Search results

The purpose of this paper is to focus on knowledge management implementation from an organisational culture perspective and analyse the relationship between knowledge and power within this context. It outlines the reasons why knowledge is a power resource, and proposes that, as such, it can only be managed successfully within the framework of an effective and legitimate use of all organisational power resources. The paper looks at the factors that constitute a legitimate use of power in the Western organisational context of the twenty‐first century which in turn engenders the development of trust within employment relationships. The development of trust ensures that knowledge is used to further the achievement of organisational goals. Finally, the paper addresses the ways in which effective knowledge management practice contributes to this desired state, and outlines the role of the knowledge manager in facilitating this.

The method adopted is a literature‐based analysis of the main issues covered. These include: the development of the knowledge society and attendant theories around optimal organisational structures, the relationship between knowledge and power, the development of legitimate authority within organisations, and how this impacts on the creation of trust, and finally the impact which the presence of trust has on knowledge‐sharing behaviours within the organisation.

Pulling together evidence from across a wide range of academic disciplines leads to the conclusion that the successful management of the relationship between access to knowledge and access to power must be framed within an overall organisational context, in which all power resources are seen to be exercised in a legitimate manner. In this context, knowledge is no longer regarded as a personal power resource, but rather as a communal resource which will then be more likely to be shared freely in order to facilitate the joint and mutually beneficial achievement of organisational goals. Underpinning this organisational dynamic is an environment of trust.

The paper provides a summary of the literature around pivotal aspects of the question of the relationship between access to knowledge and the perception of knowledge as a source of power in the organisational context. It pulls together a range of material looking at the needs of the knowledge economy and at issues around the development of legitimate authority and the development of trust in the organisational context. It then relates this back to the successful development of a knowledge‐sharing culture, and outlines the role of the knowledge manager in working with employees at all levels in the organisation in developing an optimal culture for knowledge creation and sharing.

The new social science approach to business behaviour optimistically assumes that the modern executive has a grounding in social psychology and its latest sub‐division, Group Dynamics. The origins of Group Dynamics are to be found in the work of Kurt Lewin who emigrated to the United States in the inter‐war period. Research in group atmosphere and styles of leadership produced empirical evidence to support the concept of ‘democratic’ leadership. The ‘democratic’ leadership of the '30s and '40s is giving way to a more positive direct form of leadership. This article might be considered as an obituary notice for the ‘human relations’ oriented boss.

The historian can provide quite a different explanation, other than the currently held views, for the emergence of the Red Terror in 1918.

Chester Barnard's insistence that authority rests on the consent of the subordinate is difficult to reconcile with the opposing reality that superiors do have the last word. Resolution of this dilemma is unlikely to bo found by prolonging discussions of the legitimation of authority, which may have reached a point of diminishing returns. Co‐existence of coercion and consent may be more satisfactorily explained in terms of Simon's concept of the subordinate's zone of acceptance of authority and the resulting distinction between two different sets of decisional premises, one at the boundary of this zone and the other inside the zone. An addition to Simon's theory of the concept and analysis of compliance proposed by Etzioni gives further insight into the interdependency of superior and subordinate in the authority situation.

This paper explores the moral and ethical dimension of indeterminacy in educational administration within the context of the managerialisation of education. Drawing on Max Weber’s seminal work on rationalisation, disenchantment, and the ethic of responsibility and the ethic of conviction, the author discusses the conflict between accountability and educational autonomy. While this conflict constitutes a key dilemma of educational leadership, educational theorists all too often attempt to resolve the conflict in favour of accountability over commitment consistent with managerial principles. By contrast, it is argued that mature educational leadership is characterised by an appreciation that conflicting ethical orientations are irreconcilable and that sound educational policy and practice must reflect practical realities and demands without sacrificing educational ideals.

The use of routines in the decision-making process of individuals, groups and organizations is a well accepted yet taken for granted phenomenon. One goal of organizations is to develop group routines that are efficient, but at the same time flexible. However, this presents a paradox because routines that are efficient at one point in time, or for a particular task, may persist, be unquestioned, and become increasingly inefficient for the group and the organization. This chapter develops a formal theory that describes the processes by which the legitimation of particular group structures impacts the development and use of group routines. The theory presented draws from theories of legitimation, expectation states theory, and institutional theory. The theory formally depicts three sources of legitimation: a referential belief structure (set of cultural beliefs) about expertise and leadership, authorization or superordinate support of a leader, and endorsement (support by group) of a leader. Specifically, the theory addresses: (1) how different sources of legitimation make groups more or less hierarchical; and (2) how the different sources of legitimation make group routines more or less flexible.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze perception of Russian national culture by Western managers in Western subsidiaries in Russia.

Interpretivist analysis of narratives have been collected by the authors by interviewing several Western managers in Russian subsidiaries, based on concepts of E.T. Hall.

We globally found more examples of high context than low context, but also of “hybrid context,” as well as more examples of polychrony than monochrony, and a mixture of polychrony and monochrony, the authors call “hybridchronie.” They show implications of socio-economic change in society, organizational structure and work hierarchical relationship, generation effect and importance of clans.

Limits of cultural analysis. Use of interviews (narratives) then bias of perception. Current changes in Russian society. Differences between generations in Russia and multi-ethnicity of Russia.

Danger of stereotypes in management. Implications for management.

Danger of stereotypes in perceptions and social life.

Qualitative, interpretivist approach based on in-depth interviews.