Asian Journal of Business Management 4(4): 386-391, 2012
ISSN: 2041-8752
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2012
Submitted: July 02, 2012
Accepted: July 31, 2012
Published: September 25, 2012
A Model of Influential Factors on Knowledge Inertia
1
Parviz Kafchehi, 2Arash Zamani and 3Farhad Ebrahimabadi
Department of Business Administration, University of kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2
Department of Management, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran
3
Department of Educational Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
1
Abstract: In the current competitive age, attention to the knowledge and its dynamics is a key factor that can help
organizations to compete with rivals in an effective way. The aim of this research is develop a model of factors that
influence on “knowledge inertia” in an organizational context. A validated questionnaire survey was conducted to
test hypotheses. Statistical population was employees working at the private and public banks in the Kurdistan
Province of Iran. Totally, 200 valid responses were collected. Results Show that individual factor has a direct impact
on the learning inertia and experience inertia. Moreover factors of Organizational and IT are correlated and
eventually they affect individual factor. Although these 2 factors have not direct effect on inertia but they affect it
indirectly. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference between private and public banks.
Keywords: Experience inertia, knowledge inertia, learning inertia
impact on the exploitation of knowledge, but also may
disclose trade secrets and strategies of the organization
(Laudon and Laudon, 2002). Therefore, the continuous
flow of knowledge in the arteries is necessary for the
dynamics of organizations. This will be achieved when
it is conceivable that the mechanisms for its
continuation. A more accurate interpretation, dynamics
of knowledge flows will not occur without mechanisms
of organizational knowledge management. Hence, it is
necessary to determine influential factors on it.
Therefore, according to the literature, Liao et al. (2008)
has not attention to it. So the purpose of current study
is to develop a model of ‘‘knowledge inertia’’ and
influential factors on it in an organizational context that
will fill the existing gap.
INTRODUCTION
A dynamic environmental context is the main
problem in investigating organizational change.
Therefore, it is necessary that the organization is
dynamic and, fundamental changes are requirement to
avoid from inertia disease (Majid et al., 2011). The
knowledge management is the best solution for this
problem. Both as a power and as a resource, knowledge
is a significant asset for individuals and organizations
(Liao, 2002). So in recent years, knowledge
management has become 1 of the important issues for
enterprises (Liao et al., 2008). The considerable
research was previously conducted to investigate
knowledge management and each of them attended to a
special dimension of it. For example, the following can
be mentioned: Mcadam and Reid (2000) also have
compared knowledge management at private and public
sectors in which Azizi et al. (2011) have performed it in
the context of Iranian organizations. Eventually
Rahnavard and Mohammadi (2010) have investigated
influential factors on knowledge management. Based
on studies conducted of research background,
‘‘knowledge inertia’’ a little attention has been paid
recently to it (Liao et al., 2008). The term of
‘‘knowledge inertia’’ is When employees of an
organization dealing with a problem and they resort the
knowledge and past experiences to solve the problem.
Liao et al. (2008) argues that organization or parts of it
are located in areas where ‘‘knowledge inertia’’ is static
and organization’s ability to learn and solve problems is
limited. ‘‘knowledge inertia’’ not only has a negative
Inertia knowledge: With barrowing of physics, inertia
is defined as “objects continue in a state of rest or
uniform motion unless acted upon by forces” (Liao
et al., 2008). Collinson and Wilson (2006) refer inertia
to problems include communicating and transferring of
knowledge and capabilities, that it is harmful for
survival of organization (Narula, 2002). It is defined as
lack of goal-directed behaviors (Zeelenberg and Pieters,
2004) andinclude large part enacted by an accumulation
of individual acts of resistance (Wong-Ming et al.,
2002). Miller argues that 3 main can barriers to create
fundamental changes (or to cause inertia) which include
success, power and politics and develop deep structural
memories over time (Wong-Ming et al., 2002). Based
on defines, the concept of inertia is as resort to constant
Corresponding Author: Parviz Kafchehi, Department of Business Administration, University of kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
386
Asian J. Bus. Manage., 4(4): 386-391, 2012
methods for dealing with problems (Liao et al., 2008).
Gerry used the term “strategic drift” for concept of
inertia (Majid et al., 2011). This phenomenon refers to
a situation in which environment changes rapidly but
the organization’s strategy fail to keep in-line with it.
Han et al. (2011) described inertia as a condition where
customers’ repeated purchases occur because of their
laziness, inactiveness, or passiveness. Inaction inertia
also is a phenomenon that one is not likely taking
advantage of a current opportunity after having missed
a previous (Kumar, 2004; Zeelenberg et al., 2006).
Researchers indicate (Mol and Kotabe, 2011)
Outsourcing is important for organizations and also
factors affect outsourcing inertia include managerial
initiative, hierarchy, imitation, outsider advice,
knowledge sources. Organizational inertia means that
organizations cause to inertia via valuation for decisionmaking towards the status quo (Boyer and Robert,
2006). Therefore, inertia is described the tendency to
remain with the status quo and the resistance to
strategic renewal outside the frame of current strategy
(Liao et al., 2008), that this pursuing stagnant sources
and using of past experience only isn’t efficient and it
usually causes inertia in organization. Liao et al. (2008)
claimed knowledge inertia divide to 2 constructs of
learning inertia and Experience inertia. Learning inertia
is defined as no effort for learn new ideas and approach
to solve new problems and Experience inertia is defined
as resort to past experience and knowledge to solve new
problems.
Organization, employees and IT: Organization has
formal structure that takes resources from environment
as input and based on changes acted in them; return
them to environment as output (Laudon and Laudon,
2002). Organizations must change their structures
according to outside environment (Majid et al., 2011).
An organization has unique features (such as type of
organization, environment, aims, power, board,
functions, leadership and tasks) and common features
(formal structures, organizational culture). In other
word, it has stated goals, different types of authority,
technology, marketing approaches (Laudon and
Laudon, 2002). The clear aims and vision of
organization, social networks and employee ability
toward use of Information Technology (IT) have high
correlation with knowledge acquisition and share, but
centralization barrier knowledge share, in fact
centralization create inertia (Kim and Lee, 2010). In
other word, ambiguity and contradictions affect inertia
(Steen, 2007). The features of organizations were
foundations of innovation, change and flexibility in
past, but they can equally be significant barriers to
change, innovation (Collinson and Wilson, 2006).
Studies indicated inertia as endogenous rational choice
was made by the organization (Boyer and Robert,
2006). An organization correlated with IT that affect
each other (Laudon and Laudon, 2002). And of course,
this correlation related with employee knowledge
accumulated (Kim and Lee, 2010). IT is known as a
new technology include all technique and instruments
that it helps us saving, processing, recalling, sending
and receiving information (Laudon and Laudon, 2002).
IT improves decision-making process in organization
that it in return increases effectiveness. IT has
organizational, economical and behavioral effects
(Laudon and Laudon, 2002), changes attitude and skills
of employee (Mccarthy et al., 2009). Findings show
technology such as IT failure for knowledge transform
and shared correctly (Coakes et al., 2009); in other
word IT don’t saw as Utopian panacea that it manage
organizational knowledge and barrier inertia (Mohamed
et al., 2006). IT neither motivation in employee for
knowledge transfer and shared all organizational
knowledge (Issa and Haddad, 2007). Culture inertia
affects implementation of IT. Thus relationship of
employee-organization related with three factors:
individual (types of employees, leadership style)
organizational (such as types of organization,
organization grows stages) and environment (overall
perspective of employment) (Ni, 2007). Individual
factor is considered as independent factor include
features of itself employees. Studies showed employee
internal motivation affects knowledge transfer in
organization (Cruz et al., 2009). Knowledge includes
personal and conceptual models, organizational
sources; however, it is necessary for convert data to
information and knowledge (Laudon and Laudon,
2002). Therefore, to learn knowledge, a success system
encourages employees for documentation of their
experiences. It is clear that IT is subsection of
organization, but for its importance it be considered as a
factor which interacts with organizational and
individual factors to affect knowledge inertia. Majid
et al. (2011) propose a frame study for managing the
organizational inertia including environmental analyses
of external and internal organization. Based on above
mentioned, influential potential factors on knowledge
inertia can be divided in 3 sections: individual,
organizational and IT. Proposed model of study has
been showed in Fig. 1. Thus:
H1: Individual factor affects knowledge inertia
H2: Organizational factor affects knowledge inertia
387 Asian J. Bus. Manage., 4(4): 386-391, 2012
Organizational
Factors
H4
Knowledge
inertia:
H2
H1
Learning inertia
Experience inertia
Individual
IT C
factors
H5
H3
Fig 1: proposed model of knowledge inertia
H3:
H4:
H5:
H6:
H7:
IT factor affects knowledge inertia
Organizational factor affects individual factor
IT factor affects individual factor
IT factor and organizational are correlated
Inertia in public and private banks is different
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Type of study: This study is a survey research that
fitted model is applicable in the privet and public banks.
Sample and data collection: To achieve research goal,
a field survey was used at the private and public banks.
The studied population was 1732 employees working at
the privet and public banks in Sanandaj, Kurdistan. A
confidence interval approach was used to determine the
sample size, suggested by Burns and Bush (1995). The
sample size was set at 200 at the 95% confidence level
(Burns and Bush, 1995). We used stratified random
sampling plan to achieve estimated sample, because the
number of employees in private and public banks are
different (Table 1). Because a number of questionnaires
would not be returned, 210 surveys distributed among
employees and 200 were returned. Thus sufficient
sample size was approved using KMO indicator (0.946)
that was used in ‘‘knowledge inertia’’ factor analysis.
Table 1: The number of employee in privet and public banks
Type of bank
Population size
Sample size
Public
1485 (85.8%)
175 (87%)
Private
247 (14.2%)
25 (13%)
instrument. The employees of private and public banks
were asked to participate in the pilot test. Forty survey
questionnaires were distributed and 30 surveys were
returned for pilot test. Wording for the final
questionnaire was slightly modified based on the
respondent feedback of the pilot test. Cronbach’s alpha
was used to verify the internal consistency reliability.
The results of the pilot study show overall Cronbach’s
alphas of 0.86. Eventually, The items of ‘‘learning
inertia’’, experience inertia, personal, organizational
and IT factors were 5, 5, 16, 9, 8, respectively.
Data analysis: To test the proposed hypotheses,
descriptive analysis, independent-sample t-test and
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were performed
and the results were reported in the result section. The
data was processed with the statistical software of SPSS
16.0 and Amos (16).
RESULTS
Based on the results presented in Table 2 and 3, it
showed that between both learning inertia and
experience inertia was not significant different and
therefore 7 hypothesis was not supported. Due to
slightly change in the propositional model, fitted model
is illustrated as above. As Fig. 2 shows that all fit
indices exceeded their acceptance level (x2 = 4.583,
df = 2, RMR = 0.482, RMSEA = 0.081, NFI = 0.984,
CFI = 0.991, GFI = 0. 991, AGFI = 0.932) (Fig. 2).
Standardized path coefficients were estimated to test
the hypotheses. Based on the results presented in
Table 4
and
5,
paths
of:
IT
<--individual ،organizational <--- individual ،individual
Instrument: The main instrument used in this study
was a questionnaire that contained 4 sections:
‘‘knowledge inertia’’, individual factor, organizational
factor and IT factor. We applied Liao et al. (2008)
questionnaire to investigate ‘‘knowledge inertia’’ and
for identity items of individual, organizational and IT
factors used interview that conducted with the
professors of faculty, managers and experts.
Prior to data collection, the professors of faculty
and managers of bank approved this protocol for the
study of influential factors on ‘‘knowledge inertia’’. A
pilot test was conducted to fine-tune the survey
388 Asian J. Bus. Manage., 4(4): 386-391, 2012
Table 2: Group statistics
Bank
Public
Private
Public
Private
Inertia learning
Inertia experience
N
175
25
175
25
Mean
17.6108
17.7451
14.6267
14.9467
S.D.
3.95732
4.22549
3.80264
4.03650
S.E. mean
0.29915
0.84510
0.28745
0.80730
Table 3: Independent samples test
Inertia learning
Inertia experience
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances assumed
Levene's test for equality of variances
----------------------------------------------F
Sig.
0.009
0.927
0.074
0.786
t-test for equality of means
--------------------------------------------------------t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
-0.157
198
0.875
-0.391
198
0.697
Table 4: Regression weights: (group number 1 - default model)
Individual
Individual
Inertia experience
Inertia experience
Inertial earning
Inertial earning
Inertial earning
<--<--<--<--<--<--<---
IT
Organizational
Organizational
Individual
Individual
Inertia experience
Organizational
Estimate
0.382
0.172
-0.050
0.449
0.316
0.278
0.054
S.E.
0.066
0.040
0.029
0.047
0.055
0.068
0.028
C.R.
5.795
4.324
-1.709
9.577
5.773
4.058
1.903
S.E.
3.117
C.R.
4.602
p
***
p
***
***
0.087
***
***
***
0.057
Table 5: Covariances: (group number 1 - default model)
Organizational
<-->
Estimate
14.345
IT
Label
68.83
organizational
.05
9.11
1
inertialearning
.17
-.05
a1
.32
.28
14.35
individual
1
19.09
25.10
.38
IT
9.77
.45
1
inertiaexperience
a2
a3
Fig. 2: Standardized path coefficients of knowledge inertia
RMR: 0.482; GFI: 0.991; AGFI: 0.932; NFI: 0.984; RFI: 0.920; IFI: 0.991; RMSEA: 0.081
<--- inertia experience ، individual <--- inertia learning ،
inertia experience <--- inertia learning, are significant.
Therefore, the hypotheses of H1, H4, H5 and H6 were
supported.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this research was develop a model of
factors that influence on “knowledge inertia” in an
organizational context. This study shows that
organizational innovation is a key factor for
organization to survive and maintain its setting in the
highly competitive environment. Knowledge inertia
through a commitment to learning, shared vision and
clear thinking can affect innovation. In other words,
when knowledge inertia is reduced or eliminated, it will
allow dynamics of knowledge and innovation in
organizations.
The Results of study indicated that individual factor
has a direct impact on the learning inertia and
389 Asian J. Bus. Manage., 4(4): 386-391, 2012
experience inertia (including attitude, personal
knowledge and beliefs of employees). Therefore,
employees believe that current solution of problems
usually is not an appropriate solution and they
constantly look for new experiences and learning to
better solutions. The results of study show that
organizational and IT factors are correlated and they
affect individual factor. In other words, although these 2
factors have not direct effect on inertia but they affect it
indirectly. According to this fact that organizational
resources are needed to convert data to information and
knowledge, managers and leaders need to aware of that
knowledge has 2 aspects of individual and collective
and it related to the organizational situation. After the
establishment of appropriate informational systems and
changing organizational structure consistent with the
information system, it can ensure dynamism of
employees within the organization. In addition, given
the importance of management information system
toward support organizational functions and decisionmaking, communication, coordination and control, it
should be created complementary assets in the
organization. In term of organizational, managers
should consider information system as social-technical
context and they have commitment toward
organizational culture that encourages innovation. In
term of financial issues, they should invest on
knowledge management to create a chain of knowledge
management in order to restrict organizational inertia.
Open and flexible organizational structures are
necessary to full utilization of information technology.
REFERENCES
Azizi, Sh., M. Asadnezhad, A.Z. Mirakabd and
S. Hosseini, 2011. Evaluation and comparison of
knowledge
between
public
and
private
organizations. J. Inform. Technol. Manag., 2(4):
99-116.
Boyer, M. and J. Robert, 2006. Organizational inertia
and dynamic incentives. J. Econ. Behav. Organ.,
59(3): 324-348.
Burns, A.C. and R.F. Bush, 1995. Marketing Research.
Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Coakes, E., A.D. Amar and M.L. Granados, 2009.
Knowledge management,strategy andtechnology:a
global snapshot. J. Enterp. Inform. Manag., 23(3):
282-304.
Collinson, S. and D.C. Wilson, 2006. Inertia in japanese
organizations: Knowledge management routines
and failure to innovate. J. Organ. Stud., 27(9):
1359-1387.
Cruz, N.M., V.M. Perez and C.T. Cantero, 2009. The
influence of employee motivation on knowledge
transfer. J. Knowl. Manag., 13(6): 478-490.
Han. H., Y. Kim and E. Kim, 2011. Cognitive,
affective, conative andaction loyalty: Testing the
impact of inertia. Int. J. Hospit. Manag., 30(4):
1008-1019.
Issa, R. R.A. and J. Haddad, 2007. Perceptions of the
impacts of organizational culture and information
technology on knowledge sharing in construction.
J. Constr. Innovat., 8(3): 182-201.
Kim, S. and H. Lee, 2010. Factors affecting employee
knowledge acquisition and application capabilities.
Asia-Pacific J. Bus. Admin., 2(2): 133-152.
Kumar, P., 2004. The effects of social comparison on
inaction inertia. J. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decision
Proc., 95(2): 175-185.
Laudon, K. and J. Laudon, 2002. Management
Information
Systems:
Organization
and
Technology in the Networked Enterprise. 7th Edn.,
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Liao, H., 2002. Problem solving and knowledge inertia.
J. Exp. Syst. Appl., 22(1): 21-31.
Liao, S., W. Fei and C. Liu, 2008. Relationships
between knowledge inertia, organizational learning
and organization innovation. J. Technovation,
28(4): 183-195.
Majid, A., M.T. Abdullah, M. Yasir and N. Tabassum,
2011. Organizational inertia and change portfolio:
An analysis of the organizational environment in
developing Countries. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 5(2):
383-388.
Mcadam, R. and R. Reid, 2000. A comparison of public
and private sector perceptions and use of
knowledge management. J. Europ. Ind. Train.,
24(6): 317-329.
Mccarthy, D., E. Reeves and T. Tom, 2009. Can
employee share-ownership improve employee
attitudes and behaviour?. J. Employee Relat.,
32(4): 382-395.
Mohamed, M., M. Stankosky and A. Murray, 2006.
Knowledge
management
and
information
technology: Can they study in perfect harmony?
J. Knowl. Manag., 10(3): 103-116.
Mol, M.J. and M. Kotabe, 2011. Overcoming inertia:
Drivers of the outsourcing process. J. Long Range
Plann., 44(3): 160-178.
Narula, R., 2002. Innovation systems and ‘inertia’ in
R&D location: Norwegian firms and the role of
systemic lock-in. J. Exp. Syst. Appl., 22(1):
795-816.
Ni, L., 2007. Refined understanding of perspectives on
employee-organization relationships themes and
variations. J. Commun. Manag., 11(1): 53-70.
Rahnavard, F. and A. Mohammadi, 2010. Identification
of key success factors of knowledge management
systems in schools and higher education centers
Tehran. J. Inform. Technol. Manag., 1(3): 37-52.
390 Asian J. Bus. Manage., 4(4): 386-391, 2012
Steen, M.V.D., 2007. Inertia and management
accounting change the role of ambiguity and
contradiction between formal rules and routines.
J. Accoun. Audit. Accountab., 22(5): 736-761.
Wong-Ming, J., J. Diana and W.R. Millette, 2002.
Dealing with the dynamic duo of innovation and
nertia: The "in-" theory of organization change.
J. Organ. Dev., 20(1): 36.
Zeelenberg, M. and R. Pieters, 2004. Beyond valence in
customer dissatisfaction: A review and new
findings on behavioral responses to regret and
disappointment in failed services. J. Bus. Res.,
57(4): 445-455.
Zeelenberg, M., B.A. Nijstad, M. Van Putten and
E. Van Dijk, 2006. Inaction inertia, regret and
valuation: A closer look. J. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Decision Proc., 101(1): 89-104.
391