Impact of knowledge management dimensions on learning organization across hierarchies in India
| Pages | 334-357 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/03055721111171636 |
| Published date | 16 August 2011 |
| Date | 16 August 2011 |
| Author | Deepak Chawla,Himanshu Joshi |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
Impact of knowledge
management dimensions on
learning organization across
hierarchies in India
Deepak Chawla and Himanshu Joshi
International Management Institute, New Delhi, India
Abstract
Purpose – Organization hierarchy plays a crucial role in the effective management of knowledge and
learning. Typically, the organization hierarchy includes employees at the top, middle and lower levels.
Employees possess a wealth of knowledge but often knowledge-driven learning across organization
hierarchies is not uniform due to various factors pertaining to the employees such as their literacy
levels, available-time, access to resources, reward and recognition, mindset, level of empowerment etc.
This paper attempts to compare how employees at the top and middle level hierarchies in Indian
organizations perceive a learning organization (LO). It also attempts to understand how the
dimensions of knowledge management (KM) influence LO and tests whether this is significantly
different for the aforementioned two hierarchy levels.
Design/methodology/approach – A convenience sample of 57 top and middle level executives
from India participated in the study. The extent of learning practices was compared and tested for
significant differences across the top and middle level hierarchies.
Findings – A comparison of the mean scores shows that there is hardly any difference in the way
executives at the two levels perceive LO. All the mean scores are below five on a scale of six,
pointing to scope for improvement. Further, no statistical difference is found in the mean scores.
The impact of KM dimensions on LO was found to be statistically insignificant for the two levels.
Most of the KM dimensions were found to positively impact the LO as per the proposed
hypothesis.
Research limitations/implications – The sample comprises 34 responses from top and 17 from
middle level executives. This small sample size can be largely attributed to respondents’ reluctance,
especially of those from the public sector organizations, to openly share their views. A larger
representation of respondents from the middle level hierarchy would certainly enhance the
generalization of results. This low response rate has limited the use of the regression analysis
technique as against any other powerful explanatory techniques.
Practical implications – The findings of this study can provide insights to organizations on the
role of hierarchies in the management of knowledge and learning which can, in turn, help in
developing best practices to manage the same.
Originality/value – The paper addresses the paucity of empirical research done to examine whether
top and middle level executives perceive LO differently. It also studies the impact of KM on LO and
provides evidence to demonstrate the difference in perception among different hierarchy levels. The
value added is in identifying future areas of research by extending this synergy between KM and LO
to enhance performance and competitiveness. This approach could be adopted to examine the
relationship in different socio-economic contexts and cultures.
Keywords Knowledgemanagement, Learning organizations,Top level, Middle level,Hierarchy, India,
Levels of management
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm
VINE
41,3
334
VINE: The journal of information and
knowledge management systems
Vol. 41 No. 3, 2011
pp. 334-357
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0305-5728
DOI 10.1108/03055721111171636
Introduction
Organizational structure and levels of management play an important role in the
performance of a business organization. In organizations, typically three levels of
management, namely top, middle and lower/first exist. There are a very few top-level
managers who are a part of the senior management. Higher-level authorities like chief
executive officers, directors have the authority to decide how the organizational
resources will be used to meet the objectives of the enterprise. They set goals for the
organizations and take strategic decisions which are generally long-term in nature.
Middle level management, on the other hand, is responsible for carrying out the goals
set by the top management. They motivate and assist first line managers to achieve
business objectives and manage the difficult task of mediating the organizational
policy and procedures downwards through the organizational hierarchy. They are the
recipients of changes planned by the top management and at the same time initiators
and implementers of change with their subordinates. Lower or the first level
management ensures that the decisions taken by the upper levels of management are
implemented properly.
The level of management or hierarchy is a function of the size of an enterprise. A
large organization requires various levels of management to coordinate the various
organizational activities. The real challenge for managers is to strike a right balance
between the hierarchy levels and the efficiency/productivity of employees at each level.
This is because more levels in the enterprise increases the costs related to resources
planning and utilization, which in turn has an impact on the profit margin of the
enterprise. Similarly, improper organizational structures can result in a lack of
communication resulting in dissatisfied and demoralized employees. Therefore, the
right organizational structure is a must for the sustainability of an enterprise.
Successful organizations are those which are able to manage uncertainty through
knowledge creation and dissemination across all levels throughout the organization.
Top management plays a very important role in creating knowledge driven processes
across the hierarchical levels. It also ensures that knowledge is captured reg ularly in
various forms to be reused and applied for enhanced learning and new knowledg e
creation. According to Nonaka (2007), very few organizations understand what
knowledge is and what companies must do to exploit it. This knowledge residing in the
mind of the stakeholders is one sure source of lasting competitive advantage. Be it the
top, middle or first level employee, each level has roles and responsibilities that
determine how each level views the process of knowledge driven learning. For
successful initiatives, it is imperative to have a common vision and understanding on
how to manage knowledge and use it for improved learning. Since, the role,
responsibilities and decision making powers vary across hierarchies and therefore
concepts like knowledge management and learning are perceived differently. The next
part of this paper discusses the literature related to knowledge management and
learning and how employees at various levels of hierarchy view knowledge driven
learning organizations.
Literature review
Knowledge and learning are concepts which have been studied by researchers since
decades. The application of these concepts to solve managerial and business problems
has resulted in new dimensions to be added to these concepts. Since, then the
Impact of KM
dimensions
335
To continue reading
Request your trial