Tacit knowledge can affect culture and employee performance. A prime example of this is employee Frederick Helmut. Frederick developed a design with the potential to double the amount of packages in the cargo hold, however he was hesitant to share this design. His concerns related to authorship and his sharing not benefiting him personally. Other staff were aware of his design but for obvious reasons would not present his ideas without his consent. Following his declining to share the idea, GDD lost a large contract due to the inability to price competitively for the number of large packages in the cargo hold.
Frederick elected not to share his design for a more efficient cargo hold based on concerns of authorship and the benefits served to him. It is important to note that his colleagues from London and the new location alike discouraged his knowledge sharing with the suggestion that new designs are not always welcome. Often employees decline to share knowledge with the reasoning that their way is better, face no consequence for not sharing and feel more rewarded when sharing knowledge (Garfield, 2014). Trust is the root issue in this lack of knowledge sharing. In order to foster knowledge management, trust must be there (Dalkir, 2011).
The culture created in both job locations creates a negative, knowledge hoarding culture. This is the result of a fragmented culture made up of individualists, there is a weak sense of belonging here. Lack of cooperation, such as not sharing ideas that would benefit the whole company, is a big issue in this culture (Dalkir, 2011). GDD would benefit from an organizational culture analysis, as Dalkir (2011) would assert that understanding the culture allows you to understand the organization. This culture can also be combated by sharing success stories of knowledge sharing, offering and following through on rewards for knowledge sharing, and modeling knowledge sharing behaviors as a manager (Garfield, 2014).