I want the writer to divide the paper to:
Abstract:
(I want a good abstract where the writer should explain broadly how is knowledge sharing is important for knowledge management in organizations. Also how organizational culture can affect positively or negatively on knowledge sharing. How knowledge sharing can help the competitiveness of a company etc, then start about explaining the Internally Driven vs Externally Driven cultures and its relation to knowledge sharing)
Introduction:
(focus on knowledge sharing/ organizational culture/ the culture dimension by hofestde (Internally Driven vs Externally Driven cultures) then I need the writer to tell the reader about how is the paper is structured so the reader will know what to expect to read.
Conceptual Definitions:
o Knowledge sharing behavior
o Organizational culture
o Organizational culture dimensions by Hofestde (generally but focus on defining Internally Driven vs Externally Driven cultures
Literature Review:
o Hofestede's cultural dimensions (Internally Driven vs Externally Driven cultures)
o Empowering Knowledge Sharing Behaviors Through Internally Driven vs Externally Driven cultures
Theoretical Framework (Propositions):
I need you to explain more how an Internally Driven vs Externally Driven cultures can impact positively or negatively on knowledge sharing behavior. Try to identify which one of them is more supportive knowledge sharing and which one of them hinders the knowledge sharing.
Here is some work I have done ? but no completed:
INTERNALLY DRIVEN VS EXTERNALLY DRIVEN:
In internally driven culture, employees pay a lot of attention to business ethics and honesty and they distinguish their tasks to the outside world and they know what is good for the customers (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). Therefore, in this culture employees are most likely to meet to discuss their ideas of what they believe is good for their customers. Thus, we assume that employees are willing to share their knowledge if they believe that it could contribute to providing what is best for their customers.
By contrast, an externally driven culture focuses on on customers? satisfaction and customers? requirements. They also value results and they demonstrate more of pragmatic view, rather than an ethical one (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). This culture focuses on the customer input rather than the employees input. For example, the employees may ask the customers about their opinion about the services through surveys, interviews and so on in order to tailor the services to the customers? requirements. In this case employees communicate directly with the customers and we could assume that this culture could hinder knowledge sharing among the employees.
Internally driven vs Externally driven:
Internally Driven:
In internally driven culture where there indirect contact with customers this will affect positively on knowledge sharing.
Externally Driven:
In externally driven culture where there is direct contact with customers this will affect negatively on knowledge sharing.
Conclusion:
References (Only scholarly journals. please upload all the journals used so I can keep it as prof and I can check the cited ideas for the assignment ? just add it all to one folder and then upload it in a zip file)
Below is something I wrote for my pervious assignment when I wrote about all the hofestde's dimensions:
Hofstede and Bond (1984) note that, organizational culture dimensions are diverse and cover several aspects of employee behavior (including their psychological processes); but similarly, they note that, organizational culture also covers certain aspects of the business environment, such as the social, political and economic functioning, to create a group synergy for success.
Besides his interest in national culture, Hofestede also examined organizational culture in which he developed six (6) key dimensions as such: (1) process vs results oriented, (2) job versus employee oriented, (3) professional vs parochial, (4) close vs open, (5) tightly controlled vs loose, and (6) pragmatic vs normative (Hofstede,1990; Hansen,2003). In 2010, Hofstede collaborated with another theorist Bob Waisfisz and therefore they came up with six autonomous dimensions and two semi-autonomous dimensions (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov,2010). This study will be based on Hofstede?s dimensions after the development and the collaboration with Waisfisz.
The first type of organizational culture is ?means oriented vs goal oriented?this dimension among the other six autonomous dimensions is very much linked with the organization effectiveness. In a means oriented culture people are more concerned about how the work should be carried out. In a very means oriented culture people perceived to avoid taking risks and they will only exhibit a limited effort in their jobs and their work life is routine (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). In contrast, in goal oriented culture people are more concerned about what should be achieved. Therefore, in goal oriented culture people are concerned about the results even if it involves risk taking even if those risks were big (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010).
The second type of organization cultural dimension is the ?Internally driven vs externally driven?. In a very internally driven culture employees are concerned about business ethics and honesty and they recognize their tasks to the outside world and they know what is good for the customers as well as the world at large (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). Whereas, in a very externally driven culture the only stress is on customer?s satisfaction and meeting the customer?s requirements; in addition to results are also considered to be crucial. In this culture people exhibits more of pragmatic than an ethical attitude. This dimension is different from ?means vs goal oriented? because in this situation it?s not about the impersonal results but it?s about the customer satisfaction (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010).
The third type of organization cultural dimension is the Easy going work discipline vs strict work discipline?. This dimension refers to the extent of the organization internal structuring control and disciplineIn very easy-going culture there is a loose internal structure and low level of predictability and little control and discipline. Therefore there is high level of creativity (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). On the other hand, In a very strict work discipline the internal structure is fixed and there is a high level of predictability and high level of control and discipline. People in this culture are very cost conscious, punctual and serious (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010).
The fourth type of organization cultural dimension is the ?Local vs professional?. In a local culture employees are identified with the boss and or the unit in which she/her works. In a very local culture employees are directed in a very short-term basis, and they are internally focused. In addition, they have a strong social control that they should be like everyone else (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). In contrast, in a professional culture employees are identified by their profession and what they do. In a very professional culture, employees are directed in a long term basis (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010).
The fifth type of organization cultural dimension is the ?Open system vs closed system?. This dimension refers to the openness and the accessibility of an organization. In a very open system culture newcomers are welcomed and employees are open and friendly to both insiders and the outsiders. In this culture employees believe that almost anyone can fit the organization (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). In contrary, in a very closed culture newcomers aren?t welcomed and it is very difficult for them to enter the organization. Employees in this culture are usually closed and reserved with both insiders and outsiders (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010).
The sixth type of organization cultural dimension is the ?Employee oriented vs work oriented?. This dimension is related to the management philosophy itself. In a very employee oriented culture employees feel that their personal problems are taken into consideration. In addition, in this culture the organization takes responsibility towards the happiness and the well-being of its employees even if this is at the work expense (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). Conversely, in a very work oriented culture employees don?t feel that management take their personal problem into account. There is a high pressure on employees to perform the tasks event if it is at expense of employees (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010).
The first type of the two semi-autonomous dimensions of organization culture is the ?Degree of acceptance of leadership style?. This dimension refers to which degree of the employee's direct boss is being associated with the employee's preferences (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010). ?The fact that people, depending on the project they are working for, may have different bosses doesn't play a role at the level of culture. Culture measures central tendencies (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010)?.
The second type of the two semi-autonomous dimensions of organization culture is the Degree of identification with your organization?. This dimension refers to the degree of the employee's identification of the organization as a whole. Employees are able to identify and recognize the different aspects if the organization. Therefore, there is a possibility that employees feel strongly connected with the internal goals of the company, with the client, with one?s own group and or with one's direct manager and with the whole organizations. But it is also possible that employees don?t feel strongly or unable to identify or get connected to any of these aspects (Hofstede, G.et al, 2010; Hofstede, G. & Waisfisz, B., 2010).?