -.56 1.28
Manager .352 .221 -.57 1.27
Other
Technical Staff -.283 .225 -1.21 .65
Support Staff .336 .239 -.62 1.29
Manager -.058 .175 -.57 .45
Technical Staff -.473* .122 -.83 -.12
Executive officer
Support Staff .092 .213 -.53 .71
Other -.665 .409 -2.46 1.13
Executive officer .058 .175 -.45 .57
Technical Staff -.415 .174 -.92 .09
5. In your Manager
Support Staff .150 .246 -.57 .87
organizational
Other -.607 .428 -2.43 1.21
unit, do workers
Executive officer .473* .122 .12 .83
share information
Manager .415 .174 -.09 .92
about what is Technical Staff
Support Staff .565 .212 -.05 1.18
going on?
Other -.192 .409 -1.98 1.60
Executive officer -.092 .213 -.71 .53
Manager -.150 .246 -.87 .57
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.565 .212 -1.18 .05
Other -.757 .445 -2.60 1.09
Other Executive officer .665 .409 -1.13 2.46

228 | P a g e
 Manager .607 .428 -1.21 2.43
Technical Staff .192 .409 -1.60 1.98
Support Staff .757 .445 -1.09 2.60
Manager -.562* .100 -.85 -.27
Technical Staff -.858* .071 -1.07 -.65
Executive officer
Support Staff -.191 .093 -.46 .08
Other -.541 .248 -1.63 .55
Executive officer .562* .100 .27 .85
Technical Staff -.296 .108 -.61 .02
Manager
Support Staff .371* .124 .01 .73
6. Are you kept
Other .021 .262 -1.09 1.13
informed by the
Executive officer .858* .071 .65 1.07
upper
Manager .296 .108 -.02 .61
management Technical Staff
Support Staff .667* .101 .37 .96
about what is
Other .317 .252 -.78 1.42
happening in the
Executive officer .191 .093 -.08 .46
organisation?
Manager -.371* .124 -.73 -.01
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.667* .101 -.96 -.37
Other -.350 .259 -1.46 .76
Executive officer .541 .248 -.55 1.63
Manager -.021 .262 -1.13 1.09
Other
Technical Staff -.317 .252 -1.42 .78
Support Staff .350 .259 -.76 1.46
Manager .127 .182 -.41 .66
Technical Staff .003 .184 -.54 .55
Executive officer
Support Staff .241 .167 -.25 .73
Other .320 .424 -1.49 2.13
Executive officer -.127 .182 -.66 .41
Technical Staff -.124 .166 -.61 .36
Manager
Support Staff .115 .146 -.31 .54
Other .193 .416 -1.61 1.99
7. Does your
Executive officer -.003 .184 -.55 .54
supervisor control
Manager .124 .166 -.36 .61
your work Technical Staff
Support Staff .238 .149 -.20 .68
activities?
Other .317 .417 -1.49 2.12
Executive officer -.241 .167 -.73 .25
Manager -.115 .146 -.54 .31
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.238 .149 -.68 .20
Other .079 .410 -1.71 1.87
Executive officer -.320 .424 -2.13 1.49
Other Manager -.193 .416 -1.99 1.61
Technical Staff -.317 .417 -2.12 1.49

229 | P a g e
 Support Staff -.079 .410 -1.87 1.71
Manager .669 .247 -.05 1.39
Technical Staff -.565 .320 -1.51 .38
Executive officer
Support Staff .393 .361 -.66 1.45
Other -.007 .643 -2.74 2.73
Executive officer -.669 .247 -1.39 .05
Technical Staff -1.234* .237 -1.93 -.54
Manager
Support Staff -.276 .290 -1.12 .57
Other -.676 .606 -3.35 2.00
8. Does your
Executive officer .565 .320 -.38 1.51
supervisor
Manager 1.234* .237 .54 1.93
encourage you to Technical Staff
Support Staff .958 .354 -.08 2.00
make your own
Other .558 .639 -2.17 3.29
decisions?
Executive officer -.393 .361 -1.45 .66
Manager .276 .290 -.57 1.12
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.958 .354 -2.00 .08
Other -.400 .661 -3.16 2.36
Executive officer .007 .643 -2.73 2.74
Manager .676 .606 -2.00 3.35
Other
Technical Staff -.558 .639 -3.29 2.17
Support Staff .400 .661 -2.36 3.16
Manager -.348 .305 -1.24 .54
Technical Staff -1.556* .275 -2.36 -.76
Executive officer
Support Staff .200 .356 -.84 1.24
Other .035 .535 -2.21 2.28
Executive officer .348 .305 -.54 1.24
Technical Staff -1.208* .275 -2.02 -.39
Manager
Support Staff .548 .357 -.50 1.59
9. Does your
Other .383 .536 -1.87 2.63
supervisor or
Executive officer 1.556* .275 .76 2.36
upper managers
Manager 1.208* .275 .39 2.02
encourage you to Technical Staff
Support Staff 1.756* .331 .79 2.73
participate on
Other 1.592 .519 -.63 3.81
information
Executive officer -.200 .356 -1.24 .84
sharing practices?
Manager -.548 .357 -1.59 .50
Support Staff
Technical Staff -1.756* .331 -2.73 -.79
Other -.164 .566 -2.46 2.14
Executive officer -.035 .535 -2.28 2.21
Manager -.383 .536 -2.63 1.87
Other
Technical Staff -1.592 .519 -3.81 .63
Support Staff .164 .566 -2.14 2.46
10. In your job do Executive officer Manager -.286 .099 -.57 .00

230 | P a g e
you have to Technical Staff .059 .041 -.06 .18
follow certain Support Staff .023 .054 -.13 .18
procedures, rules Other .059 .041 -.06 .18
or instructions? Executive officer .286 .099 .00 .57
Technical Staff .345* .090 .08 .61
Manager
Support Staff .309* .097 .03 .59
Other .345* .090 .08 .61
Executive officer -.059 .041 -.18 .06
Manager -.345* .090 -.61 -.08
Technical Staff
Support Staff -.036 .036 -.14 .07
Other .000 .000 .00 .00
Executive officer -.023 .054 -.18 .13
Manager -.309* .097 -.59 -.03
Support Staff
Technical Staff .036 .036 -.07 .14
Other .036 .036 -.07 .14
Executive officer -.059 .041 -.18 .06
Manager -.345* .090 -.61 -.08
Other
Technical Staff .000 .000 .00 .00
Support Staff -.036 .036 -.14 .07
Manager -.040 .056 -.20 .12
Technical Staff -.429* .108 -.75 -.11
Executive officer
Support Staff -.113 .073 -.33 .10
Other -.171 .202 -1.06 .72
Executive officer .040 .056 -.12 .20
Technical Staff -.389* .114 -.73 -.05
Manager
Support Staff -.074 .083 -.32 .17
11. Do you trust Other -.131 .206 -1.03 .77
your coworkers in Executive officer .429* .108 .11 .75
order to share Manager .389* .114 .05 .73
Technical Staff
information with Support Staff .315 .124 -.05 .68
them according to Other .258 .225 -.67 1.19
your project/job? Executive officer .113 .073 -.10 .33
Manager .074 .083 -.17 .32
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.315 .124 -.68 .05
Other -.057 .211 -.96 .85
Executive officer .171 .202 -.72 1.06
Manager .131 .206 -.77 1.03
Other
Technical Staff -.258 .225 -1.19 .67
Support Staff .057 .211 -.85 .96
12. Among your Manager -.071 .050 -.22 .07
unit and other Executive officer Technical Staff -.042 .042 -.16 .08
units do you Support Staff -.143 .067 -.34 .05

231 | P a g e
share Other -.400 .245 -1.49 .69
information? Executive officer .071 .050 -.07 .22
Technical Staff .030 .065 -.16 .22
Manager
Support Staff -.071 .084 -.32 .17
Other -.329 .250 -1.42 .77
Executive officer .042 .042 -.08 .16
Manager -.030 .065 -.22 .16
Technical Staff
Support Staff -.101 .079 -.33 .13
Other -.358 .248 -1.45 .74
Executive officer .143 .067 -.05 .34
Manager .071 .084 -.17 .32
Support Staff
Technical Staff .101 .079 -.13 .33
Other -.257 .254 -1.36 .84
Executive officer .400 .245 -.69 1.49
Manager .329 .250 -.77 1.42
Other
Technical Staff .358 .248 -.74 1.45
Support Staff .257 .254 -.84 1.36
Manager .230 .084 -.01 .47
Technical Staff .056 .114 -.28 .39
Executive officer
Support Staff .193 .091 -.07 .46
Other .065 .214 -.84 .97
Executive officer -.230 .084 -.47 .01
Technical Staff -.174 .091 -.44 .10
Manager
Support Staff -.037 .060 -.21 .14
13. Do you know Other -.166 .203 -1.06 .73
who can provide Executive officer -.056 .114 -.39 .28
you the Manager .174 .091 -.10 .44
Technical Staff
appropriate Support Staff .137 .098 -.15 .43
information in Other .008 .217 -.91 .92
another unit? Executive officer -.193 .091 -.46 .07
Manager .037 .060 -.14 .21
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.137 .098 -.43 .15
Other -.129 .206 -1.03 .77
Executive officer -.065 .214 -.97 .84
Manager .166 .203 -.73 1.06
Other
Technical Staff -.008 .217 -.92 .91
Support Staff .129 .206 -.77 1.03
14. In general, do Manager .362 .319 -.57 1.29
the Technical Staff .302 .288 -.54 1.14
Executive officer
workers/manager Support Staff -.638 .297 -1.50 .23
s/members of Other -.481 .437 -2.24 1.28
staff in your Manager Executive officer -.362 .319 -1.29 .57

232 | P a g e
organization Technical Staff -.060 .288 -.91 .79
share Support Staff -1.000* .297 -1.87 -.13
information? Other -.843 .437 -2.61 .92
Executive officer -.302 .288 -1.14 .54
Manager .060 .288 -.79 .91
Technical Staff
Support Staff -.940* .264 -1.72 -.16
Other -.783 .415 -2.51 .95
Executive officer .638 .297 -.23 1.50
Manager 1.000* .297 .13 1.87
Support Staff
Technical Staff .940* .264 .16 1.72
Other .157 .421 -1.58 1.89
Executive officer .481 .437 -1.28 2.24
Manager .843 .437 -.92 2.61
Other
Technical Staff .783 .415 -.95 2.51
Support Staff -.157 .421 -1.89 1.58
Manager .209 .173 -.29 .71
Technical Staff .338 .172 -.16 .84
Executive officer
Support Staff .267 .194 -.30 .83
Other .388 .248 -.58 1.36
Executive officer -.209 .173 -.71 .29
Technical Staff .129 .129 -.25 .51
Manager
Support Staff .058 .156 -.40 .51
Other .179 .220 -.74 1.10
15. Do you feel Executive officer -.338 .172 -.84 .16
comfortable to Manager -.129 .129 -.51 .25
Technical Staff
communicate and Support Staff -.071 .155 -.53 .38
share information Other .050 .219 -.87 .97
Executive officer -.267 .194 -.83 .30
Manager -.058 .156 -.51 .40
Support Staff
Technical Staff .071 .155 -.38 .53
Other .121 .237 -.83 1.07
Executive officer -.388 .248 -1.36 .58
Manager -.179 .220 -1.10 .74
Other
Technical Staff -.050 .219 -.97 .87
Support Staff -.121 .237 -1.07 .83
Manager -.789 .370 -1.86 .29
16. How obliged Technical Staff .269 .307 -.63 1.17
Executive officer
do you feel to Support Staff .150 .343 -.85 1.15
participate in Other -.065 .395 -1.60 1.47
meetings with Executive officer .789 .370 -.29 1.86
your coworkers Manager Technical Staff 1.057* .346 .04 2.07
Support Staff .938 .378 -.16 2.04

233 | P a g e
 Other .724 .425 -.88 2.32
Executive officer -.269 .307 -1.17 .63
Manager -1.057* .346 -2.07 -.04
Technical Staff
Support Staff -.119 .317 -1.05 .81
Other -.333 .372 -1.83 1.17
Executive officer -.150 .343 -1.15 .85
Manager -.938 .378 -2.04 .16
Support Staff
Technical Staff .119 .317 -.81 1.05
Other -.214 .402 -1.77 1.34
Executive officer .065 .395 -1.47 1.60
Manager -.724 .425 -2.32 .88
Other
Technical Staff .333 .372 -1.17 1.83
Support Staff .214 .402 -1.34 1.77
Manager .163 .190 -.39 .71
Technical Staff .527 .186 -.01 1.07
Executive officer
Support Staff .744* .168 .26 1.23
Other .618 .256 -.36 1.60
Executive officer -.163 .190 -.71 .39
Technical Staff .364 .140 -.05 .77
Manager
Support Staff .581* .115 .25 .92
Other .455 .225 -.47 1.38
17. How do you
Executive officer -.527 .186 -1.07 .01
assess your
Manager -.364 .140 -.77 .05
opportunity to Technical Staff
Support Staff .218 .108 -.10 .54
participate on
Other .092 .221 -.83 1.02
discussions?
Executive officer -.744* .168 -1.23 -.26
Manager -.581* .115 -.92 -.25
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.218 .108 -.54 .10
Other -.126 .206 -1.02 .77
Executive officer -.618 .256 -1.60 .36
Manager -.455 .225 -1.38 .47
Other
Technical Staff -.092 .221 -1.02 .83
Support Staff .126 .206 -.77 1.02
Manager -.270 .126 -.64 .09
Technical Staff .044 .135 -.35 .44
Executive officer
18. Have you Support Staff .276 .112 -.05 .60
noticed a change Other -.381 .219 -1.30 .54
to corporate Executive officer .270 .126 -.09 .64
culture during the Technical Staff .315 .134 -.08 .71
Manager
past 18 months? Support Staff .547* .110 .22 .87
Other -.110 .218 -1.03 .81
Technical Staff Executive officer -.044 .135 -.44 .35

234 | P a g e
 Manager -.315 .134 -.71 .08
Support Staff .232 .121 -.13 .59
Other -.425 .224 -1.35 .50
Executive officer -.276 .112 -.60 .05
Manager -.547* .110 -.87 -.22
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.232 .121 -.59 .13
Other -.657 .211 -1.56 .25
Executive officer .381 .219 -.54 1.30
Manager .110 .218 -.81 1.03
Other
Technical Staff .425 .224 -.50 1.35
Support Staff .657 .211 -.25 1.56
Manager -1.476* .161 -1.98 -.98
Technical Staff -.900* .112 -1.24 -.56
Executive officer
Support Staff -.833* .109 -1.16 -.51
Other -.333 .508 -13.28 12.62
Executive officer 1.476* .161 .98 1.98
Technical Staff .576* .149 .11 1.04
Manager
Support Staff .643* .146 .19 1.10
Other 1.143 .517 -11.64 13.92
If yes, which one
Executive officer .900* .112 .56 1.24
of the following
Manager -.576* .149 -1.04 -.11
phrases Technical Staff
Support Staff .067 .090 -.21 .34
represents those
Other .567 .504 -12.46 13.59
changes?
Executive officer .833* .109 .51 1.16
Manager -.643* .146 -1.10 -.19
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.067 .090 -.34 .21
Other .500 .504 -12.54 13.54
Executive officer .333 .508 -12.62 13.28
Manager -1.143 .517 -13.92 11.64
Other
Technical Staff -.567 .504 -13.59 12.46
Support Staff -.500 .504 -13.54 12.54
Manager -.411 .174 -.92 .09
Technical Staff -.993* .132 -1.38 -.61
Executive officer
Support Staff .097 .141 -.31 .51
1. Does your Other -.418 .384 -2.09 1.26
company follow a Executive officer .411 .174 -.09 .92
knowledge Technical Staff -.582* .182 -1.12 -.05
Manager
management Support Staff .507 .190 -.05 1.06
strategy? Other -.007 .404 -1.71 1.70
Executive officer .993* .132 .61 1.38
Technical Staff Manager .582* .182 .05 1.12
Support Staff 1.089* .152 .64 1.53

235 | P a g e
 Other .575 .388 -1.11 2.26
Executive officer -.097 .141 -.51 .31
Manager -.507 .190 -1.06 .05
Support Staff
Technical Staff -1.089* .152 -1.53 -.64
Other -.514 .391 -2.20 1.17
Executive officer .418 .384 -1.26 2.09
Manager .007 .404 -1.70 1.71
Other
Technical Staff -.575 .388 -2.26 1.11
Support Staff .514 .391 -1.17 2.20
Manager -.244 .107 -.55 .06
Technical Staff -.382* .085 -.63 -.14
Executive officer
Support Staff .189 .127 -.18 .56
Other -.182 .217 -1.10 .73
Executive officer .244 .107 -.06 .55
Technical Staff -.138 .065 -.33 .05
Manager
Support Staff .433* .115 .10 .77
Other .062 .210 -.84 .97
2. Are there any
Executive officer .382* .085 .14 .63
officer positions
Manager .138 .065 -.05 .33
that are related to Technical Staff
Support Staff .571* .095 .29 .85
knowledge
Other .200 .200 -.69 1.09
management?
Executive officer -.189 .127 -.56 .18
Manager -.433* .115 -.77 -.10
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.571* .095 -.85 -.29
Other -.371 .222 -1.29 .55
Executive officer .182 .217 -.73 1.10
Manager -.062 .210 -.97 .84
Other
Technical Staff -.200 .200 -1.09 .69
Support Staff .371 .222 -.55 1.29
Manager -.969 .403 -2.14 .21
Technical Staff -2.565* .246 -3.29 -1.84
Executive officer
Support Staff -.429 .306 -1.32 .47
3. Which of the
Other -.707 .998 -5.09 3.67
below
Executive officer .969 .403 -.21 2.14
characterise your
Technical Staff -1.596* .391 -2.74 -.46
stage of Manager
Support Staff .541 .431 -.72 1.80
Knowledge
Other .262 1.043 -4.19 4.71
management
Executive officer 2.565* .246 1.84 3.29
(KM) in your
Manager 1.596* .391 .46 2.74
organization? Technical Staff
Support Staff 2.137* .289 1.29 2.98
Other 1.858 .993 -2.52 6.23
Support Staff Executive officer .429 .306 -.47 1.32

236 | P a g e
 Manager -.541 .431 -1.80 .72
Technical Staff -2.137* .289 -2.98 -1.29
Other -.279 1.009 -4.68 4.12
Executive officer .707 .998 -3.67 5.09
Manager -.262 1.043 -4.71 4.19
Other
Technical Staff -1.858 .993 -6.23 2.52
Support Staff .279 1.009 -4.12 4.68
Manager -.572* .151 -1.01 -.13
Technical Staff -1.588* .153 -2.04 -1.14
Executive officer
Support Staff -.511 .182 -1.04 .02
Other -.896 .413 -2.69 .90
Executive officer .572* .151 .13 1.01
Technical Staff -1.016* .157 -1.48 -.55
Manager
4. How can you Support Staff .062 .185 -.48 .60
describe the Other -.324 .415 -2.12 1.48
information Executive officer 1.588* .153 1.14 2.04
system that your Manager 1.016* .157 .55 1.48
Technical Staff
organisation uses Support Staff 1.077* .186 .53 1.62
for the Other .692 .415 -1.11 2.49
information Executive officer .511 .182 -.02 1.04
management: Manager -.062 .185 -.60 .48
Support Staff
Technical Staff -1.077* .186 -1.62 -.53
Other -.386 .427 -2.20 1.43
Executive officer .896 .413 -.90 2.69
Manager .324 .415 -1.48 2.12
Other
Technical Staff -.692 .415 -2.49 1.11
Support Staff .386 .427 -1.43 2.20
Manager -1.134 1.459 -5.37 3.10
Technical Staff -3.532 1.241 -7.15 .08
Executive officer
Support Staff 1.069 1.150 -2.26 4.40
Other 2.976 1.344 -1.88 7.83
5. Which of the
Executive officer 1.134 1.459 -3.10 5.37
following is the
Technical Staff -2.398 1.318 -6.26 1.46
type of Manager
Support Staff 2.203 1.232 -1.39 5.80
knowledge that
Other 4.110 1.415 -.92 9.14
your company
Executive officer 3.532 1.241 -.08 7.15
uses for
Manager 2.398 1.318 -1.46 6.26
supporting the Technical Staff
Support Staff 4.601* .964 1.76 7.44
KM:
Other 6.508* 1.189 1.94 11.08
Executive officer -1.069 1.150 -4.40 2.26
Support Staff Manager -2.203 1.232 -5.80 1.39
Technical Staff -4.601* .964 -7.44 -1.76

237 | P a g e
 Other 1.907 1.093 -2.46 6.27
Executive officer -2.976 1.344 -7.83 1.88
Manager -4.110 1.415 -9.14 .92
Other
Technical Staff -6.508* 1.189 -11.08 -1.94
Support Staff -1.907 1.093 -6.27 2.46
Manager -.321 .116 -.66 .02
Technical Staff -.380* .124 -.74 -.02
Executive officer
Support Staff -.017 .100 -.31 .27
Other -.439 .254 -1.54 .66
Executive officer .321 .116 -.02 .66
Technical Staff -.059 .140 -.47 .35
Manager
Support Staff .304 .120 -.05 .65
Other -.117 .263 -1.23 1.00
6. Does your
Executive officer .380* .124 .02 .74
company
Manager .059 .140 -.35 .47
motivate you for Technical Staff
Support Staff .363 .127 -.01 .74
sharing your
Other -.058 .266 -1.18 1.06
knowledge?
Executive officer .017 .100 -.27 .31
Manager -.304 .120 -.65 .05
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.363 .127 -.74 .01
Other -.421 .256 -1.53 .68
Executive officer .439 .254 -.66 1.54
Manager .117 .263 -1.00 1.23
Other
Technical Staff .058 .266 -1.06 1.18
Support Staff .421 .256 -.68 1.53
Manager -.790* .178 -1.31 -.27
Technical Staff -1.326* .152 -1.79 -.86
Executive officer
Support Staff -.776* .095 -1.06 -.49
Other .174 .081 -.07 .41
Executive officer .790* .178 .27 1.31
7. If a knowledge Technical Staff -.536 .204 -1.15 .07
Manager
management Support Staff .014 .166 -.47 .50
system is Other .964* .158 .50 1.43
currently used in Executive officer 1.326* .152 .86 1.79
your company Manager .536 .204 -.07 1.15
Technical Staff
what is your Support Staff .550* .138 .12 .98
opinion about Other 1.500* .129 1.10 1.90
Executive officer .776* .095 .49 1.06
Manager -.014 .166 -.50 .47
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.550* .138 -.98 -.12
Other .950* .050 .80 1.10
Other Executive officer -.174 .081 -.41 .07

238 | P a g e
 Manager -.964* .158 -1.43 -.50
Technical Staff -1.500* .129 -1.90 -1.10
Support Staff -.950* .050 -1.10 -.80
Manager .061 .079 -.17 .30
Technical Staff -.139 .128 -.53 .25
Executive officer
Support Staff .111 .062 -.07 .29
Other -.139 .257 -1.47 1.19
Executive officer -.061 .079 -.30 .17
Technical Staff -.200 .122 -.58 .18
Manager
Support Staff .050 .050 -.10 .20
8. How
Other -.200 .255 -1.53 1.13
comfortable do
Executive officer .139 .128 -.25 .53
you feel to
Manager .200 .122 -.18 .58
communicate and Technical Staff
Support Staff .250 .112 -.10 .60
participate in
Other .000 .274 -1.35 1.35
these KM
Executive officer -.111 .062 -.29 .07
systems
Manager -.050 .050 -.20 .10
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.250 .112 -.60 .10
Other -.250 .250 -1.58 1.08
Executive officer .139 .257 -1.19 1.47
Manager .200 .255 -1.13 1.53
Other
Technical Staff .000 .274 -1.35 1.35
Support Staff .250 .250 -1.08 1.58
Manager .000 .000 .00 .00
Technical Staff -.250 .112 -.60 .10
Executive officer
Support Staff -.125 .069 -.33 .08
Other -.250 .250 -1.58 1.08
Executive officer .000 .000 .00 .00
Technical Staff -.250 .112 -.60 .10
Manager
Support Staff -.125 .069 -.33 .08
Other -.250 .250 -1.58 1.08
9. Do you share
Executive officer .250 .112 -.10 .60
information
Manager .250 .112 -.10 .60
through the Technical Staff
Support Staff .125 .131 -.28 .53
system?
Other .000 .274 -1.35 1.35
Executive officer .125 .069 -.08 .33
Manager .125 .069 -.08 .33
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.125 .131 -.53 .28
Other -.125 .259 -1.46 1.21
Executive officer .250 .250 -1.08 1.58
Other Manager .250 .250 -1.08 1.58
Technical Staff .000 .274 -1.35 1.35

239 | P a g e
 Support Staff .125 .259 -1.21 1.46
Manager 1.453* .480 .03 2.88
Technical Staff 1.632 .651 -.37 3.63
Executive officer
Support Staff .298 .442 -1.03 1.62
Other 3.382 .829 -.67 7.44
Executive officer -1.453* .480 -2.88 -.03
Technical Staff .179 .637 -1.76 2.12
10. What do you Manager
Support Staff -1.155 .421 -2.39 .08
think are the main
Other 1.929 .818 -2.10 5.96
obstacles of your
Executive officer -1.632 .651 -3.63 .37
knowledge-
Manager -.179 .637 -2.12 1.76
sharing through Technical Staff
Support Staff -1.333 .609 -3.20 .53
the set of
Other 1.750 .929 -2.46 5.96
knowledge
Executive officer -.298 .442 -1.62 1.03
management
Manager 1.155 .421 -.08 2.39
systems? Support Staff
Technical Staff 1.333 .609 -.53 3.20
Other 3.083 .796 -.93 7.10
Executive officer -3.382 .829 -7.44 .67
Manager -1.929 .818 -5.96 2.10
Other
Technical Staff -1.750 .929 -5.96 2.46
Support Staff -3.083 .796 -7.10 .93
Manager .496 .342 -.50 1.49
Technical Staff .094 .307 -.81 1.00
Executive officer
Support Staff -.422 .272 -1.22 .37
Other -.215 .346 -1.49 1.06
Executive officer -.496 .342 -1.49 .50
Technical Staff -.401 .302 -1.29 .49
Manager
Support Staff -.917* .267 -1.69 -.14
Other -.710 .342 -1.98 .55
1. The economic Executive officer -.094 .307 -1.00 .81
crisis has forced Manager .401 .302 -.49 1.29
Technical Staff
us to reduce the Support Staff -.516 .220 -1.17 .14
KM initiatives Other -.309 .307 -1.51 .89
Executive officer .422 .272 -.37 1.22
Manager .917* .267 .14 1.69
Support Staff
Technical Staff .516 .220 -.14 1.17
Other .207 .272 -.92 1.34
Executive officer .215 .346 -1.06 1.49
Manager .710 .342 -.55 1.98
Other
Technical Staff .309 .307 -.89 1.51
Support Staff -.207 .272 -1.34 .92
2. I prefer to cut Executive officer Manager -.280 .226 -.94 .38

240 | P a g e
some other Technical Staff -.601* .157 -1.06 -.14
functions rather Support Staff -1.091* .163 -1.57 -.61
the KM function Other -.156 .412 -1.95 1.64
Executive officer .280 .226 -.38 .94
Technical Staff -.321 .238 -1.02 .38
Manager
Support Staff -.812* .242 -1.52 -.10
Other .124 .449 -1.73 1.98
Executive officer .601* .157 .14 1.06
Manager .321 .238 -.38 1.02
Technical Staff
Support Staff -.490 .179 -1.02 .04
Other .445 .418 -1.36 2.25
Executive officer 1.091* .163 .61 1.57
Manager .812* .242 .10 1.52
Support Staff
Technical Staff .490 .179 -.04 1.02
Other .936 .421 -.87 2.74
Executive officer .156 .412 -1.64 1.95
Manager -.124 .449 -1.98 1.73
Other
Technical Staff -.445 .418 -2.25 1.36
Support Staff -.936 .421 -2.74 .87
Manager .598 .246 -.12 1.32
Technical Staff .030 .206 -.58 .64
Executive officer
Support Staff .370 .276 -.44 1.18
Other -.133 .414 -1.86 1.59
Executive officer -.598 .246 -1.32 .12
Technical Staff -.567 .201 -1.16 .02
Manager
Support Staff -.227 .273 -1.02 .57
Other -.731 .412 -2.45 .99
3. KM functions
Executive officer -.030 .206 -.64 .58
have a high cost
Manager .567 .201 -.02 1.16
and thus we Technical Staff
Support Staff .340 .237 -.36 1.04
prefer to reduce
Other -.164 .389 -1.85 1.52
them
Executive officer -.370 .276 -1.18 .44
Manager .227 .273 -.57 1.02
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.340 .237 -1.04 .36
Other -.504 .430 -2.26 1.25
Executive officer .133 .414 -1.59 1.86
Manager .731 .412 -.99 2.45
Other
Technical Staff .164 .389 -1.52 1.85
Support Staff .504 .430 -1.25 2.26
4. KM can Manager -.851* .215 -1.48 -.22
provide solutions Executive officer Technical Staff -.867* .221 -1.52 -.22
for the economic Support Staff -.195 .217 -.83 .44

241 | P a g e
crisis Other -.831 .313 -2.04 .38
Executive officer .851* .215 .22 1.48
Technical Staff -.016 .139 -.43 .40
Manager
Support Staff .656* .133 .27 1.04
Other .021 .262 -1.09 1.13
Executive officer .867* .221 .22 1.52
Manager .016 .139 -.40 .43
Technical Staff
Support Staff .672* .142 .25 1.09
Other .036 .266 -1.09 1.16
Executive officer .195 .217 -.44 .83
Manager -.656* .133 -1.04 -.27
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.672* .142 -1.09 -.25
Other -.636 .263 -1.75 .48
Executive officer .831 .313 -.38 2.04
Manager -.021 .262 -1.13 1.09
Other
Technical Staff -.036 .266 -1.16 1.09
Support Staff .636 .263 -.48 1.75
Manager .015 .280 -.79 .82
Technical Staff .394 .323 -.55 1.34
Executive officer
Support Staff .465 .288 -.37 1.30
Other -.206 .574 -2.57 2.16
Executive officer -.015 .280 -.82 .79
Technical Staff .379 .207 -.24 .99
Manager
Support Staff .451* .146 .02 .88
5. The use of KM Other -.221 .518 -2.50 2.06
means that we Executive officer -.394 .323 -1.34 .55
can reduce Manager -.379 .207 -.99 .24
Technical Staff
several costs and Support Staff .071 .218 -.58 .72
cope with the Other -.600 .543 -2.92 1.72
economic crisis Executive officer -.465 .288 -1.30 .37
Manager -.451* .146 -.88 -.02
Support Staff
Technical Staff -.071 .218 -.72 .58
Other -.671 .523 -2.96 1.61
Executive officer .206 .574 -2.16 2.57
Manager .221 .518 -2.06 2.50
Other
Technical Staff .600 .543 -1.72 2.92
Support Staff .671 .523 -1.61 2.96
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

242 | P a g e
 1. Has your company recently gone through a Merger, Acquisition or
downsizing?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 40 33.3 33.6 33.6
No 77 64.2 64.7 98.3
Valid
Don't know 2 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 119 99.2 100.0
Missing System 1 .8
Total 120 100.0

OnewayANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1a. Do the people working in your Between Groups .351 2 .176 .146 .864
firm know the objectives of the Within Groups 138.301 115 1.203
business as a whole? Total 138.653 117
1b. Do people in your department Between Groups .642 2 .321 .202 .817
know the strategic goals of the Within Groups 182.646 115 1.588
department as a whole? Total 183.288 117
Between Groups .101 2 .051 .029 .972
2. How strong is the feeling of
Within Groups 204.605 116 1.764
succeeding in your unit?
Total 204.706 118
3. Has the company made clear to Between Groups .560 2 .280 .196 .822
its employees the rewards and Within Groups 165.423 116 1.426
punishments? Total 165.983 118
Between Groups .746 2 .373 .981 .378
4. In group projects, how open are
Within Groups 44.078 116 .380
people to share their experiences?
Total 44.824 118
5. In your organizational unit, do Between Groups .608 2 .304 .514 .599
workers share information about Within Groups 68.669 116 .592
what is going on? Total 69.277 118
6. Are you kept informed by the Between Groups .390 2 .195 .784 .459
upper management about what is Within Groups 28.887 116 .249
happening in the organisation? Total 29.277 118
Between Groups 1.006 2 .503 1.367 .259
7. Does your supervisor control
Within Groups 39.358 107 .368
your work activities?
Total 40.364 109
Between Groups 3.531 2 1.766 1.257 .289
8. Does your supervisor encourage
Within Groups 154.486 110 1.404
you to make your own decisions?
Total 158.018 112

243 | P a g e
9. Does your supervisor or upper Between Groups 8.386 2 4.193 2.356 .100
managers encourage you to Within Groups 197.552 111 1.780
participate on information sharing 205.939 113
Total
practices?
10. In your job do you have to Between Groups .341 2 .171 1.761 .176
follow certain procedures, rules or Within Groups 11.239 116 .097
instructions? Total 11.580 118
11. Do you trust your coworkers in Between Groups .137 2 .068 .501 .607
order to share information with Within Groups 15.830 116 .136
them according to your 15.966 118
Total
project/job?
Between Groups .055 2 .027 .380 .685
12. Among your unit and other
Within Groups 8.253 114 .072
units do you share information?
Total 8.308 116
13. Do you know who can provide Between Groups .043 2 .021 .171 .843
you the appropriate information in Within Groups 14.529 116 .125
another unit? Total 14.571 118
14. In general, do the Between Groups 3.478 2 1.739 1.312 .273
workers/managers/members of Within Groups 149.764 113 1.325
staff in your organization share 153.241 115
Total
information?
15. Do you feel comfortable to Between Groups .750 2 .375 .876 .419
communicate and share Within Groups 49.687 116 .428
information Total 50.437 118
16. How obliged do you feel to Between Groups .476 2 .238 .133 .876
participate in meetings with your Within Groups 202.446 113 1.792
coworkers Total 202.922 115
17. How do you assess your Between Groups 1.081 2 .540 1.182 .310
opportunity to participate on Within Groups 52.116 114 .457
discussions? Total 53.197 116
18. Have you noticed a change to Between Groups 1.476 2 .738 3.092 .049
corporate culture during the past Within Groups 26.972 113 .239
18 months? Total 28.448 115
Between Groups .023 1 .023 .060 .807
If yes, which one of the following
Within Groups 26.630 70 .380
phrases represents those changes?
Total 26.653 71
Between Groups 1.382 2 .691 1.283 .281
1. Does your company follow a
Within Groups 62.483 116 .539
knowledge management strategy?
Total 63.866 118
2. Are there any officer positions Between Groups .374 2 .187 .907 .406
that are related to knowledge Within Groups 23.912 116 .206
management? Total 24.286 118
3. Which of the below characterise Between Groups 8.292 2 4.146 1.564 .214

244 | P a g e
your stage of Knowledge Within Groups 291.514 110 2.650
management (KM) in your 299.805 112
Total
organization?
4. How can you describe the Between Groups 1.498 2 .749 1.071 .346
information system that your Within Groups 76.216 109 .699
organisation uses for the 77.714 111
Total
information management:
5. Which of the following is the Between Groups 23.626 2 11.813 .469 .627
type of knowledge that your Within Groups 2924.223 116 25.209
company uses for supporting the 2947.849 118
Total
KM:
Between Groups .242 2 .121 .527 .592
6. Does your company motivate
Within Groups 25.965 113 .230
you for sharing your knowledge?
Total 26.207 115
7. If a knowledge management Between Groups 1.494 2 .747 1.434 .244
system is currently used in your Within Groups 44.278 85 .521
company what is your opinion 45.773 87
Total
about
8. How comfortable do you feel to Between Groups .055 2 .027 .296 .745
communicate and participate in Within Groups 8.045 87 .092
these KM systems Total 8.100 89
Between Groups .015 2 .007 .096 .908
9. Do you share information
Within Groups 7.332 95 .077
through the system?
Total 7.347 97
10. What do you think are the main Between Groups 9.048 2 4.524 1.340 .267
obstacles of your knowledge- Within Groups 297.061 88 3.376
sharing through the set of 306.110 90
Total
knowledge management systems?
Between Groups .741 2 .371 .311 .734
1. The economic crisis has forced
Within Groups 127.631 107 1.193
us to reduce the KM initiatives
Total 128.373 109
Between Groups .962 2 .481 .633 .533
2. I prefer to cut some other
Within Groups 81.302 107 .760
functions rather the KM function
Total 82.264 109
Between Groups .755 2 .378 .437 .647
3. KM functions have a high cost
Within Groups 91.667 106 .865
and thus we prefer to reduce them
Total 92.422 108
Between Groups 1.271 2 .636 1.141 .323
4. KM can provide solutions for
Within Groups 59.602 107 .557
the economic crisis
Total 60.873 109
5. The use of KM means that we Between Groups 1.374 2 .687 .716 .491
can reduce several costs and cope Within Groups 108.454 113 .960
with the economic crisis Total 109.828 115

245 | P a g e
 Multiple Comparisons
Dunnett C
Dependent (I) 1. Has your company (J) 1. Has your company Mean Std. 95% Confidence
Variable recently gone through a recently gone through a Difference Error Interval
Merger, Acquisition or Merger, Acquisition or (I-J) Lower Upper
downsizing? downsizing? Bound Bound
No .178 .098 -.06 .42
18. Have you Yes
Don't know -.462 .081 -.66 -.26
noticed a change to
Yes -.178 .098 -.42 .06
corporate culture No
Don't know -.640 .056 -.77 -.51
during the past 18
months? Yes .462 .081 .26 .66
Don't know
No .640 .056 .51 .77

3. During the past 18 months I feel:

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Much more insecure 58 48.3 48.3 48.3
with my job position
Nothing has changed 31 25.8 25.8 74.2
Valid
My job position is more 31 25.8 25.8 100.0
secure
Total 120 100.0 100.0

Oneway ANOVA
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1a. Do the people working in your Between Groups 22.638 2 11.319 11.285 .000
firm know the objectives of the Within Groups 116.353 116 1.003
business as a whole? Total 138.992 118
1b. Do people in your department Between Groups 28.040 2 14.020 10.319 .000
know the strategic goals of the Within Groups 157.607 116 1.359
department as a whole? Total 185.647 118
Between Groups 34.674 2 17.337 11.924 .000
2. How strong is the feeling of
Within Groups 170.117 117 1.454
succeeding in your unit?
Total 204.792 119
3. Has the company made clear to Between Groups 17.505 2 8.753 6.859 .002
its employees the rewards and Within Groups 149.295 117 1.276
punishments? Total 166.800 119

246 | P a g e
 Between Groups 9.869 2 4.934 16.437 .000
4. In group projects, how open are
Within Groups 35.123 117 .300
people to share their experiences?
Total 44.992 119
5. In your organizational unit, do Between Groups 16.117 2 8.059 17.728 .000
workers share information about Within Groups 53.183 117 .455
what is going on? Total 69.300 119
6. Are you kept informed by the Between Groups 4.199 2 2.099 9.720 .000
upper management about what is Within Groups 25.268 117 .216
happening in the organisation? Total 29.467 119
Between Groups 9.898 2 4.949 17.171 .000
7. Does your supervisor control
Within Groups 31.129 108 .288
your work activities?
Total 41.027 110
Between Groups 47.463 2 23.731 23.176 .000
8. Does your supervisor encourage
Within Groups 113.660 111 1.024
you to make your own decisions?
Total 161.123 113
9. Does your supervisor or upper Between Groups 72.043 2 36.022 29.682 .000
managers encourage you to Within Groups 135.922 112 1.214
participate on information sharing 207.965 114
Total
practices?
10. In your job do you have to Between Groups .940 2 .470 5.165 .007
follow certain procedures, rules or Within Groups 10.651 117 .091
instructions? Total 11.592 119
11. Do you trust your coworkers in Between Groups .368 2 .184 1.379 .256
order to share information with Within Groups 15.623 117 .134
them according to your project/job? Total 15.992 119
Between Groups .278 2 .139 1.989 .142
12. Among your unit and other units
Within Groups 8.036 115 .070
do you share information?
Total 8.314 117
13. Do you know who can provide Between Groups 1.843 2 .921 8.011 .001
you the appropriate information in Within Groups 13.457 117 .115
another unit? Total 15.300 119
14. In general, do the Between Groups 57.131 2 28.565 32.835 .000
workers/managers/members of staff Within Groups 99.177 114 .870
in your organization share 156.308 116
Total
information?
Between Groups 4.371 2 2.186 5.533 .005
15. Do you feel comfortable to
Within Groups 46.220 117 .395
communicate and share information
Total 50.592 119
16. How obliged do you feel to Between Groups 30.966 2 15.483 10.039 .000
participate in meetings with your Within Groups 175.820 114 1.542
coworkers Total 206.786 116
17. How do you assess your Between Groups 1.824 2 .912 2.033 .136
opportunity to participate on Within Groups 51.599 115 .449

247 | P a g e
discussions? Total 53.424 117
18. Have you noticed a change to Between Groups 3.308 2 1.654 7.445 .001
corporate culture during the past 18 Within Groups 25.325 114 .222
months? Total 28.632 116
Between Groups .749 2 .374 .980 .381
If yes, which one of the following
Within Groups 26.758 70 .382
phrases represents those changes?
Total 27.507 72
Between Groups 10.706 2 5.353 11.681 .000
1. Does your company follow a
Within Groups 53.619 117 .458
knowledge management strategy?
Total 64.325 119
2. Are there any officer positions Between Groups 10.376 2 5.188 43.387 .000
that are related to knowledge Within Groups 13.991 117 .120
management? Total 24.367 119
3. Which of the below characterise Between Groups 39.840 2 19.920 8.398 .000
your stage of Knowledge Within Groups 263.292 111 2.372
management (KM) in your 303.132 113
Total
organization?
4. How can you describe the Between Groups 5.096 2 2.548 3.853 .024
information system that your Within Groups 72.745 110 .661
organisation uses for the 77.841 112
Total
information management:
5. Which of the following is the Between Groups 45.584 2 22.792 .902 .408
type of knowledge that your Within Groups 2954.783 117 25.255
company uses for supporting the 3000.367 119
Total
KM:
Between Groups 8.338 2 4.169 26.425 .000
6. Does your company motivate you
Within Groups 17.986 114 .158
for sharing your knowledge?
Total 26.325 116
7. If a knowledge management Between Groups 1.284 2 .642 1.222 .300
system is currently used in your Within Groups 45.188 86 .525
company what is your opinion about Total 46.472 88
8. How comfortable do you feel to Between Groups .416 2 .208 2.378 .099
communicate and participate in Within Groups 7.694 88 .087
these KM systems Total 8.110 90
Between Groups .235 2 .118 1.585 .210
9. Do you share information through
Within Groups 7.118 96 .074
the system?
Total 7.354 98
10. What do you think are the main Between Groups 84.447 2 42.224 16.763 .000
obstacles of your knowledge- Within Groups 221.663 88 2.519
sharing through the set of 306.110 90
Total
knowledge management systems?
1. The economic crisis has forced us Between Groups 16.158 2 8.079 7.774 .001
to reduce the KM initiatives Within Groups 112.239 108 1.039

248 | P a g e
 Total 128.396 110
Between Groups 7.266 2 3.633 5.231 .007
2. I prefer to cut some other
Within Groups 75.005 108 .694
functions rather the KM function
Total 82.270 110
Between Groups 6.532 2 3.266 4.052 .020
3. KM functions have a high cost
Within Groups 86.232 107 .806
and thus we prefer to reduce them
Total 92.764 109
Between Groups 1.797 2 .898 1.627 .201
4. KM can provide solutions for the
Within Groups 59.076 107 .552
economic crisis
Total 60.873 109
5. The use of KM means that we Between Groups 2.999 2 1.499 1.491 .230
can reduce several costs and cope Within Groups 114.659 114 1.006
with the economic crisis Total 117.658 116

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dunnett C
Dependent (I) 3. During the past (J) 3. During the past Mean Std. 95% Confidence
Variable 18 months I feel: 18 months I feel: Difference Error Interval
(I-J) Lower Upper
Bound Bound
*
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.584 .218 -1.12 -.05
*
1a. Do the peoplewith my job position My job is more secure -1.036 .243 -1.63 -.44
*
working in your Much more insecure .584 .218 .05 1.12
firm know the Nothing has changed with my job position
objectives of the My job is more secure -.452 .284 -1.15 .25
*
business as a Much more insecure 1.036 .243 .44 1.63
My job position is
whole? with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed .452 .284 -.25 1.15
*
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.804 .255 -1.43 -.18
*
1b. Do people in with my job position My job is more secure -1.094 .270 -1.76 -.43
*
your department Much more insecure .804 .255 .18 1.43
know the Nothing has changed with my job position
strategic goals of My job is more secure -.290 .307 -1.05 .47
*
the department as Much more insecure 1.094 .270 .43 1.76
My job position is
a whole? with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed .290 .307 -.47 1.05
2. How strong is Much more insecure Nothing has changed .183 .264 -.46 .83
*
the feeling of with my job position My job is more secure 1.280 .256 .65 1.90

249 | P a g e
succeeding in Much more insecure -.183 .264 -.83 .46
your unit? Nothing has changed with my job position
My job is more secure 1.097* .273 .42 1.77
Much more insecure -1.280* .256 -1.90 -.65
My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -1.097* .273 -1.77 -.42
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .285 .257 -.34 .91
3. Has the with my job position My job is more secure .930* .226 .38 1.48
company made Much more insecure -.285 .257 -.91 .34
clear to its Nothing has changed with my job position
employees the My job is more secure .645* .248 .03 1.26
rewards and Much more insecure -.930* .226 -1.48 -.38
My job position is
punishments? with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.645* .248 -1.26 -.03
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .460* .122 .16 .76
with my job position My job is more secure .654* .112 .38 .93
4. In group
Much more insecure -.460* .122 -.76 -.16
projects, how
Nothing has changed with my job position
open are people
My job is more secure .194 .118 -.10 .48
to share their
Much more insecure -.654* .112 -.93 -.38
experiences? My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.194 .118 -.48 .10
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .643* .159 .26 1.03
5. In your
with my job position My job is more secure .805* .137 .47 1.14
organizational
Much more insecure -.643* .159 -1.03 -.26
unit, do workers
Nothing has changed with my job position
share
My job is more secure .161 .164 -.24 .57
information
Much more insecure -.805* .137 -1.14 -.47
about what is My job position is
with my job position
going on? more secure
Nothing has changed -.161 .164 -.57 .24
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .298* .107 .04 .56
6. Are you kept
with my job position My job is more secure .427* .097 .19 .66
informed by the
Much more insecure -.298* .107 -.56 -.04
upper
Nothing has changed with my job position
management
My job is more secure .129 .112 -.15 .40
about what is
Much more insecure -.427* .097 -.66 -.19
happening in the My job position is
with my job position
organisation? more secure
Nothing has changed -.129 .112 -.40 .15
7. Does your Much more insecure Nothing has changed .475* .143 .12 .83
supervisor with my job position My job is more secure -.400* .105 -.66 -.14
control your Much more insecure -.475* .143 -.83 -.12
Nothing has changed
work activities? with my job position

250 | P a g e
 My job is more secure -.875* .141 -1.23 -.52
Much more insecure .400* .105 .14 .66
My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed .875* .141 .52 1.23
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .885* .223 .34 1.43
with my job position My job is more secure 1.490* .190 1.03 1.95
8. Does your
Much more insecure -.885* .223 -1.43 -.34
supervisor
Nothing has changed with my job position
encourage you to
My job is more secure .605* .171 .18 1.03
make your own
Much more insecure -1.490* .190 -1.95 -1.03
decisions? My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.605* .171 -1.03 -.18
9. Does your Much more insecure Nothing has changed 1.466* .228 .91 2.02
supervisor or with my job position My job is more secure 1.692* .265 1.04 2.34
upper managers Much more insecure -1.466* .228 -2.02 -.91
encourage you to Nothing has changed with my job position
participate on My job is more secure .226 .268 -.44 .89
information Much more insecure -1.692* .265 -2.34 -1.04
My job position is
sharing with my job position
more secure
practices? Nothing has changed -.226 .268 -.89 .44
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.206 .085 -.42 .00
with my job position My job is more secure -.013 .054 -.14 .12
10. In your job
Much more insecure .206 .085 .00 .42
do you have to
Nothing has changed with my job position
follow certain
My job is more secure .194 .092 -.03 .42
procedures, rules
Much more insecure .013 .054 -.12 .14
or instructions? My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.194 .092 -.42 .03
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .125 .069 -.04 .29
11. Do you trust
with my job position My job is more secure -.004 .089 -.22 .21
your coworkers
Much more insecure -.125 .069 -.29 .04
in order to share
Nothing has changed with my job position
information with
My job is more secure -.129 .085 -.34 .08
them according
Much more insecure .004 .089 -.21 .22
to your My job position is
with my job position
project/job? more secure
Nothing has changed .129 .085 -.08 .34
12. Among your Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.047 .073 -.23 .13
unit and other with my job position My job is more secure .086 .037 .00 .18
units do you Much more insecure .047 .073 -.13 .23
share Nothing has changed with my job position
information? My job is more secure .133 .063 -.02 .29

251 | P a g e
 Much more insecure -.086 .037 -.18 .00
My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.133 .063 -.29 .02
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .211* .074 .03 .39
13. Do you know with my job position My job is more secure .276* .059 .13 .42
who can provide Much more insecure -.211* .074 -.39 -.03
you the Nothing has changed with my job position
appropriate My job is more secure .065 .045 -.05 .18
information in Much more insecure -.276* .059 -.42 -.13
My job position is
another unit? with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.065 .045 -.18 .05
14. In general, do Much more insecure Nothing has changed -1.038* .269 -1.70 -.37
the with my job position My job is more secure -1.608* .158 -1.99 -1.23
workers/manager Much more insecure 1.038* .269 .37 1.70
s/members of Nothing has changed with my job position
staff in your My job is more secure -.570 .266 -1.23 .09
organization Much more insecure 1.608* .158 1.23 1.99
My job position is
share with my job position
more secure
information? Nothing has changed .570 .266 -.09 1.23
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.399 .172 -.82 .02
with my job position My job is more secure .085 .107 -.18 .34
15. Do you feel
Much more insecure .399 .172 -.02 .82
comfortable to
Nothing has changed with my job position
communicate
My job is more secure .484* .173 .06 .91
and share
Much more insecure -.085 .107 -.34 .18
information My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.484* .173 -.91 -.06
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.171 .363 -1.07 .72
with my job position My job is more secure 1.100* .186 .65 1.55
16. How obliged
Much more insecure .171 .363 -.72 1.07
do you feel to
Nothing has changed with my job position
participate in
My job is more secure 1.271* .334 .44 2.10
meetings with
Much more insecure -1.100* .186 -1.55 -.65
your coworkers My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -1.271* .334 -2.10 -.44
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.142 .171 -.56 .28
17. How do you with my job position My job is more secure .201 .129 -.11 .52
assess your Much more insecure .142 .171 -.28 .56
opportunity to Nothing has changed with my job position
participate on My job is more secure .343 .176 -.09 .78
discussions? My job position is Much more insecure -.201 .129 -.52 .11
more secure with my job position

252 | P a g e
 Nothing has changed -.343 .176 -.78 .09
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.402* .104 -.66 -.15
18. Have you with my job position My job is more secure -.188 .113 -.47 .09
noticed a change Much more insecure .402* .104 .15 .66
to corporate Nothing has changed with my job position
culture during My job is more secure .213 .128 -.10 .53
the past 18 Much more insecure .188 .113 -.09 .47
My job position is
months? with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.213 .128 -.53 .10
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .200 .225 -.41 .81
with my job position My job is more secure .211 .141 -.14 .56
If yes, which one
Much more insecure -.200 .225 -.81 .41
of the following
Nothing has changed with my job position
phrases
My job is more secure .011 .222 -.60 .62
represents those
Much more insecure -.211 .141 -.56 .14
changes? My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.011 .222 -.62 .60
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .335 .153 -.04 .71
with my job position My job is more secure .722* .130 .41 1.04
1. Does your
Much more insecure -.335 .153 -.71 .04
company follow
Nothing has changed with my job position
a knowledge
My job is more secure .387* .134 .06 .72
management
Much more insecure -.722* .130 -1.04 -.41
strategy? My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.387* .134 -.72 -.06
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.123 .058 -.26 .02
with my job position My job is more secure .619* .090 .40 .84
2. Are there any
Much more insecure .123 .058 -.02 .26
officer positions
Nothing has changed with my job position
that are related to
My job is more secure .742* .083 .54 .95
knowledge
Much more insecure -.619* .090 -.84 -.40
management? My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.742* .083 -.95 -.54
3. Which of the Much more insecure Nothing has changed 1.465* .362 .57 2.36
below with my job position My job is more secure .764 .321 -.02 1.55
characterise your Much more insecure -1.465* .362 -2.36 -.57
stage of Nothing has changed with my job position
Knowledge My job is more secure -.701 .367 -1.61 .21
management Much more insecure -.764 .321 -1.55 .02
My job position is
(KM) in your with my job position
more secure
organization? Nothing has changed .701 .367 -.21 1.61
4. How can you Much more insecure Nothing has changed .361 .200 -.13 .85

253 | P a g e
describe the with my job position My job is more secure .465* .170 .05 .88
information Much more insecure -.361 .200 -.85 .13
system that your Nothing has changed with my job position
organisation uses My job is more secure .103 .206 -.41 .62
for the Much more insecure -.465* .170 -.88 -.05
My job position is
information with my job position
more secure
management: Nothing has changed -.103 .206 -.62 .41
5. Which of the Much more insecure Nothing has changed -1.171 1.201 -4.11 1.77
following is the with my job position My job is more secure .474 1.100 -2.22 3.17
type of Much more insecure 1.171 1.201 -1.77 4.11
knowledge that Nothing has changed with my job position
your company My job is more secure 1.645 1.405 -1.82 5.11
uses for Much more insecure -.474 1.100 -3.17 2.22
My job position is
supporting the with my job position
more secure
KM: Nothing has changed -1.645 1.405 -5.11 1.82
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .425* .098 .18 .67
with my job position My job is more secure .603* .065 .45 .76
6. Does your
Much more insecure -.425* .098 -.67 -.18
company
Nothing has changed with my job position
motivate you for
My job is more secure .179 .074 .00 .36
sharing your
Much more insecure -.603* .065 -.76 -.45
knowledge? My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.179 .074 -.36 .00
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.300 .225 -.86 .26
7. If a knowledge
with my job position My job is more secure -.060 .153 -.44 .32
management
Much more insecure .300 .225 -.26 .86
system is
Nothing has changed with my job position
currently used in
My job is more secure .240 .228 -.34 .82
your company
Much more insecure .060 .153 -.32 .44
what is your My job position is
with my job position
opinion about more secure
Nothing has changed -.240 .228 -.82 .34
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.082 .116 -.38 .22
8. How
with my job position My job is more secure .118* .046 .01 .23
comfortable do
Much more insecure .082 .116 -.22 .38
you feel to
Nothing has changed with my job position
communicate
My job is more secure .200 .107 -.08 .48
and participate in
Much more insecure -.118* .046 -.23 -.01
these KM My job position is
with my job position
systems more secure
Nothing has changed -.200 .107 -.48 .08
9. Do you share Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.032 .083 -.24 .17
information with my job position My job is more secure .098 .042 .00 .20

254 | P a g e
through the Much more insecure .032 .083 -.17 .24
system? Nothing has changed with my job position
My job is more secure .130 .072 -.05 .31
Much more insecure -.098 .042 -.20 .00
My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed -.130 .072 -.31 .05
10. What do you Much more insecure Nothing has changed -1.523* .372 -2.43 -.61
think are the with my job position My job is more secure -2.175* .344 -3.01 -1.34
main obstacles of Much more insecure 1.523* .372 .61 2.43
your knowledge- Nothing has changed with my job position
sharing through My job is more secure -.653* .221 -1.21 -.10
the set of Much more insecure 2.175* .344 1.34 3.01
knowledge My job position is with my job position
management more secure .653* .221 .10 1.21
Nothing has changed
systems?
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.578 .269 -1.24 .09
with my job position My job is more secure -.863* .197 -1.34 -.38
1. The economic Much more insecure .578 .269 -.09 1.24
crisis has forced Nothing has changed with my job position
us to reduce the My job is more secure -.285 .257 -.92 .35
KM initiatives Much more insecure .863* .197 .38 1.34
My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed .285 .257 -.35 .92
Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.367 .194 -.85 .11
with my job position My job is more secure -.585* .191 -1.05 -.12
2. I prefer to cut Much more insecure .367 .194 -.11 .85
some other Nothing has changed with my job position
functions rather My job is more secure -.218 .220 -.76 .33
the KM function Much more insecure .585* .191 .12 1.05
My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed .218 .220 -.33 .76
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .038 .236 -.54 .62
with my job position My job is more secure -.529* .163 -.92 -.13
3. KM functions
Much more insecure -.038 .236 -.62 .54
have a high cost
Nothing has changed with my job position
and thus we
My job is more secure -.566* .199 -1.06 -.07
prefer to reduce
Much more insecure .529* .163 .13 .92
them My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed .566* .199 .07 1.06
4. KM can Much more insecure Nothing has changed -.080 .183 -.53 .37
provide solutions with my job position My job is more secure -.306 .159 -.70 .08
for the economic Much more insecure .080 .183 -.37 .53
Nothing has changed
crisis with my job position

255 | P a g e
 My job is more secure -.226 .194 -.70 .25
Much more insecure .306 .159 -.08 .70
My job position is
with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed .226 .194 -.25 .70
Much more insecure Nothing has changed .350 .227 -.20 .90
5. The use of with my job position My job is more secure .285 .185 -.16 .73
KM means that Much more insecure -.350 .227 -.90 .20
we can reduce Nothing has changed with my job position
several costs and My job is more secure -.065 .153 -.44 .31
cope with the Much more insecure -.285 .185 -.73 .16
My job position is
economic crisis with my job position
more secure
Nothing has changed .065 .153 -.31 .44
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

256 | P a g e
Appendix 5 – Interview questions

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

Title of Project: Knowledge management during an economic crisis: The case of

Greek firms

My name is Chris Mantas and I am an Doctorate student at the University of

Leicester. I am conducting a piece of research on Knowledge Management

Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. If at any point you wish to
no longer take part in the research you have the right to withdraw at anytime and
there will be no pressure to stay.

All the information you give will be anonymous and confidential and only used for
the purposes of this research and will only be accessible to me, unless you want to
have your detals on public (only if you agree). No third parties will have access to any
of the information you provide.

The data will be collected and stored in accordance with the Data Protection Act
1998 and will be disposed of in a secure manner. The information will be used in a
way that will not allow you to be identified individually.

You will have the opportunity to discuss your participation and be debriefed on the
research once it has been conducted and analysed.

If you are not sure about anything mentioned above please do not hesitate to ask
me.

If you agree to take part you will be asked to sign a consent form. The consent form
will not be used to identify you. It will be filed separately from all other information.

Thank you very much for your time and help!

257 | P a g e
Questions
1.Where did your company learn from about Knowledge Management
strategy?

2. Did things change after the implementation of Knowledge Management

compared to how things worked before?

3. Did Knowledge Management help your personnel to feel more secure

about their positions?

4. Did your company implement the fundamentals of Knowledge

Management before the economic crisis?

5. Did the implementation of Knowledge Management help the company

overcome the economic crisis?

6. What were the main points of Knowledge Management that helped the
company overcome the economic crisis?

7. What were the main outcomes of the implementation of the Knowledge

Management strategy that became obvious during the economic crisis?

8. What were according to your opinion, the main mounds of the economic
crisis that Knowledge Management strategy had to deal with so as to come
up with positive results?

9. How did the positive results affect the personal development of your
employees?

10. Were the positive results of Knowledge Management related to the

productivity of your personnel?

258 | P a g e
11. How did Knowledge Management affect the productivity of your
personnel?

12. Were the positive results of Knowledge Management related to the

performance of the company?

13. What were the main characteristics of Knowledge Management that

were related to the performance of the company?

14. Were the changes based on the application of Knowledge Management

reflected on the rendering of services of your company?

15. What would be the main characteristics that Knowledge Management

strategies should assimilate in the future?

16. What was the influence of culture on the implementation of knowledge

management. Can you discuss it?

259 | P a g e