JPMA-01496; No of Pages 12

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx xxx

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing

values perspective in Australian context
a, b,

, Bambang Trigunarsyah c , Glen Murphy

Anna Wiewiora

b, c

, Vaughan Coffey

School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Australia

Cooperative Research Centre for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM), Australia
c
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Received 18 October 2012; received in revised form 14 December 2012; accepted 20 December 2012

Abstract
A considerable amount of research has conrmed the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge sharing behaviours. However,
less research has been conducted on the impact of project sub-cultures in relation to the sharing of knowledge between projects, particularly in
project based organizations (PBOs). The unique structures and contexts characterized by PBOs indicate the need to investigate further the impact of
cultures present within PBOs and their effect on knowledge sharing. We report on a rich case study of four large Australian-based PBOs whereby
the cultural values of these large organizations were seen to impact signicantly on whether project teams were more or less likely to improve interproject knowledge sharing. Furthermore, this research demonstrates the utility of using Cameron and Quinn's (2005) Competing Values Framework to
evaluate culture in the context of PBOs.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Australian context; Competing values framework; Knowledge sharing; Project based organizations; Organizational culture

1. Introduction
Previous studies indicate that organizational culture (OC) can
have a significant influence on the long-term success of organizations (Ajmal and Helo, 2010; Kendra and Taplin, 2004; Yazici,
2010) as well as on project performance (Coffey, 2010), For
instance Coffey (2010) found that various cultural traits appear to
be closely linked to objectively measured organizational effectiveness. However, only recently has the research on project
management explored the link between organizational culture
and knowledge management outcomes (Ajmal and Koskinen,
2008; Eskerod and Skriver, 2007; Polyaninova, 2011).
The context surrounding the practice of knowledge management (KM) in PBOs is complex and multifaceted. Firstly, there
are a number of knowledge sources available during different
Corresponding author at: Southern Cross University, Gold Coast Campus,
Southern Cross Drive, Bilinga, QLD 4225, Australia. Tel.: + 61 416743533;
fax: + 61 7 5506 9370.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Wiewiora).

stages of a project, including experts, project teams, routines,

repositories, communities of practice, knowledge gatekeepers
and so on (Smyth, 2005). Secondly, there are many parties
engaged in knowledge sharing including project team members,
contractors, subcontractors, clients, community and other stakeholders. Finally, different types of knowledge technical,
procedural, know-what, know-how, know-why and know-when
are required during different stages of the project: planning,
design, construction and closing. Nevertheless, the value contributed by knowledge in PBOs is extensive. The risk of knowledge
loss at a project's end is a serious issue for organizations because
accumulated knowledge throughout the project, if not effectively shared, can be irretrievably lost resulting in unnecessary
reinvention, errors and time overruns (Carrillo, 2005; Fong,
2008; Landaeta, 2008; Walker et al., 2004).
Similarly, the notion of culture in a project management context
is complex because a project involves a number of experts from
various fields, backgrounds and professions, who typically have
their own cultures and ways of working, which are not necessarily
in harmony with one another or with the prevailing culture of the

0263-7863/$36.00 2013 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

entire project (Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008). These cultural

differences can either be a source of creativity and broad perspectives on organizational issues or they can be a source of
difficulty and miscommunication (Anbari et al., 2010). It is
therefore important that those within PBOs are aware of the type of
cultures evident within various projects in order to better predict
the potential consequences of cultural-related behaviours on
knowledge sharing outcomes and arguably, on overall project
performance.
The concepts of OC and KM as foundations to understanding
how organizations behave and gain competitive advantage both
have strong theoretical and empirical support (Alavi et al., 2006;
Davenport and Prusak, 1998; De Long and Fahey, 2000;
Sackmann, 1992). These two concepts are highly related and
existing research suggests in the main that OC underpins KM
activities (Gray and Densten, 2005). To be truly effective, KM
requires an understanding of the culture in which it is embedded
(De Long and Fahey, 2000; Fong and Kwok, 2009) and this is
imperative because OC shapes members' knowledge sharing
behaviours and influences how they learn.
Overall, some cultural values encourage and others impede KM
activities (De Long and Fahey, 2000; Janz and Prasarnphanich,
2003). However, examining the two concepts of OC and KM in
PBOs is especially challenging due to their complexity, multidimensional nature and context dependency. Yazici (2010) highlights that in a project management context, OC is still largely
under-examined. Currently very little is known about how OC
contributes to the willingness for knowledge sharing between
projects. The purpose of this research is to extend previous theory
on organizational culture and knowledge management in project
environment and explore which cultural values are more likely to
drive inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours in the context of
Australian PBOs.
2. Knowledge sharing in PBOs
The criticality of quality data and information leading to
effective utilization of knowledge is a well recognized component
of organizational competiveness (e.g. Alavi and Leidner, 2001;
Liebowitz, 2005, 2008; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and has led to
increased attempts to manage knowledge in a more systematic and
effective way. PBOs, which typically function in rapidly changing
and knowledge intensive environments, to be highly competitive,
need to ensure the best use of their organizational knowledge. This
can be achieved through the process of knowledge sharing, which
allows exchange and distribution of organizational and project
knowledge, and ensure its access at the right time and the right
place (Bhatt, 2001; Koskinen et al., 2003). Knowledge sharing on
the project level takes place as social communication between
project stakeholders and through different explicit information
channels such as project documentation (Arenius et al., 2003). In
the inter-project context, knowledge sharing is a process through
which a project is affected by the experience of another project
(based on the definition provided by Argote and Ingram (2000, p.
151)). As such knowledge is defined as a fluid mix of framed
experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight
that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new

experiences and information, which originates in the minds of

knowledge holders and is transferred into documents, organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms (Davenport and
Prusak, 1998, p. 137).
At the project level, there are a number of knowledge sources
available during different stages of a project that possess or require
different types of knowledge at different phases of a project life
cycle (El-Gohary and El-Diraby, 2010; Smyth, 2005). Furthermore, there are multiple sources of knowledge at the inter-project
level, where except for that which is human-based, including
project team members, contractors, subcontractors, clients, community and other stakeholders, knowledge can be also stored in
databases, lessons learned documents, post-project reports in a
form of stories, advice, and contextual facts. Projects have different
levels of interdependency and operate in different dimensions of
time and space (Newell et al., 2008). This creates complications at
an inter-project level, related to weak communication links
between projects (Hobday, 2000), and time pressure (Lundin and
Sderholm, 1995; Riege, 2005) that hamper knowledge sharing.
These all make the process of inter-project knowledge sharing a
challenging effort.
3. The concept of organizational culture
An organization's culture consists of practices, symbols, values
and assumptions that the members of the organization share with
regard to appropriate behaviour (Schein, 1990). The artefacts can
include physical layout, the dress code, the manner in which
people address each other and the overall feel of the place, to more
permanent aspects such as archival records, products, statements
and annual reports. Values are organizational norms, ideologies,
charters and philosophies. Basic underlying assumptions are based
on an organization's historical events that determine perceptions,
thought processes, feelings and behaviour (Martin & Meyerson in
Schein, 1990). The basic underlying assumptions are the least
apparent, but are much more influential on behaviour than
espoused artefacts and values (Schein, 1990). Consequently this
research conceptualizes and later operationalizes OC primarily in
terms of values. This is because values are more easily studied
than basic underlying assumptions, which are invisible, and values
provide rich understanding of social norms that define the rules or
context for social interaction through which people act and
communicate (Alavi et al., 2006; Schein, 1990).
Various studies provide evidence to suggest that cultural values
influence knowledge sharing behaviours by shaping patterns and
qualities of interactions needed to leverage knowledge among
individuals (Alavi et al., 2006; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Gray
and Densten, 2005). Culture establishes an organizational context
for social interaction and creates norms regarding what is right
and wrong (Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008; De Long and Fahey,
2000). Therefore, it can influence how people communicate and
share knowledge. Furthermore, evidence suggests that organizational structure has an impact on approaches to KM (Friesl et al.,
2011). For example, De Long and Fahey (2000) argue that
different cultural attributes influence knowledge sharing across the
organization (horizontal) and throughout the various levels of
an organization (vertical). In contrast to functionally driven

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

organizations, the predominantly horizontal structures of PBOs

are more likely to promote horizontal knowledge sharing of
project specific knowledge and role based knowledge (e.g.
between project managers, or between project schedulers). Also,
collaboration and collective responsibility lead employees to go
that extra mile to avoid letting colleagues down. Finally, cultures
that reward individuals for sharing behaviours and encourage the
use of existing knowledge create different knowledge sharing
patterns than cultures that do not promote such activities (De
Long and Fahey, 2000).
In relation to the effect of OC on knowledge sharing in project
environments, Eskerod and Skriver (2007) suggest that organizational subcultures can explain the reluctance found in knowledge
transfer activities between project managers. Their research revealed that organizing by projects constrains knowledge transfer
because a project orientation facilitates knowledge silos and lonely
cowboys, who do not rely heavily on colleagues (Eskerod and
Skriver, 2007). Furthermore, Fong and Kwok (2009) suggested
that in a project management environment, different OC types may
require different KM strategies, and implied that identifying this
need is an important step towards developing the theory, but
acknowledged that much research is still needed in this area. Still
very little is known about how OC contributes to the willingness
for knowledge sharing between projects and which cultural values
are more likely to drive knowledge sharing behaviours in the
context of PBOs.
3.1. Competing values framework
A range of different cultural frameworks, including those
introduced by Cameron and Quinn (2005), Denison and Spreitzer
(1991), Hofstede (1984), and Schein (1990) have all been proposed
in an attempt to measure OC. In this study we utilized the
Competing Values Framework (CVF) developed by Cameron and
Quinn (2005), which uses the Organisational Culture Assessment
Instrument (OCAI). The CVF provides a holistic view of culture
and has been validated in both international and Australian
contexts (Lamond, 2003). Organizations are seldom characterized
by a single cultural type, tending to develop a dominant culture
over time as they adapt and respond to the challenges and changes
in the surrounding environment (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). As
such, the CVF is considered useful in a PBO context as it allows an
assessment of a company's dominant culture across six key
characteristics of overall corporate culture: Dominant Characteristics, Organizational Leadership, Management of Employees,
Organizational Glue, Strategic Emphasis and Criteria of Success.
The CVF recognizes the complex nature of culture according
to two primary dimensions: internal/external focus and stability/
flexibility structure. These two dimensions create four quadrants,
which represent four culture types: Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy
and Marketing. Fig. 1 shows the attributes characterizing the four
cultural types, according to Cameron and Quinn (2005).
Clan cultures tend to have an emphasis on developing a shared
understanding and commitment instead of relying exclusively on
formalized communication processes. Typical characteristics of
Clan cultures are teamwork and employee involvement programs,
whereas the core values represent participation, loyalty and

commitment (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Those demonstrating

attributes, consistent with an adhocracy culture (referred to as the
open systems perspective), give importance to flexibility and
external competitive position. They emphasize creativeness, entrepreneurship and adaptability (Keskin et al., 2005). In contrast, a
Hierarchy culture is characterized by predictability and an internal
focus. The emphasis is on information management, documentation, stability, routines, centralization, continuity and control
(Keskin et al., 2005). In a Hierarchy culture, members are bonded
together through internal controls and are governed primarily by
procedures. The principles of stability, formal rules and policies are
seen to hold the organization together (Cameron and Quinn, 2005).
Market culture refers to the rational goal perspective of an
organization and is characterized by a preoccupation with stability
and having a strong external focus (Keskin et al., 2005). They are
oriented towards the external environment, rather than internal
affairs (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Market-type organizations
value competitiveness, productivity, goal clarity, efficiency and
accomplishment (Cameron and Quinn, 2005; Gray and Densten,
2005), bounding members together through goal orientation and
competition. Extending this model Gray and Densten (2005)
proposed a theoretical model of Organizational Knowledge
Management integrating both a knowledge creation model
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) with the CVF (Cameron and
Quinn, 2005) as a means to understanding how OC drives or
enhances the development of organizational knowledge. Following this approach, a research agenda was advocated that
aims to identify whether different dominant cultural values
may indeed lead to different knowledge sharing outcomes.
In summary, although existing research has identified a
relationship between OC and KM (e.g. Alavi et al., 2006; De
Long and Fahey, 2000), there is still limited research concerning
OC and KM in the project management field, particularly in
relation to PBOs (with the exception of Ajmal and Koskinen,
2008; Eskerod and Skriver, 2007; Fong and Kwok, 2009).
Furthermore, the complexity and context dependency of these
two concepts culture and knowledge sharing mean that there
is still limited empirical evidence unpacking the precise nature of
those relationships. Using Cameron and Quinn's (2005) CVF
model this research aimed to explore how culture might influence
inter-project knowledge sharing, and investigate which cultural
values are more likely to drive knowledge sharing outcomes.
4. Research method
A case study research method was employed to investigate how
different cultural types shape knowledge sharing behaviours in an
inter-project context. Our justification for applying the case study
approach was due to the contemporary nature of this research, in
which the relationship between the two investigated concepts of
culture and KM outcomes remain under-investigated and where
the issue of measurement requires a research design able to cope
with complex and ambiguous phenomena. In instances such as
this, the use of the case study method for examining culture has
been strongly recommended (e.g. Alavi et al., 2006; Eskerod and
Skriver, 2007; Sackmann, 1991). The use of multiple case studies
provided the opportunity to compare data from a number of case

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

CLAN
Mentoring
Extended family, nurturing
Participation
Teamwork
Employee involvement
Corporate commitment to employees
Rewards based on teams not individuals
Loyalty
Informality
Job rotation
Consensus

HIERARCHY
Structure
Control
Coordination
Efficiency
Stability
Procedures govern what people do
Formal rules and policies

ADHOCRACY
Dynamic
Entrepreneurial
Risk-taking
Rapid change
Innovation
Creativity
Temporary structure
Power is not centralised, it flows from
individual to individual or team to team
Sometimes exist in large organisations that
have dominant culture of a different type

MARKET
Results-oriented
Gets job done
Competition and achievement
Focus on transaction with external
suppliers, customers, contractors
Productivity
Tough and demanding leaders
Emphasis on winning
Success is defined in terms of market share
and penetration

Fig. 1. Attributes of clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market cultures.

sources and generate more compelling results, offering greater

potential for explanation, a stronger base for theory building
(Yin, 2009, pp. 5460) and a broader exploration of theoretical
elaboration (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
4.1. Sources of Evidence
To ensure adequate triangulation of data three primary data
sources were captured through: 1) questionnaire, 2) interviews, and
3) review of organizational documentation. The use of multiple
sources of evidence to collect empirical data, with the aim to build
a degree of confidence around the same fact or phenomenon, and
allowed the researchers to achieve a better perspective on what
happens in reality and increased the validity of the research (Yin,
2009).
Questionnaire was used to assess each company's dominant
culture. We utilized the established OCAI instrument to examine
culture across six key characteristics (Cameron and Quinn, 2005),
which has been previously validated in the Australian context
(Lamond, 2003) and used in previous studies investigating KM
(e.g. Fong and Kwok, 2009). (1) Dominant Characteristics
represent most the prevailing characteristics of the organization,
such as orientation on production versus orientation on people;
(2) Organizational Leadership characterises the leadership styles
in the organization, such as mentors, innovators, organisers;
(3) Management of Employees represents the management
approach in the organization; (4) Organizational Glue is the
bonding mechanisms that hold the organization together, such as
loyalty versus or goal accomplishment; (5) Strategic Emphasis
characterises the main focus such as human development, actions

and achievement or stability; and (6) Criteria of Success, which

are the standards based on which an organization defines success.
Appendix 1 reports on the questions asked and adopted from
Cameron and Quinn (2005).
In addition to the OCAI instrument, 39 face-to-face semistructure interviews were conducted to provide a richer insight into
behavioural and attitudinal manifestations of culture and knowledge sharing in each organization. The interviews also explored the
employee's behaviours that were associated with effective knowledge sharing. Questions captured data around the perceived level
of knowledge sharing, explored the volume of interaction, level of
collaboration, orientation to seek out knowledge, presence of silos
and willingness to share knowledge. The questions developed
were based on the investigation conducted by De Long and Fahey
(2000), and Gamble and Blackwell (2001). The interviews were
undertaken predominantly with project managers as sources of
project knowledge who were directly involved in the knowledge
sharing process as well as with other parties including program
managers, senior management, project officers and the project
management office (PMO) personnel. The interviews were guided
by the protocol and the pre-prepared questions, which provided
clear guidance for the data collection process ensuring consistency,
greater rigor and thoroughness of the research (Yin, 2009). Often
additional, probing questions were asked during interviews for
explanation and clarification. All interviews were recorded and
later transcribed.
Finally the third source of data came from a review of organizational documentation, which provided a better understanding
of the participating companies' objectives and core purpose and
identified their organizational structures.

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

4.2. Data analysis process

Two stages of analysis were conducted: within- and cross-case.
During each stage a careful use of analytical tactics including
pattern matching, explanation building and addressing rival explanations helped to strengthen the internal validity of the findings
(Yin, 2009, p. 42). As recommended by Yin (2009), the draft from
within the case analysis was reviewed by peers and case study
participants helping to reduce the likelihood of false reporting
and further increase validity of findings. The within case analysis
created a platform for cross-case analysis, which aimed to compare
the cases looking for similarities and differences between them.
During the cross case analysis, explanation building logic
was used to explain how different organizational culture types
lead to different inter-project knowledge sharing outcomes.
Findings that emerged from these analyses provided insights
outlining which cultural values lead to more or less effective
inter-project knowledge sharing, in the context of Australian
PBOs. Eisenhardt (1989) argues that cases confirming emergent
relationships enhance confidence in the validity of the relationships. Accordingly, the use of replication logic, executed by
replicating the findings to a second, third and fourth case, assisted
in ensuring the validity of emerging relationships between culture
types and knowledge sharing outcomes. Finally, careful comparison of the emergent theory to existing literature, taking into
account conflicting perspectives as well as literature aligned with
our research findings, strengthened theory building outputs
(Eisenhardt, 1989) and achieved analytical generalizability of
the research (Yin, 2009, p. 43).
4.3. Research cases
Four large Australian PBOs were chosen for this research,
referred to here as Angas, Netcom, Gotel, and Ronalco (Table 1).
The selection of specific sectors Heavy Engineering, Telecommunication, Communication Services and Research allowed
greater control of environmental variations, as the focus on large
PBOs constrained variation due to size differences among the
companies, as well as allowed the capturing of the complexity of
the investigated phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989). Consistent with
the typology outlined by the PMI (2008), all PBOs involved in the
study had a strong matrix structure and the unit of investigation in
this research was the project management department. This study
examined knowledge sharing practices that occurred between
projects as well as the relationships between project managers of
project management departments in participating cases.
5. Case analysis
5.1. Angas case
This study investigated personnel from project management
departments who were located at two sites, South Australia (SA)
and a smaller team in Western Australia (WA). Out of 39 people
working in the project management department at Angas, seven
participated in the questionnaire assessing the dominant culture
type and eight participated in the interviews. At Angas, evidence

from OCAI revealed that two types of culture were dominant

Hierarchy and Market suggesting that the culture was focused on
stability and control (see Fig. 2). Data indicated that a Hierarchy
culture was prevalent in two categories: Dominant Characteristics
and Criteria of Success. These results, together with the interview
responses, indicated that respondents perceived the organization as
a very controlled and structured environment in which formal
procedures govern what people do, and smooth scheduling is
essential. A Market culture dominated in three categories: Organizational Leadership, Management of Employees and Organizational Glue. Based on that, it would appear that the leadership in
Angas was results-oriented and the management style exemplified
competitiveness, high demands and achievement. This was
consistent with Angas' espoused values that suggested a Market
focus performance through excellence and commitment to
customers' outcomes.
Interviews at Angas revealed that some project managers were
willing to share knowledge with their colleagues, but some were
very protective and believed that knowledge is power. Those
more reluctant to share appeared to believe that keeping knowledge
to themselves sustained their position of importance; thus, sharing
too much could potentially jeopardize their competitive position
within the organization. A project engineer reported: there's lots of
issues with people not wanting to share information because for
them that's power and it's those roles that make a difference to my
job where I can't get the information or they're trying to stop [me]
for whatever reason. There were also comments from interviewees
stating that some people viewed project shortcomings as signs of
weakness or even failure; therefore, admitting they did something
wrong in their projects could potentially threaten their strong
position in the company, as illustrated by one respondent: like to
be portrayed as [a] kind of perfect project manager.
Nevertheless, it was also reported that the change of a
leader who has recognized the need for collaboration and
better knowledge sharing between projects, has helped shift
the organization's routines towards better knowledge sharing
practices. Due to those recent changes in management, four
respondents sensed that the silos were starting to break down.
One of them stated that before the leadership change there was a
very stove-piped approach for inter-project knowledge sharing.
But with having [new leader] sitting at the top, he's actually
drawn them all together and we're actually getting some really
good communication so it's broken down a lot of barriers.
In summary, the examination of culture at Angas revealed that
it had a strong dominance of Hierarchy and Market types with an
emphasis on control, structure, achievement, demanding leaders
and competition. There was a strong indication that cultural
values affect the willingness to share knowledge. Our data provided evidence that some project managers were willing to share
knowledge with their colleagues; however, some were very
protective and believed that knowledge helps them to sustain a
position of expertise. Others believed that revealing project pitfalls
was a sign of failure and put their position of being seen as a high
performing project manager at risk. Finally, an analysis of Angas
case provided evidence indicating that a recent change of a leader
within the project management department lead to a cultural shift
towards more collaborative and fostering knowledge sharing.

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

Table 1
Participating organizations.

Size
(# of employees)
Investigated sites
Industry
Project size
Budget
Duration

Angas

Netcom

Gotel

Ronalco

Large PBO
(N 1000)
Western Australia
South Australia
Heavy engineering and building

Large PBO
(N1000)
Queensland

Large PBO
(N500)
Queensland

Large PBO
(N 1000)
Queensland

Tele-communication

Communication services

Research (mining)

b $3 M
3 years

b$1.5 M
b1 year

b$1.5 M
b1 year

b$3 M
b1 year

5.2. Netcom case

Netcom is a large Australian PBO and specialises in delivering
a broad range of telecommunication services to businesses. Six
respondents from Netcom's project management department

Angas Case
Clan = 19, Adhocracy = 8, Market = 35,
Hierarchy = 38

Gotel Case
Clan = 25, Adhocracy = 19, Market = 25,
Hierarchy = 31

participated in the interviews and seven filled out the questionnaire. An examination of the culture profile at Netcom, captured
in Fig. 2, revealed that the Market type was the dominant cultural
value, suggesting that their culture was results-oriented, focused
on achievement and directed towards transactions with external

Netcom Case
Clan = 19, Adhocracy = 19, Market = 35,
Hierarchy = 28

Ronalco Case
Clan = 33, Adhocracy = 25, Market = 21,
Hierarchy = 24

Fig. 2. Culture profiles according to OCAI.

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

customers. Data acquired during interviews supported findings

from the questionnaire, indicating that Netcom was typically
viewed as a controlled and structured place, where the main
concern was getting the job done. It was characterized by a competitive and achievement-oriented environment, where formal
procedures governed what people do. It was reported: if it cannot
be measured it is not worth doing. Interviews revealed that at
Netcom, employees followed formal rules and policies, and the
company's focus was on providing good customer service:
because the market has changed measurably, we cannot be complacent about how we treat the customer. We have to differentiate
ourselves in the market by customer service. These statements
strongly indicate a Market focus. Additional findings from the
questionnaire showed that Hierarchy and Market types had the
same high scores in the Dominant Characteristics and Organizational Glue categories, suggesting that formal rules and policies, as
well as the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment,
were the dominant characteristics within Netcom. This was also
supported by the interviews, which revealed that Netcom was seen
to be driven by well-defined processes, labour efficiencies, rigour
and discipline, and the company's values are focused on measurement, error detection, process control and the use of quality tools.
Our interview data indicated that Netcom's upper level management encouraged, but did not directly contribute to, the facilitation
of inter-project knowledge sharing. Although an open-plan office
architecture was found to enable frequent communication and
knowledge sharing, there was strong evidence that some project
managers were unwilling to reveal their projects' pitfalls. At least
two respondents reported that there were project managers who
were reluctant to share knowledge, were focused on their careers
and perceived knowledge as a source of power and as a way to get
a promotion. It was also reported that people had a tendency to be
defensive and did not necessarily want to provide any information
about their project failures or weaknesses; instead, sometimes they
attempted to blame others for project failures and believed that
admitting failure put their position in the organization at risk.
5.3. Gotel case
Gotel is a leader in providing communication services to
government agencies in Australia by setting up phone numbers,
websites or integrated service counters for an ongoing or timespecific period. At Gotel, 16 respondents participated in the interview and questionnaire out of a total of 27 people working in the
project management department. Interestingly, evidence from the
OCAI, presented in Fig. 2, revealed that the culture profile at Gotel
was balanced, with a slight shift towards the Hierarchy type.
Nevertheless, data from the interviews at Gotel strongly suggested
that culture was focused towards teamwork, employee involvement and employee recognition, indicating values consistent with a
Clan-type culture. There was strong evidence demonstrating that
their culture was focused on teamwork, employee involvement and
employee recognition. The organization provided mentoring sessions and job rotation was frequently practiced. Respondents
constantly reported that employees at Gotel work together, were
honest and willing to help their colleagues, and Gotel's culture was
described as a supportive environment [where people] want to

grow and get better in the project management [field]. Data from
interviews provided a strong indication that project managers were
open and willing to share knowledge. The culture in the organization was not to create blame, but rather to encourage learning
from mistakes and recognition of opportunities for improvement.
Many respondents commented that shortcomings in projects are
not failures, they're just opportunities to improve things. All the
evidence from interviews strongly suggested that Clan-type values
were the most prevalent at Gotel.
Follow-up interviews were conducted to investigate the reason
for the discrepancy between the results from the OCAI survey and
interview data. These brought to light that a change of director
shortly after the time of the initial interviews was the main reason
for the culture shift from Clan to Hierarchy. The culture shifted
more towards Hierarchy when the new director was appointed,
whose prime focus was more around the processes and making
sure project managers followed the correct procedures: Our
[previous director] wasn't like that at all. If you skipped all of these
processes [sic], but have reached [sic] the outcome that was fine.
When the new director arrived, the organization's focus shifted
towards structure and control. Project managers were not able to
make decisions and everything had to go through the director who
wanted to ensure that work was being done correctly. OCAI was
conducted after the leadership change occurred, whereas interviews took place before the change; thus the change of leader is
the most possible explanation for differences between the
questionnaire and interview results. There was also an indication
that the change in culture possibly affected knowledge sharing
patterns: now [the interviewee indicates the state after the change
of director] everything is control by the top manager, procedures,
formal rules, structure. Respondents commented that processes
in the organization became more formal, which promoted the
need for evidence and formalized knowledge sharing.
5.4. Ronalco case
The forth case study, Ronalco, is a large Australian PBO
delivering leading technologies to mining companies, which is
currently one of the most booming industries in Australia. Ronalco
is one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in Australia
and a powerhouse of ideas. Fifteen respondents from Ronalco's
project management department participated in the questionnaire
while nine participated in the interviews. Data from OCAI revealed
that the dominant culture at Ronalco was orientated towards a
Clan-type culture. There was a range of evidence suggesting that
informality (an attribute of Clan-type culture) was prevalent at
Ronalco. At least three respondents reported that most of the
formal processes to transfer knowledge from one project to
another did not work and tended to be resisted by employees.
Furthermore, there was no formal induction process; instead
newcomers joined a team working on a particular project and the
team's duty was to provide mentoring for the new colleague.
Moreover, face-to-face informal interactions were the most
commonly used means to interact and share knowledge and our
data strongly indicated that teams working in the department were
open and happy to share knowledge: certainly within the group
everyone is very open and willing to share knowledge even this

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

related to their projects' pitfalls. Other characteristics, like

wearing casual outfits and the use of informal language, suggested
a high level of informality at Ronalco.
At least five respondents reported that when seeking knowledge
they often went into each others' offices asking for help or met
during morning or afternoon tea. There were also groups that got
together to have lunch. It was reported that often during these
informal gatherings people helped each other solve work-related
issues, as illustrated in this statement: Within our lab so they're
people that are working on other projects and you'll be chatting in
the tea room or something about saying oh they had this problem
here and I go oh hang on we've got that same problem. What we
end up doing is the person that solved that problem ends up solving
our problem, so that happens quite a lot. Overall, the data provided
a strong indication that at Ronalco the dominance of values related
to Clan culture and this was the reason that project managers were
generally open and willing to share knowledge, even if it related to
project shortcomings.
6. Organizational culture and the willingness to share
knowledge
When considered together, the results from within the case
analyses indicate that in the context of Australian PBOs, different
organizational culture types differently impact inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours. So far, similar findings have been drawn
in the context of PBOs based in Hong Kong (Fong and Kwok,
2009).
In the case of Angas and Netcom, a Market culture appears to
have had a negative impact on inter-project knowledge sharing,
whereas in the Gotel and Ronalco cases, the dominance of Clantype values led to positive knowledge sharing outcomes. Table 2
summarizes these findings.
According to De Long and Fahey (2000), cultures that
emphasize collaboration and frequency of interactions will have
greater knowledge sharing outcomes. A similar pattern was found
at Gotel and Ronalco, whose cultures displayed dominant Clantype values and whose focus on employee involvement, collaboration and teamwork was perceived to improve inter-project
knowledge sharing. Within-case analysis revealed that project
managers in the Clan-oriented cultures of Gotel and Ronalco, were
normally open and willing to share any kind of knowledge, they
viewed project pitfalls as areas for improvement rather than failures
and worked together to solve problems. This finding reinforces
research results proposed by Yang (2007) who found a strong link
between cultures focused on collaboration and knowledge sharing
and is consistent with observations made by Davenport et al.
(1998) who noted that knowledge friendly cultures are one of the
important factors leading to successful KM projects. Those
cultures, according to the authors, highly value learning, where
people are willing and free to explore, where leaders encourage
knowledge creation and use, and people do not feel that sharing
knowledge will cost them their jobs (Davenport et al., 1998).
The pattern was different in the Angas and Netcom cases,
where participants reported evidence of hesitancy to share knowledge related to their projects. Data from the Angas and Netcom
interviews strongly suggested that some project managers were

very protective and unwilling to share knowledge. The data also

provided evidence that in these two cases there were people
reluctant to share their project pitfalls because they wanted to retain
their reputation and position of importance in the company; others,
focused on their careers, recognized knowledge as power and
withholding knowledge as being a way to advance their careers.
Also, at Angas and Netcom, the indicator of Market culture was
high, whereas the Clan culture was relatively low, demonstrating
competitive and goal-oriented cultures, where there is no place for
failure and the focus is on winning and success. This potentially
explains why project managers in Angas and Netcom were sometimes reluctant to share knowledge especially anything related
to their projects' shortcomings. Furthermore, a Market culture is
characterized by competitiveness, productivity, efficiency and
accomplishment. Thus, the performance measures in Market-type
cultures are normally based on numbers and tangible achievements. This further explains why some employees at Angas and
Netcom were hesitant to share their project pitfalls and to give their
secrets away to others because this could affect their performance
outcomes and jeopardize career advancement.
Although according to Kasper (2002), and Cameron and
Quinn (2005), Market cultures maintain a prime focus on the
external environment and the literature on Market culture and
KM primarily focuses on the role of knowledge development in
relationships with external competitors (Hult et al., 2007; Kasper,
2002), the Angas and Netcom cases revealed that competitiveness
is also present within organizational boundaries which may be an
underlying driver of the hesitancy to share knowledge. This finding
is consistent with that outside project-based firms, proposed by De
Long and Fahey (2000) who claim that cultures which emphasize
individual power and competition among employees will lead to
knowledge hoarding behaviours. De Long and Fahey (2000)
stated that if employees believe that sharing what they know
incurs personal risks and decreases power then the social norms
governing how individuals should interact will not support
knowledge sharing behaviours.
This research contributes to project management literature
by providing evidence that awareness of dominant culture type
of the PBO is important for predicting inter-project knowledge
sharing behaviours and structuring suitable knowledge sharing
mechanisms around these behaviours. Overall, findings from this
research are consistent with the notion that cultures surrounding
project-based firms that create a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, based on participation, teamwork and informality
(displaying Clan-type characteristics), are more likely to improve
inter-project knowledge sharing. Whereas cultures that emphasize competition, achievement, demanding leaders and winning
(displaying Market-type characteristics) are likely to lead to dysfunctional inter-project knowledge sharing, such as information
hoarding and, hence, undesirable outcomes. This finding indicates
that the culture in which projects operate has a tremendous impact
on inter-project knowledge sharing, and building on the research
conducted by Coffey (2010), it would suggest that ultimately it
also impacts on overall project success.
Hofstede (2005) provided cultural profile of Australian organizations stating that Australian businesses measure their performance on a short-term basis, which drives individuals to strive for

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

Table 2
Mapping cultural values with knowledge sharing behaviours.
Cases

Angas

Cultural
values
Willingness to share
knowledge

Competitiveness, achievement, demanding leaders, winning

Netcom

Gotel

Remarks from
respondents

I have a number of
individuals who feel that
failure is a weakness and
therefore wouldn't be as open

Evidence of knowledge hoarding and hesitancy to share

- Knowledge increases power and a way to promotion
- Sharing project pitfalls is a sign of failure and puts strong
position at risk

We have some people that have been in

the organisation for ten years and believe
that they should be a general manager,
so I think there's a little bit of well if
I share too much with you you'll
get the heads up on me

quick results within the work place. Hiring and promotion decisions are based on evidence of what one has done or can do.
Furthermore, Hofstede (2005) found that in Australian organizations managers are normally accessible and rely on individual
employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and
employees are normally informal, direct and participative; and
knowledge is shared frequently. Our research showed that there is
no fixed type of culture in Australian PBOs and investigated PBOs
displaying a prevalence for both Clan and Market types. Our
research, providing evidence from Australian PBOs, along with
past research conducted on PBOs from Hong Kong (Fong and
Kwok, 2009) indicates that project organizations operating in Clan
type cultures appear more capable of sharing knowledge between
projects than those from Market cultures. Further, our Australian
cases showed that leaders are capable of influencing culture in the
PBO (Angas and Gotel cases). Thus, this article makes an important contribution to the project management literature by beginning
to unpack the role of leadership in adopting the cultural change and
ultimately in shaping knowledge sharing behaviours in project
environment. This is important finding showing the role of leaders
in PBOs in shaping inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours.
Based on this finding, we therefore indicate that if Market
driven organization seeks to improve their knowledge sharing
outcomes, one way might be to introduce supportive and participative leadership styles. This is consistent with Kasper (2002)
who proposed that in a Market culture, achievement-oriented
leaders who care about people would be the best solution, while
Harris and Ogbonna (2001) also found that the participative
and supportive leadership styles were strongly positively linked
to Market culture orientation. Support from leaders can endorse
feelings of belongingness, enhance the collaborative climate and
help project teams recognize they are not competing amongst
themselves, but are part of a team who, by sharing knowledge, will
build its knowledge capabilities and gain a competitive position in
the market, in consequence, creating new knowledge sharing
environment. It is possible that our findings from the context of
Australian projects could be leveraged to other contexts.

Ronalco

Informality, teamwork, collaboration, employee

involvement, non-competitive environment
Strong evidence on the
willingness to share any kinds of knowledge
-Teamwork and informal discussions are the
way to solve project issues
- Project shortcomings seen as areas for
improvement rather
than failures
I'm quite happy to
That's great
identify my shortcomings
about [Ronalco]
because [if not] you're
the way that
not going to make it
everyone can
better next time
be totally upfront
about their likes
and dislikes and
successes and
failures

Nevertheless, further research is recommended to examine

whether these relationships hold in the context of other countries.
In regard to the method applied in this research, our investigation of Australian PBOs demonstrates that a qualitative
examination of OC yields insight into underlying motivations
and mechanisms that better explain behaviours in the project
context. The Gotel case showed discrepancies between the results
obtained from interviews and the questionnaire. The interview
findings suggested that the Gotel case displays principles of a
Clan culture; however, findings from the OCAI showed that the
dominant culture was that of a Hierarchy type. Similar difficulties
were encountered in the study of Hong Kong projects, where two
cases demonstrated conflicting responses with the initial survey
(Coffey, 2010, pp. 190, 198). Similar to Coffey, this research
conducted follow-up interviews, which helped identify and explain
the reason for the discrepancy, providing a complete picture of
Gotel's OC. Consequently, this research demonstrates that, as
advocated by Buchanan and Bryman (2009, p. 529), the use of a
mixed-method approach is preferred for investigating organizational context, such as culture, as it provides insightful findings
with increased rigor. This recommendation is also consistent with
literature outside project management, which advocates examining
culture in its organizational context using qualitative data provides
valuable insights into the nature of this complex phenomenon
(e.g. Bellot, 2011; Sackmann, 1991).
7. Conclusions
This paper has examined how different cultural values drive
inter-project knowledge sharing, in the context of Australian
PBOs. Applying Cameron and Quinn's (2005) Competing Values
Framework, findings from this research have demonstrated that
different organizational culture types lead to different inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours. In particular, this research showed
that cultures displaying Market-type values, such as competitiveness and achievement, are likely to show evidence of hesitancy to
share knowledge. On the other hand, cultures with Clan-type

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

10

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

characteristics, emphasizing a collaborative environment and

friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, are likely to openly
share knowledge even related to project shortcomings.
Overall, the results showed that Australian PBOs recognize
the value of sharing knowledge between projects, nevertheless
different cultures were seen to lead to different inter-project
knowledge sharing outcomes. This research contributes to the
project management literature by providing evidence that an
awareness of the dominant culture type within a PBO is important
for predicting inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours and the
requisite structures needed for optimized knowledge sharing
mechanisms around these behaviours. Accordingly, this paper
emphasizes the need for awareness of the dominant culture type
as being a determinant of different knowledge sharing outcomes.
It is therefore suggested that PBOs evaluate their dominant
culture characteristics. This will help identify knowledge sharing
patterns specific for a given culture type. Applying Cameron and
Quinn's (2005) CVF can be useful in determining the dominant
culture.
Furthermore, this research makes a significant contribution by
providing rich empirical evidence of the relationships between
OC and the willingness to share knowledge in Australian PBOs.
The use of interviews and the OC Assessment Instrument in the
cross examination of culture resulted in empirical contributions
demonstrating which cultural values are more and which are less
likely to improve inter-project knowledge sharing. Finally, this
research contributes to the project management literature by
introducing Cameron and Quinn's (2005) CVF to evaluate
knowledge sharing in the inter-project context.
Although this study offered interesting insights into the role of
OC in inter-project knowledge sharing, further investigations are
required to fully understand the complexity of this phenomenon.
The somewhat limited number of cases, representing only two
cultural dimensions Clan and Market means that more
research is required to investigate inter-project knowledge sharing
behaviours for the Adhocracy and Hierarchy culture types.
Furthermore, this study was limited to the management level
perspectives because of their key role in knowledge sharing.
Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that other project members play
an important role in inter-project knowledge sharing. Accordingly,
future studies could consider investigating the roles of other project
members, taking into account project complexity and the varying
backgrounds of these individuals.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the CRC for
Integrated Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM), established
and supported under the Australian Government's Cooperative
Research Centre Programme.
Appendix 1
This appendix reports on the questionnaire send to case study
respondents measuring organizational culture. The questions
were adopted from Cameron and Quinn (2005).

Tell us about your organization, focusing on the unit/division/

or department you are currently working in.
For each of the next 6 statements please distribute 100 points
amongst the four items (A, B, C and D) depending on the extent
to which each item best describes your organization.
Make sure the total distributed for each statement equals 100,
as per the example shown below.
E.g.: Knowledge sharing in organizations can be achieved by:
A. building mutual trust
B. improving information and communication technologies
C. motivating employees with incentives
D. building knowledge sharing culture
Total

30
20
10
40
100

1) My organization is

A. a very personal place. It is like an extended family, people seem to

share a lot of themselves.
B. a very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their
necks out and take risks.
C. very results oriented. The major concern is with getting the job done,
people are very competitive and achievement oriented.
D. a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally
govern what people do.
Total
100

2) The leadership in my organization is generally considered to

exemplify

A. mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.

B. entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking.
C. a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.
D. coordinating, organising, or smooth-running efficiency.
Total

100

3) The management style in my organization is characterised

by
A. teamwork, consensus, and participation.
B. individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.
C. hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.
D. security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in
relationships.
Total

100

4) The glue that holds my organization together is

A. loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization runs high.

B. commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on
being on the cutting edge.
C. the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness
and winning are common themes.
D. formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization
is important.
Total
100

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

5) My organization emphasises

A. human development. High trust, openness, and participation persist.

B. acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things
and prospecting for opportunities are valued.
C. competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning
in the marketplace are dominant.
D. permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations
are important.
Total
100

6) My organization defines success on the basis of

A. the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment,
and concern for people.
B. having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader and
innovator.
C. winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive
market leadership is key.
D. efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost
production are critical.
Total
100

References
Ajmal, M.M., Helo, P., 2010. Organisational culture and knowledge
management: an empirical study in Finnish project-based companies.
International Journal of Innovation and Learning 7 (3), 331344.
Ajmal, M.M., Koskinen, Kaj U., 2008. Knowledge Transfer in Project-Based
Organizations: An Organizational Culture Perspective. Project Management
Journal 39 (1), 715.
Alavi, M., Leidner, D., 2001. Review: knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
Quarterly 25 (1), 107136.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., Leidner, D., 2006. An empirical examination of the
influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices.
Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (3), 191224.
Anbari, F., Khilkhanova, Erzhen, Romanova, Maria, Ruggia, Mateo, Tsay,
Crystal HanHuei, Umpleby, Stuart A., 2010. Cultural differences in
projects. Paper presented at the PMI Research and Education Conference
2010, Washinghton DC, USA.
Arenius, Marko, Artto, Karlos, Lahti, Mika, Meklin, Jukka, 2003. Project
companies and the multi-project paradigma new management approach.
In: Pinto, J., Cleland, D., Slevin, D. (Eds.), The Frontiers of Project
Management Research. Project Management Institute.
Argote, Linda, Ingram, Paul, 2000. Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive
advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 82 (1), 150169.
Bellot, J., 2011. Defining and assessing organizational culture. Nursing Forum
46 (1), 2937.
Bhatt, Ganesh D., 2001. Knowledge management in organizations: examining
the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of
Knowledge Management Practice 5 (1), 6875.
Buchanan, D.A., Bryman, A., 2009. The Sage Handbook of Organizational
Research Methods. Sage Publications Ltd., London.
Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., 2005. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational
Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, Revised ed. JosseyBass Inc. Pub, San Francisco, USA.
Carrillo, P., 2005. Lessons learned practices in the engineering, procurement
and construction sector. Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management 12 (3), 236250.
Coffey, Vaughan, 2010. Understanding Organisational Culture in the Construction
Industry. Spon Press/Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Oxon.

11

Davenport, Thomas H., Prusak, Laurence, 1998. Working Knowledge. Harvard

Business School Press, Harvard.
Davenport, Thomas H., Long, De, David, W., Beers, Michael C., 1998.
Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review 39
(2), 4357.
De Long, David, Fahey, Liam, 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge
management. The Academy of Management Executive 14 (4), 113127.
Denison, D.R., Spreitzer, G.M., 1991. Organizational culture and organizational
development: a competing values approach. Research in Organizational
Change and Development 5 (1), 121.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy
of Management Review 14 (4), 532550.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50 (1), 2532.
El-Gohary, Nora M., El-Diraby, Tamer E., 2010. Dynamic knowledge-based
process integration portal for collaborative construction. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 136 (3), 316328.
Eskerod, Pernille, Skriver, Hans Jrgen, 2007. Organisational culture restrainning
in-house knowledge transfer between project managers a case study.
Project Management Journal 38 (1), 110123.
Fong, P., 2008. Can we learn from our past? Managing knowledge within and
across projects. In: Becerra-Fernandez, I., Leidner, D. (Eds.), Knowledge
management: an evolutionary view, vol. 12. ME Sharpe Inc., Armonk, New
York, pp. 204226.
Fong, P., Kwok, C., 2009. Organizational culture and knowledge management
success at project and organizational levels in contracting firms. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 135 (12), 13481356.
Friesl, M., Sackmann, S.A., Kremser, S., 2011. Knowledge sharing in new
organizational entities: the impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micropolitics and suspicion. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal
18 (1), 7186.
Gamble, Paul R., Blackwell, John, 2001. Knowledge Management: A State of
the Art Guide. Kogan Page, London.
Gray, J.H., Densten, I.L., 2005. Towards an integrative model of organizational
culture and knowledge management. International Journal of Organisational
Behaviour 9 (2), 594603.
Harris, L.C., Ogbonna, E., 2001. Leadership style and market orientation: an
empirical study. European Journal of Marketing 35 (5/6), 744764.
Hobday, Mike, 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing
complex products and systems? Research Policy 29 (78), 871893.
Hofstede, G., 1984. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in
Work-related Values. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA, USA.
Hofstede, G., 2005. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGrawHill, London, UK.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Arrfelt, M., 2007. Strategic supply chain
management: Improving performance through a culture of competitiveness
and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal 28 (10),
10351052.
Janz, B.D., Prasarnphanich, P., 2003. Understanding the antecedents of effective
knowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture.
Decision Sciences 34 (2), 351384.
Kasper, H., 2002. Culture and leadership in market-oriented service organisations. European Journal of Marketing 36 (9/10), 10471057.
Kendra, K., Taplin, L.J., 2004. Project success: a cultural framework. Project
Management Journal 35 (1), 3045.
Keskin, Halit, Akgun, Ali E., Gunsel, Ayse, Imamoglu, Salih Zehi, 2005. The
relationship between adhocracy and clan cultures and tacit oriented KM
strategy. Journal of Transnational Management 10 (3), 3953.
Koskinen, Kaj U., Pihlanto, Pekka, Vanharanta, Hannu, 2003. Tacit knowledge
acquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal of
Project Management 21 (4), 281290.
Lamond, David, 2003. The value of Quinn's competing values model in an
Australian context. Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (1/2), 4659.
Landaeta, Rafael E., 2008. Evaluating benefits and challenges of knowledge
transfer across projects. Engineering Management Journal 20 (1), 2939.
Liebowitz, Jay, 2005. Conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management.
In: Love, P., Fong, P., Irani, Z. (Eds.), Management of Knowledge in Project
Environments. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 118.

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014

12

A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxxxxx

Liebowitz, Jay, 2008. 'Think of others' in knowledge management: making

culture work for you. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 6 (1),
4752.
Lundin, Rolf A., Sderholm, Anders, 1995. A theory of the temporary
organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11 (4), 437455.
Newell, Sue, Goussevskaia, Anna, Swan, Jacky, Bresnen, Mike, Obembe,
Ademola, 2008. Interdependencies in complex project ecologies: the case of
biomedical innovation. Long Range Planning 41 (1), 3354.
Nonaka, Ikujiro, Takeuchi, Hirotaka, 1995. The Knowledge-creating Company.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Polyaninova, T., 2011. Knowledge management in a project environment:
organisational CT and project influences. Vine 41 (3).
Project Management Institute, 2008. A guide to the project management body
of knowledge:(PMBOK guide), 4th ed. Project Management Institute, Inc.
Riege, A., 2005. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must
consider. Journal of Knowledge Management 9 (3), 1835.
Sackmann, S., 1991. Uncovering culture in organizations. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 27 (3), 295317.

Sackmann, S., 1992. Culture and subcultures: an analysis of organizational

knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (1), 140161.
Schein, E.H., 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist 45 (2),
109119.
Smyth, H., 2005. Managing the external provision of knowledge management
services for projects. In: Kazi, A.S. (Ed.), Knowledge Management in the
Construction Industry: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Idea Group Inc.,
London, pp. 3452.
Walker, D., Wilson, A., Srikanathan, G., 2004. The Knowledge Advantage (K-Adv)
Unleashing Creativity and Innovation Guide for the Project 2001004. CRC in
Construction Innovation, Brisbane.
Yang, J.T., 2007. Knowledge sharing: investigating appropriate leadership roles
and collaborative culture. Tourism Management 28 (2), 530543.
Yazici, Hulya Julie, 2010. Role of project maturity and organizational culture
on project success. Paper presented at the PMI Research and Education
Conference 2010, Washinghton DC, USA.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Fourth ed. Sage
Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, California.

Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,
International Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.12.014