Exploring the relationshipbetween ethics, knowledgecreation and organizational

performanceCase study of a knowledge-based organization

Peyman Akhavan, Majid Ramezan and Jafar Yazdi MoghaddamDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,

Tehran, Iran, and

Gholamhossein MehralianSchool of Pharmacy,

Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Management,Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose – This research proposes to investigate the relationship between ethics, knowledge creationand organizational performance.

Design/methodology/approach – In order to run this study, as suggested by the experts, Nonakaand Takeuchi model was selected for knowledge creation process and Yokel model was used fororganizational performance. In addition, Akhavan et al.’s research was applied for organizationalethics dimensions. A conceptual model was designed based on literature review, and in order toanalyze it, employees of a knowledge-based organization were asked to answer the questions of a validquestionnaire. Structural equation modeling was used for studying the relationships between researchvariables.

Findings – Research results imply that there is a positive and strong correlation between ethics andorganizational performance. The relationship between ethics and knowledge creation processes is alsopositive and significant but no significant relationship is observed between knowledge creationprocesses and organizational performance.

Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of this research is little research andliterature about ethical issues in the knowledge management area.

Originality/value – Although numerous studies have been conducted with regard to organizationalperformance and knowledge creation, the literature is severely deficient considering observance ofethics in all dimensions of organizational performance and knowledge creation process, and in terms ofanalysis of their mutual interactions and relationships.

Keywords Applied knowledge management, Effectiveness of KM systems, Ethics,Knowledge creation process, Organizational performance

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionNowadays we are facing a new kind of economy called knowledge-based economy(Jafari and Akhavan, 2007). In this kind of economy, organizational knowledge andintellectual capital are accepted as key resources for achieving competitive advantage(Finn and Torgeir, 2008; Jafari et al., 2009). Furthermore, knowledge which is

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm

VINE44,1

42

VINE: The journal of information andknowledge management systemsVol. 44 No. 1, 2014pp. 42-58q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0305-5728DOI 10.1108/VINE-02-2013-0009

recognized as the best form of information should be managed appropriately ( Jafariand Akhavan, 2007) so that the organization can reach competitive advantage(Lakshman, 2009, Akhavan and Heidari, 2008). In addition, implementation of aneffective knowledge management strategy towards a knowledge-based environment isconsidered as an important prerequisite for organizational success. It can beaccordingly asserted that purpose of knowledge management is enhancing oforganization’s return on investment rate. In the scope of knowledge management, it isnecessary to apply convenient measures to convince managers and stakeholdersregarding to advantages and values of achievements in knowledge- based organization(Akhavan et al. 2009).

Therefore, managers must be aware of the aspects and methods through whichknowledge can be established, and they are supposed to recognize the mechanism ofknowledge application for directing organizational processes, structures, and activitieswhich will lead to improvement of performance and business (Mills and Smith, 2011).

Additionally, human’s work and lifestyle is rapidly changing with the rapid growthof technologies, and parallel with these changes, ethics are further taken intoconsideration in the course of time. In this regard, information technology ethics andbusiness ethics are interdisciplinary subjects that are discussed in practical ethics.Information technology ethics aims at responding questions regarding the ethics ofactions and responsibility of people in the scope of information technology, andultimate goal of business ethics is to improve quality of decision-makings andperformances at all business levels (Reidenbach and Robin, 1990). Furthermore, in thedomain of divine concepts, ethics are among the highly emphasized principal themes(Rezaiian and Ghazinouri, 2010).

Therefore, organizational performance regarding to successful knowledgemanagement implementations require a comprehensive view of all factors involvedin them. One of these factors is human capital factor ( Jafari et al., 2007). Human capitalethical issues could help the promotion of organizational performance and betterimplementation of knowledge management processes (Akhavan et al., 2013). Whereas,many studies so far have been carried out in the field of organizational performanceand knowledge management, but related references are severely deficient in terms oftaking into account the ethics in all dimensions of organizational performance andknowledge management processes as well as in terms of analysis of their mutualinteractions and relationships. According to the above discussions, the currentresearch intends to depict the role of ethics and the knowledge creation processes inorganizational performance.

Literature reviewEthical issueBy growing post-positivistic approaches in the field of social sciences, we are facingwith “business ethics” as a concept which has been added to the managementglossary. The domain of this concept is to improve the moral quality ofdecision-making and performance in all business levels. What definitely seemsreasonable, is having a global approach towards the business ethics and seeking forit in international level. Business ethics is a type of applied ethics which is broadlydiverse in terms of attitudes and approaches like all other applied kinds of ethics(Singer and Singer, 1997).

Holden (2000) cited that:

Study of aknowledge-based

organization

43

Ethics are not simply created by humankind but instead result from human nature whichconstitutes the essential frame of laws; in fact, human laws follow the ethics. The word“ethics” represent the standards and ideals which embrace a group or a community of people.In Webster dictionary, ethics are defined as disciplined dealing with what is good and bad orwith moral duties and commitments. Ethics refers to good and bad attributes, conducts, andintentions in which case it is accompanied with adjectives such as good and bad or nounssuch as goodness and badness. Ethics is a branch of philosophy analyzed as a norm-basedscience since it pertains to guiding norms of human behavior, and from this aspect, it can bedistinctively distinguished from mainstream sciences like mathematics, or natural scienceslike chemistry and physics.

Knowledge managementKnowledge management is assumed in two forms: knowledge management asobjective and knowledge management as a process. Knowledge management asobjective mostly stresses on knowledge exchange while knowledge management asprocess try to make the tacit knowledge available. In other words, knowledgemanagement is also referred as “knowledge conversion”. In knowledge transformationcycle, tacit and explicit knowledge is transformed into each other (Crawford, 2005). Thetacit knowledge is a kind of strictly personal knowledge and is formed difficultly andcannot be easily presented in certain frames, and it has an intangible identity andcomprises subjective models, beliefs and the knowledge of how to do the tasks. Tacitknowledge cannot simply be described by words. Explicit knowledge can be expressedthrough verbal or written language and is therefore easily transferable. It is easilyacquired, transferred and exchanged (Yang, 2007).

Knowledge creation has been defined from several approaches that can widely beclassified into two views: a “stock” and a “process” view. The stock view suggests thatknowledge creation contributes to a “corporate knowledge stock” and assumes that atangible measurable performance function is available (Samaddar and Kadiyala, 2006),and like physical assets, the current knowledge stock depreciates as some knowledgebecomes redundant or declines in importance (Gourlay, 2006). The process viewdefines knowledge creation as “dynamic, interactive and process-oriented, as well asbeing focused on the relationships that are involved in creating new knowledge”(Samaddar and Kadiyala, 2006).

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge conversion model shows that mutualconversion of tacit and explicit knowledge is a four-dimensional process includingsocialization, externalization, combination and internalization. Socialization is theconversion of tacit knowledge into a new tacit knowledge like sharing the experiencesamong organization’s members. Externalization shows the conversion of tacit knowledgeinto a new explicit knowledge such as documentation of best experiences. Combination isconversion of explicit knowledge into a new explicit knowledge like assessing papers andreports in a same sector and finally, internalization is conversion of explicit knowledgeinto a new tacit knowledge such as learning from written collective discussions.

Organizational performanceIn the turbulent competitive area, companies are trying to adapt themselves to thechanges by creating sustainable advantages by increasing organizationalperformance. Previous researches on organizational performance have focused onfinancial performance. Although financial measures might be related to strategy andlong-term target of business, but cannot create advantages for the organization in an

VINE44,1

44

intense competitive environment (Wu and Liu, 2001). Skerlavaj et al. (2007) cited thatevaluation of organizational performance is not possible without taking theorganizational objectives into account. Therefore in 1994, American Institute ofCertified Public Accountants (AICPA) recommended incorporating non-financialinformation in performance criteria as well; this information can reflect intellectualcapital and social responsibility as well as promotion of organizational knowledge level(Wu and Liu, 2001). Conventional performance criteria included financial indices suchas: return on investment (ROI) and financial circulation (Parker, 2000) and etc. Harperet al. (1998) mentioned seven dimensions for performance: productivity, unit cost, price,factor proportion, cost proportion, product mix and input allocation. Kaplan andNorton (2004) used the following five indices for depicting the strategy throughpresenting balanced score card (BSC): financial perspective, customer’s perspective,internal process perspective, and learning and growth perspective. Furthermore, Yokeland Somes (1973) has explained the performance determinants in three dimensions as:output, adaptability and human resources. Accordingly, Yokel’s model is used in thecurrent research for examining performance of the organization under study. In Table I,we have summarized the models of performance measurement.

Research backgroundIn this section, summary of some research which somewhat relate to the respectivesubject is presented:

Ho (2009) in a research entitled “The relationship between knowledge managementenablers and performance” analysed the role of knowledge management enablers infinancial performance through using performance indices of knowledge management.This research concluded that there is a positive and significant correlation betweenenablers of knowledge management and performance indices of knowledgemanagement such as strategy and leadership. The relationship betweenperformance indices of knowledge management and financial performance was alsoreported to be positive and significant. Consequently, enablers of knowledgemanagement positively affect the financial performance through performance indicesof knowledge management.

Zack et al. (2009) studied the relationship between indices of knowledgemanagement and performance outcomes through an exploratory analysis. Theyspecified 12 indices for knowledge management via searching the literature of thesubject. Their findings proved that a direct and significant relationship holds betweenindices of knowledge management and organizational performance. Organizationalperformance was also shown to be directly and significantly related to financialperformance. It was thereby inferred that organizational performance acts as anintermediate link between indices of knowledge management and financialperformance.

Svensson and Wood (2011) proposed a conceptual framework of business ethicsthroughout all sectors of the organization in terms of ethical structures, ethicalprocesses, and ethical performance. They deduced in their research that the proposedframework provides a basis for the development and refinement of ethics interactionsin the organization and can be utilized for managing and evaluating applications ofbusiness ethics in the organization. Moreover, implementation of the proposedconceptual framework over the organization contributes to reforming structures andprocesses leading to enhancement of organizational capabilities and promotion oforganizational performance.

Study of aknowledge-based

organization

45

Mod

el/f

ram

ewor

k/s

yst

emY

ear

Dim

ensi

ons/

lev

els

Foc

us

Per

form

ance

mea

sure

men

tfr

amew

ork

–A

nth

ony

1965

Str

ateg

icp

lan

nin

g,

man

agem

ent

con

trol

,op

erat

ion

alco

ntr

olM

anag

emen

tco

ntr

ol

Per

form

ance

mon

itor

ing

syst

em–

Alt

man

1979

Dat

a,an

aly

sis,

acti

onP

rog

ram

me

obje

ctiv

esP

erfo

rman

cep

yra

mid

–C

ross

and

Ly

nch

1989

Cor

por

ate

vis

ion

,ac

cou

nta

bil

ity

ofth

eb

usi

nes

su

nit

,co

mp

etit

ive

dim

ensi

ons

for

bu

sin

ess

oper

atin

gsy

stem

s,an

dsp

ecifi

cop

erat

ion

alcr

iter

ia

Ex

tern

al/i

nte

rnal

casc

adin

gm

easu

res

arou

nd

mar

ket

,p

rod

uct

ion

Eu

rop

ean

Fou

nd

atio

nfo

rQ

ual

ity

Man

agem

ent

(EF

QM

)ex

cell

ence

mod

el19

91E

nab

ler:

lead

ersh

ip,

peo

ple

,st

rate

gy

,p

artn

ersh

ips

&re

sou

rces

,p

rod

uct

and

serv

ices

Res

ult

s:p

eop

lere

sult

s,cu

stom

erre

sult

s,so

ciet

yre

sult

s,b

usi

nes

sre

sult

s

TQ

Mp

rin

cip

les;

self

-ass

essm

ent

and

refl

ecti

ons

Bal

ance

dsc

orec

ard

(BS

C)

–N

orto

nan

dK

apla

n19

92F

inan

cial

,cu

stom

er,

inte

rnal

pro

cess

and

lear

nin

gan

dg

row

thS

tak

ehol

der

s;tr

ansl

atin

gst

rate

gy

into

acti

onF

ram

ewor

kfo

ror

gan

izat

ion

alco

ntr

olsy

stem

s–

Otl

ey19

99O

bje

ctiv

es,

stra

teg

ies,

per

form

ance

targ

ets,

ince

nti

ves

,in

form

atio

nfl

ows

Man

agem

ent

ofor

gan

izat

ion

alp

erfo

rman

ce

Per

form

ance

pri

sm–

Ken

ner

lyan

dN

eely

2000

Sta

keh

old

ersa

tisf

acti

on,

stra

teg

ies,

pro

cess

es,

cap

abil

itie

s,st

akeh

old

erco

ntr

ibu

tion

s

Sta

keh

old

ers;

cau

sean

def

fect

rela

tion

s

Per

form

ance

mea

sure

men

tfr

amew

ork

–R

ouse

and

Pu

tter

ill

2003

Com

bin

atio

nof

stak

ehol

der

eval

uat

ion

and

stra

teg

yw

ith

serv

ice

del

iver

yan

dp

roce

ssal

ign

men

t

Bal

anci

ng

bet

wee

nm

acro

and

mic

rov

iew

sof

the

org

aniz

atio

nan

dth

eir

inte

ract

ion

s;m

anag

ing

wor

kat

her

than

cost

;h

olis

tic

vie

wto

org

aniz

atio

nP

erfo

rman

cem

easu

rem

ent

fram

ewor

k–

Gar

ratt

(Gar

rattet

al.,

2012

)20

03R

atio

s:p

rofi

t/sa

les,

sale

s/ca

pit

alem

plo

yed

,p

rofi

t/ca

pit

alem

plo

yed

,sa

les/

inv

ento

ries

,sa

les/

deb

tors

,sa

les/

no.

ofem

plo

yee

s,sa

les

per

£of

emol

um

ents

Pri

nci

ple

ofth

esu

per

vis

ion

ofm

anag

emen

t;ef

fici

ency

Per

form

ance

mea

sure

men

tfr

amew

ork

–L

ee20

08S

tak

ehol

der

sati

sfac

tion

,or

gan

izat

ion

alco

mm

un

icat

ion

,te

amco

llab

orat

ion

,st

rate

gic

per

form

ance

,k

now

led

ge

man

agem

ent,

org

aniz

atio

nal

gro

wth

Non

-fin

anci

alp

erfo

rman

ce;

stak

ehol

der

s;st

rate

gy

;in

tern

alp

roce

sses

Table I.Performance models,frameworks or systemsextracted from literature

VINE44,1

46

Rezaiian and Ghazinouri (2010) in their research entitled “Modeling the role of ethicsin success of knowledge management systems” investigated the role of ethics in dutiesof the knowledge management process; of course, the general pattern of knowledgemanagement was used for knowledge management process. Research result impliedthat there exists a significant correlation between ethics and indices of knowledgemanagement process. The correlation holds between criteria such as individual andcollective trust, honesty, intellectual property right, help and empathy, commitment,accountability, working conscience and carefulness in authenticity from one aspectand the indices of a general pattern of knowledge management including creation,organizing, sharing and application of knowledge from the other aspect.

Akhavan et al. (2013) explored the role of ethics in knowledge management processin an industrial organization. The ethical indices that they used in their research areshown in Table II.

Research model and hypothesesIn our recent research (Akhavan et al., 2013) we investigate the opinions of six expertsfor identifying the suitable ethics dimensions. These experts were KM professionalsworking in different industries which were completely familiar with ethics and most ofthem took part in setting of organizations’ credo and ethical statements of thecorporations. They have different positions like: managers, deputy, supervisor andsenior experts. The dimensions were designated as shown in Table III.

Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of this research according to literature reviewband experts’ opinions. In this model, ethics are considered as independent variable

Area Citations

Accountability Land et al. (2007); Chua (2002)Working conscience Huysmans and Wit (2004)Commitment Azmi (2010); Chua (2002); Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998)Collective trust Rezaiian and Ghazinouri (2010); Inkpen and Tsang (2005);

Hutchings and Michailova (2004)Organizational trust Galford and Drapeau (2011); Mirzaei et al. (2009)Secrecy Azmi (2010)Intellectual property right Azmi (2010); Lang (2004); Yli-Renko et al. (2001)Care in authenticity Azmi (2010)Honesty Azmi (2010), Lang (2004)Helping and empathy with others Azmi (2010); Huysmans and Wit (2004); Chua (2002)Loyalty Jordan and Troth (2011); Bove and Johnson (2009); Huang and

Huddleston (2009)Foresight Calof and Smith (2012); Johnston (2012)Trusteeship Sayce (2012); Khenifer and Moghimi (2009)Fair behavior Al-A’ali (2008)Humility Khenifer and Moghimi (2009)Criticism-taking Al-A’ali (2008)Council with others Harper et al. (1998)Perseverance in works Neck et al. (2000); Raps (2005)Affability Ferris et al. (2008)Self-control Hsiang Hsu and Yang Kuo (2003)

Source: Adapted from Akhavan et al. (2013)

Table II.Ethics indices and their

citations

Study of aknowledge-based

organization

47

and dimensions of knowledge creation process (KCP) and performance are taken asdependent variables. The main purpose of the current paper is to explore the role ofethics and the knowledge creation process in organizational performance. Therefore,research hypotheses are as follows:

H1. There is a positive and significant relationship between ethics andorganizational performance.

H2. There is a positive and significant relationship between ethics and knowledgecreation process.

H3. There is a positive and significant relationship between knowledge creationprocess and organizational performance.

Research methodologyIn order to study the relationships between research variables, the needed data werecollected by means of a questionnaire. This questionnaire consists of 40 questions.Knowledge creation section includes eight questions, ethics section has 20 questions,and 12 questions are contained in the organizational performance section.Furthermore, LIKERT five-choice scale was used in this tool.

Reliability and validity analysesThe reliability of different dimensions of research questionnaire showed 0.711 for KCP,0.919 for ethics, 0.843 for performance and 0.928 for overall questionnaire.

Row Dimensions Indicators

1 Value-based view Collective trustOrganizational trustHonestyFair behaviorHumilityCriticism – takingPerseverance in works

2 Team working culture Council with othersHelping and empathy with othersAffabilitySelf-control

3 Commitment and responsibility ResponsibilityWorkingConscienceCommitmentLoyaltyForesight

4 Intellectual ownership and trusteeship SecrecyIntellectual property rightTrusteeshipCare in authenticity

Source: Adapted from Akhavan et al. (2013)Table III.Ethics dimensions

VINE44,1

48

Measurement tools development in this paper is based on literature review and experts’opinions. Therefore, the questionnaire in this paper has a certain degree of contentvalidity.

Empirical analysisFor this research, 110 questionnaires were collected. Among the collectedquestionnaires, eight questionnaires were incomplete, so they were discarded.Therefore, 102 valid and complete questionnaires were ready to analyse. Table IVshows the basic data of the respondents of the effective questionnaires.

Structural equation modelingFigure 2 shows the parameter estimates of the research structural model. Afterwards,an examination of the model estimates and assessment of the overall fit indicators andmodification index can be made to evaluate model fit.

This paper uses a SEM for validation and analysis of the examination ofreasonability of the research structure and the results of the research issues. Thestandardized coefficient of ethics and knowledge creation is 0.56, and t-value is 3.55,p , 0:001, reaching statistical significance. The results indicate that ethics haspositive and direct influence on knowledge creation process (H1). In order to showvisible variables, ethics dimensions are shown by F1-F4 also KCP dimensions by SO,EX, CO, IN and Performance dimensions by O, A and HR (see Figure 2). Thestandardized coefficient between ethics and organizational performance is 0.78, t-valueis 4.02, and p is less than 0.001, also reaching statistical significance. These numberssuggest ethics has positive and direct influence on performance of organization (H2).The standardized coefficient between knowledge creation and organizationalperformance is 0.11, t-value is 0.96, indicating no statistical significance regarding tothese latent variables (H3).

Results show that the process of knowledge creation has no significant influence onthe performance of organization. Notably, the direct impact of ethics on performance issignificantly greater than that of ethics on knowledge creation. Accordingly, the no

Figure 1.Research conceptual

model

Study of aknowledge-based

organization

49

significant effect of knowledge creation on performance can be explained through themediated role of the KCP on organizational performance. Furthermore, Table Vrepresents a correlation matrix across all variables with all values being statisticallysignificant.

In addition, the higher the model fit, the higher usability the model has, as far as themodel fit assessment is concerned. This also means that parameter estimates are moremeaningful. This paper refers to absolute fit indicators, incremental fit indicators, andgoodness of fit index recommended by Hair et al. (1998) for the validation of overall fit.

Table VI shows all the overall fit indicators. Among the absolute fit indicators,x2/df is 1.91, the Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value of this model is also 0.94, root meansquare residual (RMR) value is 0.033, and root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA) value is 0.077, all within an acceptable range, as suggested by past scholars.

Figure 2.Research structural model

Area Description Number of respondents Percent Cumulative (percentage)

Job title Expert 48 47 47Supervisor 19 19 66Manager 35 34 100

Education Under BS 12 12 12Bachelors (BS) 64 63 75Masters (MS) 26 25 100

Job experience Below 5 years 19 19 195-10 years 34 33 5210-15 years 21 21 73Above 15 years 28 27 100

Age Below 30 19 19 1930-35 38 37 5635-40 26 25 81Above 40 19 19 100

Table IV.Demographic profile ofrespondents

VINE44,1

50

Var

iab

les

Soc

iali

zati

onE

xte

rnal

izat

ion

Com

bin

atio

nIn

tern

aliz

atio

nO

utp

ut

Ad

apta

bil

ity

Hu

man

reso

urc

es

Eth

ics

0.40

0*

*0.

277

**

0.38

9*

*0.

214

*0.

394

**

0.52

1*

*0.

718

**

KC

P0.

668

**

0.72

4*

*0.

728

**

0.70

7*

*0.

293

**

0.21

4*

0.40

4*

*

Per

form

ance

0.21

3*

0.24

5*

0.30

4*

*0.

206

*0.

840

**

0.85

5*

*0.

788

**

Notes:

*C

orre

lati

onis

sig

nifi

can

tat

the

0.05

lev

el(t

wo-

tail

ed);

** c

orre

lati

onis

sig

nifi

can

tat

the

0.01

lev

el(t

wo-

tail

ed)

Table V.Correlation matrix

Study of aknowledge-based

organization

51

Huang (2004) suggested that if the RMSEA value is between 0.05 and 0.08, and x2/dfreach below 3, they imply a good fit.

As far as incremental fit indicators are concerned, the adjusted goodness of fit index(AGFI) value of this model is 0.92, normed fit index (NFI) value is 0.97, comparative fitindex (CFI) value is 0.96, and incremental fit index (IFI) value is 0.98, all the valuesreach the standards suggested in literature. Among the goodness of fit index, theparsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) value of this model is 0.644 and parsimoniouscomparative fit index (PCFI) value is 0.708. They are both greater than 0.5, reaching thestandards suggested by previous scholars.

DiscussionBased on a conceptual model of research and structural equation modeling, it wasconcluded that there is a positive and significant relationship between ethics andorganizational performance. This is in consistent somewhat with previous studieswhich they are interested in showing the impact of knowledge management processeson performance (Ho, 2009; Zack et al., 2009). The relationship between ethics andknowledge creation process is also positive and significant but there is not a significantcorrelation between knowledge creation process and organizational performance.Additionally, another result of the current research suggests that there exists a positiveand significant correlation between ethics and dimensions of organizationalperformance including productivity, adaptability, and human resources (seeTable V). According to the analyzed definitions and models as well as features ofour sample in this study, it can be stated in explaining the obtained results that humanresource is one of the dimensions in all models which proposed for organizationalperformance and furthermore, more specifically within the organization under study,the human resource is regarded as the main capital based on its mission and goals.

On the other hand, the ethics have always had the largest and the most essentialinfluence on human resources. The ethics in the current research are also defined anddepicted in connection with human resource. Perhaps, the positive and strongcorrelation between ethics and organizational performance might be explainedaccording to the aforementioned fact, and it would be possible to analyze why human

Fitness indicator Criteria Validation value Result

Absolute fit indicatorsx2/df , 4 1.91 CompliantGFI . 0.90 0.94 CompliantRMR , 0.05 0.033 CompliantRMSEA , 0.05 or 0.05-0.08 0.077 Compliant

Incremental fit indicatorsAGFI . 0.90 0.92 CompliantNFI . 0.90 0.97 CompliantCFI . 0.90 0.96 CompliantIFI . 0.90 0.98 Compliant

Goodness of fit indexPNFI . 0.5 0.646 CompliantPCFI . 0.5 0.708 Compliant

Table VI.The indicators of modelfitness

VINE44,1

52

resource mostly influenced by ethics among the other dimensions of organizationalperformance. Concerning adaptability, taking into account the components of thisdimension such as increase in supply of research- based products, promotion ofmaster’s satisfaction, increase of research projects assigned to organization, it can beclearly asserted that human capital especially knowledge workers play a crucial role inthe realization of these components and enhancement of adaptability, andconsequently, improvement of organizational performance. Moreover, regarding toethics, attributes like mutual trust to each other and to the organization, consultationwith others, accountability and responsiveness, envisioning and loyalty to theorganization will greatly affect the efficiency of knowledge workers, and as a result,their adaptability. For these reasons, adaptability seems to be in second priority afterhuman resources in terms of being influenced by ethics. With regard to output, it canbe stated that this dimension of performance is more related to costs, revenues, andfinancial issues of organization (Zack et al., 2009), and also, due to the fact that therespective organization is affiliated to government, the output is less directlyinfluenced by human assets compared to other dimensions. Therefore, apparently dueto these reasons, output is less influenced by ethics compared to other dimensions ofperformance.

Another result of the current research implies a direct and significant relationship ofethics and dimensions of knowledge creation including socialization, externalization,combination, and internalization (see Table V). These affirmative results werecontrasted with recent study conducted by Rezaiian and Ghazinouri (2010). This resultis also explained according to the requisites of the respective organization. It can becontended in this regard that due to the organization’s emphasis on team work theaccentuation is on personnel’s learning from each other and sharing experiences inteam level as well as organization level. Thus, socialization is highly significant in therespective organization. Furthermore, socialization is based on social relations andinteractions of people, and accordingly, the role of ethics is highlighted in it. Seemingly,due to the aforementioned reasons, socialization is the dimension which is mostlyinfluenced by ethics. Concerning externalization, this dimension is also specificallyimportant owing to emphasis of organization on transforming a variety of knowledgeinto explicit knowledge and also on its taxonomy, storage, and protection. Fromanother aspect, ethics play a significant role in encouraging personnel within theorganization to manifest their knowledge. Probably, on the same basis, it is possible toexplain the significant and direct correlation between ethics and externalization. Due tosome features of the respective organization, a great deal of emphasis is made oncollecting explicit knowledge of individuals and groups, also protection of them inorder to develop new products. More ever, ethics especially attributes such asconfidentiality, intellectual property right and trustfulness can deeply impactencouragement of personnel and even organization to move from explicit personalknowledge to explicit knowledge in both group and organizational levels. Finally, theaforementioned reasons might explain why the combination is positively influenced byethics in the respective organization.

Internalization could also lead to effective learning of employee from existingdocuments, and for this reason, is particularly important. Nonetheless, due to aparticular identity of the organization under study in the current research,internalization activity is less taken into account compared to other activities ofknowledge creation process. It might be asserted that internalization is less influencedby ethics compared to other dimensions of the knowledge creation process. According

Study of aknowledge-based

organization

53

to findings of LISREL, no significant relationship between knowledge creation processand organizational performance is another result of the present study and the followingreasons can be listed for its justification.

Perhaps as the most important reason, it can be stated that the infrastructuresneeded for complete implementation of knowledge management and its processes havenot been yet provided, and knowledge management has not been performed in alldimensions of the organization, because this concept is a relatively new issue in thisorganization. Furthermore, the employees have not yet acquired a perfect insight of itsconcept; consequently, knowledge management has not been so far able to exhibit itstangible impact on the organizational performance in the respective organization,while recent study indicated that KM can influence on organizational performance, ofcourse, mediating role of others factor should be considered (Lee and Huang, 2012).

However, since the impacts of the knowledge creation process and ethics onorganizational performance are simultaneously evaluated in the research model, alsotaking into mind the fact that ethics influence the performance very strongly, accordingly,impact of other factor such as knowledge creation on performance is therefore reduced ina way that standard coefficient between these two variables becomes 0.11 in the model(see Figure 2), and their correlation is not confirmed in LISREL.

ConclusionsThe major objective of the current research is to determine the influence of ethics andthe knowledge creation process on organizational performance. The results showedthat ethics positively and strongly affect the organizational performance based on theproposed analytical model. Ethics are also positively and significantly correlated toknowledge creation process but no significant relationship is observed betweenknowledge creation and organizational performance. Therefore, it is clear thatalthough ethics directly have a positive and strong impact on the performance but theyare not able to influence the performance through mediated role of the knowledgecreation process. In fact, considering the findings of the research, it can be stated thatethics as a key factor, along with other effective factors, play a key role in promotion oforganizational performance as well as successfulness of knowledge creation processes.Since, ethics as social capital are among the concepts that could lead to higherproductivity of human assets. In the light of the obtained results, consideration ofethics in organizations is recommended to be provided. Ethics should be emphasizedand considered so that the personnel play further and more effective part in theimprovement and promotion of their organization’s performance and enhancement ofperformance indices of their organization; this could improve the competitivenessability of an organization in the business environment.

Also, through emphasizing on ethics consideration in organizations, knowledgemanagement systems can deal with the tasks more successfully and individuals canactively participate in knowledge management processes. In addition, according toresults of hypotheses analysis for the respective organization, knowledge managementissue is recommended to be more seriously pursued by both personnel and managers,and the infrastructures required for complete implementation of knowledgemanagement should be furnished so that knowledge management can demonstrateits tangible and remarkable effectiveness in the organizational performance. Thereason is the fact that intangible assets are currently a major part of possessions of anyorganization (Mehralian et al., 2013), which of course constitute a remarkable part oforganizational performance, and successful implementation of knowledge

VINE44,1

54

management could result in maintenance, organizing and enhancement of intellectualand intangible capitals.

Research limitations and further researchOur study has some limitations. One limitation refers to specific organization whichcan be developed by researchers to other knowledge- based environments. Next,although we believe that our sample is representative of that organization, a largersample could help to improve the generalizability of this study further. Finally, acouple of recommendations are proposed for future research works in this field:

. It is recommended to apply other models and processes of knowledgemanagement and to analyze their relationship with ethics besides comparison oftheir results with the findings of the current research.

. As another recommendation, future researches might incorporate determiningother similar variable instead of knowledge management such as intellectualcapital and analysis of its relationship with ethics and organizational performance.

References

Akhavan, P. and Heidari, S. (2008), “CKM: where knowledge and customer meet”, KM Review,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 24-29.

Akhavan, P., Hosnavi, R. and Sanjaghi, M.E. (2009), “Identification of knowledge managementcritical success factors in Iranian academic research centers”, Education, Business andSociety: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 276-288.

Akhavan, P., Ramezan, M. and Jafar, Y.M. (2013), “Examining the role of ethics in knowledgemanagement process: case study: an industrial organization”, Journal of Knowledge-basedInnovation in China, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 129-145.

Al-A’ali, M. (2008), “Computer ethics for the computer professional from an Islamic point ofview”, Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 28-45.

Azmi, I.M. (2010), “Legal and ethical issues in knowledge management, in Malaysia”, Journal ofComputer Law & Security Review, Vol. 26, pp. 61-71.

Bove, L.I. and Johnson, L.W. (2009), “Does ‘true’ personal or service loyalty last? A longitudinalstudy”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 187-194.

Calof, J. and Smith, J.E. (2012), “Foresight impacts from around the world: a special issue”,Foresight, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 5-12.

Chua, A. (2002), “The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation”, Journal ofIntellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 375-392.

Crawford, C.B. (2005), “Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position onknowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 6-16.

Ferris, G.R., Blickle, G., Schneider, P.B., Kramer, J., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D. and Meurs, J.A.(2008), “Political skill construct and criterion-related validation: a two-studyinvestigation”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 744-771.

Finn, O.B. and Torgeir, D. (2008), “Knowledge management in software engineering: a systematicreview of studied concepts, findings and research methods used”, Information andSoftware Technology, Vol. 50, pp. 1055-1068.

Galford, R. and Drapeau, A.S. (2011), The Trusted Leader Bringing Out the Best in Your Peopleand Your Company, Atria Books, New York, NY.

Garratt, R., Walker, M. and Wooders, J. (2012), “Behaviour in second-price auctions by highlyexperienced eBay buyers and sellers”, Experimental Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 44-57.

Gourlay, S. (2006), “Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonaka’s theory”, Journalof Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1415-1436.

Study of aknowledge-based

organization

55

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Date Analysis,5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Harper, W., Preston, J. and Hayward, T. (1998), “British Council LIS in Italy: a marketingperspective”, New Library World, Vol. 99 No. 1142, pp. 149-158.

Ho, C.T. (2009), “The relationship between knowledge management enablers and performance”,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 98-117.

Holden, P. (2000), “Ethics pays”, Journal of Organizations & People, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 17-23.

Hsiang Hsu, M. and Yang Kuo, F. (2003), “The effect of organization-based self-esteem anddeindividuation in protecting personal information privacy”, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 305-320.

Huang, F. (2004), Social Science Statistics – Structural Equation Modeling, WuNan, Taipei,pp. 41-64.

Huang, Y. and Huddleston, P. (2009), “Retailer premium own-brands: creating customer loyaltythrough own-brand products advantage”, International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 975-992.

Hutchings, K. and Michailova, S. (2004), “Facilitating knowledge sharing in Russian and Chinesesubsidiaries: the role of personal networks and group membership”, Journal of KnowledgeManagement, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 84-94.

Huysmans, M. and Wit, D. (2004), “Practices of managing knowledge sharing: towards a secondwave of knowledge management”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 81-92.

Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005), “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165.

Jafari, M. and Akhavan, P. (2007), “Essential changes for knowledge management establishmentin a country: a macro perspective”, European Business Review Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 89-110.

Jafari, M., Akhavan, P. and Mortezaei, A. (2009), “A review on knowledge managementdiscipline”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Jafari, M., Fesharaki, M. and Akhavan, P. (2007), “Establishing an integrated KM system in Iranaerospace industries organization”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,pp. 127-142.

Johnston, R. (2012), “Developing the capacity to assess the impact of foresight”, Foresight, Vol. 14No. 1, pp. 56-68.

Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A. (2011), “Emotional intelligence and leader member exchange: therelationship with employee turnover intentions and job satisfaction”, Leadership& Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 260-280.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2004), “Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 52-63.

Khenifer, H. and Moghimi, S.M. (2009), “Ethics philosophy in organization, case study: ethicalchapters”, Qom University Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 235-260.

Lakshman, C. (2009), “Organizational knowledge leadership”, The Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 338-364.

Land, F., Nolas, S.M. and Amjad, U. (2007), “Knowledge management: the darker side of KM”,ETHICOMP Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 174-183.

Lang, J.C. (2004), “Social context and social capital as enablers of knowledge integration”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 89-105.

Mehralian, G., Rasekh, H.R., Akhavan, P. and Rajabzadeh, A. (2013), “Prioritization of intellectualcapital indicators in knowledge-based industries: evidence from pharmaceutical industry”,International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 209-216.

Mills, A.M. and Smith, T.A. (2011), “Knowledge management and organizational performance:a decomposed view”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 156-171.

VINE44,1

56

Mirzaei, F., Darayi, E. and Nafisi, S. (2009), “The role of Islamic University in knowledgemanagement development”, Islamic University Quarterly, p. 41.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizationaladvantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.

Neck, C.P., Mitchell, T.L., Manz, C.C., Cooper, K.H. and Thompson, E.C. (2000), “Observations-fitto lead: is fitness the key to effective executive leadership?”, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 833-841.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Parker, C. (2000), “Performance measurement”, Work Study, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 63-66.

Raps, A. (2005), “Strategy implementation – an insurmountable obstacle?”, Handbook of BusinessStrategy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 141-146.

Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1990), “Toward the development of a multidimensional scalefor improving evaluations of business ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 8,pp. 639-653.

Rezaiian, S. and Ghazinouri, S.S. (2010), “Finding a model for the role of ethics in the success ofknowledge management systems”, Science and Technology Policy Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 2,pp. 1-9.

Samaddar, S. and Kadiyala, S.S. (2006), “An analysis of inter organizational resource sharingdecisions in collaborative knowledge creation”, European Journal of Operational Research,Vol. 170 No. 1, pp. 192-210.

Sayce, S. (2012), “Being a female pension trustee”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 298-314.

Singer, A.E. and Singer, M.S. (1997), “Management-science and business-ethics”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 385-395.

Skerlavaj, M., Stemberger, M.I., Skrinjar, R. and Dimovski, V. (2007), “Organizational learningculture: the missing link between business process change and organizationalperformance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 346-361.

Svensson, G. and Wood, G. (2011), “A conceptual framework of corporate and business ethicsacross organizations”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-35.

Wu, S.I. and Liu, S.Y. (2010), “The performance measurement perspectives and causalrelationship for ISO-certified companies – a case of opto-electronic industry”, InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 27-47.

Yang, J.T. (2007), “Knowledge sharing: investigating appropriate leadership roles andcollaborative culture”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 530-543.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. and Sapienza, H.J. (2001), “Social capital, knowledge acquisition andknowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms”, Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 22 No. 6-7, pp. 587-612.

Yokel, F.Y. and Somes, N.F. (1973), “Can performance criteria be evolved for new buildingsystems?”, Building Research and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 167-171.

Zack, M., McKeen, J. and Singh, S. (2009), “Knowledge management and organizationalperformance: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 6,pp. 392-406.

Further reading

Akhavan, P. and Jafari, M. (2006), “Critical issues for knowledge management implementation ata national level”, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems,Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 52-66.

Burke, M.E. (2011), “Knowledge sharing in emerging economies”, Library Review, Vol. 60 No. 1,pp. 5-14.

Study of aknowledge-based

organization

57

Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (2002), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital andOrganizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Haines, T. (2001), The Problem of Knowledge Management, available at: www.information/ir/hartlyl.html

Kebede, G. (2010), “Knowledge management: an information science perspective”, InternationalJournal of Information Management, Vol. 30, pp. 416-424.

Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2000), “Performance measurement frameworks – a review”,Proceedings of Performance Measurement 2000: Past, Present and Future Conference,Robinson College, Cambridge, 19-21 July, pp. 291-298.

Kumar, R. (2011), “Knowledge management and organizational culture: a theoretical integrativeframework”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 779-881.

Michael, Z., McKean, J. and Singh, S. (2009), “Knowledge management and organizationalperformance: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 6,pp. 392-409.

Politis, J.D. (2001), “The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management”,The Leadership & Organization Development Jourrnal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 354-364.

Tseng, S.M. (2010), “The correlation between organizational culture and knowledge conversionon corporate performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 269-284.

Wig, K. (2002), “Application of knowledge management in public administration”, available at:www.egov.pl/-baza-analizy-km-pub

Wing, S.C. and Chan, L.S. (2008), “Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizationalknowledge sharing Department of Finance and Decision Sciences School of Business”,Journal of Information & Management, Vol. 45, pp. 458-465.

Xue, Y., Bradley, J. and Liang, H. (2011), “Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledgesharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 299-312.

About the authorsPeyman Akhavan received his MSc and PhD degrees in Industrial Engineering from IranUniversity of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran. His research interests are in knowledgemanagement, IT, innovation and strategic planning. He has published six books and has morethan 98 research papers in different conferences and journals.

Majid Ramezan is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Management, University ofTehran. He has a PhD degree in Human Resource Management, and was awarded the bestresearcher in 2011 in the Qom city as the best researcher. He also has MSc degree in ManagementInformation System (MIS), becoming the best student of his university in 2005.

Jafar Yazdi Moghaddam is a PhD candidate in Industrial Engineering in University of Yazd,Iran. His research interests are knowledge management, intellectual capital and ethics. He haspublished six research papers in different conferences and journals, and has also worked in aproject in the field of knowledge management. Jafar Yazdi Moghaddam is the correspondingauthor and can be contacted at: j.yazdimoghaddam@yahoo.com

Gholamhossein Mehralian is Associate Professor in the Pharma Management and EconomicsDepartment, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Iran. He isPharmD and received his PhD in Pharma Management and Economics from School ofPharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Iran. He has had several papers inintellectual capital, knowledge management, drug supply chain area and issues related topharmacy practices published in peer-reviewed journals.

VINE44,1

58

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints