MANAGEMENT

We invite unpublished novel, original, empirical and high quality research work pertaining to recent developments & practices in the area of Computer, Business, Finance, Marketing, Human Resource Management, General Management, Banking, Insurance, Corporate Governance and emerging paradigms in allied subjects like Accounting Education; Accounting Information Systems; Accounting Theory & Practice; Auditing; Behavioral Accounting; Behavioral Economics; Corporate Finance; Cost Accounting; Econometrics; Economic Development; Economic History; Financial Institutions & Markets; Financial Services; Fiscal Policy; Government & Non Profit Accounting; Industrial Organization; International Economics & Trade; International Finance; Macro Economics; Micro Economics; Monetary Policy; Portfolio & Security Analysis; Public Policy Economics; Real Estate; Regional Economics; Tax Accounting; Advertising & Promotion Management; Business Education; Management Information Systems (MIS); Business Law, Public Responsibility & Ethics; Communication; Direct Marketing; E-Commerce; Global Business; Health Care Administration; Labor Relations & Human Resource Management; Marketing Research; Marketing Theory & Applications; Non-Profit Organizations; Office Administration/Management; Operations Research/Statistics; Organizational Behavior & Theory; Organizational Development; Production/Operations; Public Administration; Purchasing/Materials Management; Retailing; Sales/Selling; Services; Small Business Entrepreneurship; Strategic Management Policy; Technology/Innovation; Tourism, Hospitality & Leisure; Transportation/Physical Distribution; Algorithms; Artificial Intelligence; Compilers & Translation; Computer Aided Design (CAD); Computer Aided Manufacturing; Computer Graphics; Computer Organization & Architecture; Database Structures & Systems; Digital Logic; Discrete Structures; Internet; Management Information Systems; Modeling & Simulation; Multimedia; Neural Systems/Neural Networks; Numerical Analysis/Scientific Computing; Object Oriented Programming; Operating Systems; Programming Languages; Robotics; Symbolic & Formal Logic and Web Design. The above mentioned tracks are only indicative, and not exhaustive. manuscript submission ABSTRACT This study examines the mediating role of knowledge management in the relationship between organizational culture, structure, and organizational effectiveness. A survey was conducted of 600 organizations. The results suggest that knowledge management mediates the impact of organizational culture on organizational effectiveness, and partly mediates the impact of organizational structure on organizational effectiveness. The findings carry theoretical implications for knowledge management as they extend the opportunity of research on knowledge management from examining a set of independent management practices to examining a system-wide mechanism that connects internal resources and competitive advantage. place in the aspects of the business such as process, culture, and behavior (Grover and Davenport, 2001). This study shows thatorganizational culture, and structure, has close interrelationships.Organizations that are adaptive, consistent in their values,engaging to employees, and accept common missions in theircultures have a higher turning to investigate into issues, to seek methodsto reduce costs, to look into the future. Such organizations are likely to make a decentralizedstructure. The implication these correlations carry is that thetwo organizational factors create an interdependent system in whichchanges in one of the factors may little move through to anotherfactor(s). Designing knowledge management projects usuallyinvolves organizational changes. Many organizations still view knowledge management as send some software programs without satisfactory consideration of their organizational characteristics to ensure the success of their knowledge management introductory steps. Through analyzing the relevance of organizational this study brings to attention the importance of focusing on creating a knowledge-friendly environment that is made up of appropriate cultural, and structural, features. The study findings show that knowledge management can influence organizational effectiveness when it is arranged with organizational culture, and structure. Focus on knowledge management practices, such as providing knowledge management tools, and supporting knowledge management introductory steps, would help transfer the impact of organizational contextual resources to the bottom line.


SURJEET SINGH
The whole manuscript is required to be in ONE MS WORD FILE only (pdf. version is liable to be rejected without any consideration), which will start from the covering letter, inside the manuscript. b) The sender is required to mention the following in the SUBJECT COLUMN of the mail: New Manuscript for Review in the area of (Finance/Marketing/HRM/General Management/Economics/Psychology/Law/Computer/IT/ Engineering/Mathematics/other, please specify) c) There is no need to give any text in the body of mail, except the cases where the author wishes to give any specific message w.r.t. to the manuscript. d) The total size of the file containing the manuscript is required to be below 500 KB. e) Abstract alone will not be considered for review, and the author is required to submit the complete manuscript in the first instance. f) The journal gives acknowledgement w.r.t. the receipt of every email and in case of non-receipt of acknowledgment from the journal, w.r.t. the submission of manuscript, within two days of submission, the corresponding author is required to demand for the same by sending separate mail to the journal.

MANUSCRIPT TITLE:
The title of the paper should be in a 12 point Calibri Font. It should be bold typed, centered and fully capitalised.

AUTHOR NAME (S) & AFFILIATIONS:
The author (s) full name, designation, affiliation (s), address, mobile/landline numbers, and email/alternate email address should be in italic & 11-point Calibri Font. It must be centered underneath the title.

4.
ABSTRACT: Abstract should be in fully italicized text, not exceeding 250 words. The abstract must be informative and explain the background, aims, methods, results & conclusion in a single para. Abbreviations must be mentioned in full.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN COMMERCE, IT & MANAGEMENT
A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed (Refereed/Juried) Open Access International e-Journal -Included in the International Serial Directories www.ijrcm.org.in vi 5. KEYWORDS: Abstract must be followed by a list of keywords, subject to the maximum of five. These should be arranged in alphabetic order separated by commas and full stops at the end.

6.
MANUSCRIPT: Manuscript must be in BRITISH ENGLISH prepared on a standard A4 size PORTRAIT SETTING PAPER. It must be prepared on a single space and single column with 1" margin set for top, bottom, left and right. It should be typed in 8 point Calibri Font with page numbers at the bottom and centre of every page. It should be free from grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors and must be thoroughly edited.

7.
HEADINGS: All the headings should be in a 10 point Calibri Font. These must be bold-faced, aligned left and fully capitalised. Leave a blank line before each heading. 8.

SUB-HEADINGS:
All the sub-headings should be in a 8 point Calibri Font. These must be bold-faced, aligned left and fully capitalised. 11. EQUATIONS: These should be consecutively numbered in parentheses, horizontally centered with equation number placed at the right.

REFERENCES:
The list of all references should be alphabetically arranged. The author (s) should mention only the actually utilised references in the preparation of manuscript and they are supposed to follow Harvard Style of Referencing. The author (s) are supposed to follow the references as per the following: • All works cited in the text (including sources for tables and figures) should be listed alphabetically.
• Use (ed.) for one editor, and (ed.s) for multiple editors.
• Indicate (opening and closing) page numbers for articles in journals and for chapters in books.

•
The title of books and journals should be in italics. Double quotation marks are used for titles of journal articles, book chapters, dissertations, reports, working papers, unpublished material, etc.
• For titles in a language other than English, provide an English translation in parentheses.

•
The location of endnotes within the text should be indicated by superscript numbers.  nternal organizational context focuses widely and relatively stable categories of organizational characteristics such as structure, culture, and power and political characteristics (Pettigrew, 1979).They constitute an environment where organizational activities take place. There has been a large number of studies that examine how the fit organizational context and explains variances in organizational performance (Daft, 1995;Robbins, 1990). Knowledge management plays a mediating role in connecting organizational context with organizational effectiveness. Skyrme and Arnindon (1997) state that knowledge management enhancing an organization's competitive advantage, customer focus, employee relations and development, innovation. In turn, knowledge management is context, because context determines who participate and how they participate in the knowledge management process (Nonaka et al., 2000). Knowledge management could work as one of the circumstances mechanisms through which organizational context influences organizational effectiveness. However, the mediating role of knowledgemanagement has not been satisfactory investigated. Exploring of its role as a mediating factor would provide better understanding of how to achieve desirable organizational goals. This study sets out to do that. The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating effect of knowledge management on the relationship between organizational culture, structure, and organizational effectiveness. This study try to discover and explain one of the mechanisms through which organizational contextual areused to achieve higher levels of organizational effectiveness.

RATIONALE
Knowledge management is "an integrative process of a wide coordinating organizationto follow a major of organizational goals" (Rastogi, 2000, p. 40). Researcher found that knowledge management practices need to fit with organizational context in order to create a competitive edge (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). The literature on the mediating role knowledge management plays several important missing pieces. First, existing studies cover some ground of the contextual preceding events of knowledge management (Gold et al., 2001;Lee and Choi, 2003). However, these studies investigate that knowledge-related environment rather than the general contextual environment of the whole organization. They focus on exploring the preceding events of knowledge management rather than examining knowledge management as a mediating mechanism between organizational context and organizational effectiveness.But Gold et al. (2001) and Lee and Choi (2003) examine the aspects of organizational culture, structure, and technology that are directly related to knowledge management. They did not investigate the cultural, structural, and technological characteristics of the whole organization. The restriction of knowledge problem structural and contextual factors allows the assumption that knowledge management is a set of relatively independent managerial practices rather than a central mechanism through which organizational factors are using a lever to achieve organizational goals. This assumption may have low estimation and the actual influence of knowledge management.This study takes a new perspective on knowledge management in itscapacity to transmit contextual influence onto organizational effectiveness. It is time to construct a more complex picture of how organizational structural, cultural, and characteristics using a combined effect on knowledge management and organizational effectiveness.Second, the link between knowledge management and organizational level performance has not been sufficiently established. But measuring knowledge management is difficult (Lee and Choi, 2003), and the relationship between knowledge management processes and organizational effectiveness has not been satisfactory studied (Davenport and Prusak, 1998;Shin, 2004).This study tries to address the abovementioned missing pieces in literature.

KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW AND RESOURCE-BASED VIEW
The knowledge based view of the firm state that the firm's capability to create and utilize knowledge is the important source of a firm's sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 1996;Nonaka, 1991). Nonaka (1991) suggest that, in the current economy, where "the only certainty is uncertainty, the source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge" (p. 96).The resource-based view assumption is that firm competitiveness comesfromunique number of tangible and intangible assets that are valuable, rare, and sustainable (Barney, 1991). The resourcesa firm possesses include management skills, organizational processes, and the information and knowledge it controls (Barney, 1991). Firm resources include all assets, capabilities, organizationalprocesses, firm attributes, knowledge, and others, ascontrolled by a firm (Daft, 1995). Organizational structure andculture aretwo key organizational assets that have been studiedextensively in their association with organizational effectiveness.The knowledge-based view of the firm is at the center of the resource-based view (Conner and Prahalad, 1996).

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Organizational effectiveness is "the degree to which an organization realizes its goals" (Daft, 1995, p. 98). In this study, measures assessing organizational effectiveness were adopted from Lee and Choi (2003) which consist of organizational members' processes of the degree of the overall success, market share, profitability, and growth rate of the organization in comparison with competitors. Therefore knowledge is managed contributes to organizational effectiveness.Knowledgemanagement consist of themanagerial efforts in facilitatingactivities of abilitycreating, storing, sharing, developing,and deploying knowledge by individuals and groups ( Rowley, 2001;Soliman and Spooner, 2000). This studyexamines three processes:knowledge generation, sharing, and utilization (Davenport and Prusak,1998). Knowledge generation refers to the process in which knowledge isacquired by an organization fromexternal sources and those created fromwithin (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Knowledge sharing, calledknowledge transfer refers to the process by whichknowledge is transferred from one person to another, from individuals togroups, or from one group to another group (Davenport and Prusak,1998). Knowledge utilization, also calledknowledge implementation, refers to the process that is oriented towardthe actual use of knowledge (Gold et al., 2001).Some empirical studiesshow a significant linkage between knowledge management andorganizational effectiveness. Knowledge integration could lead to product developmenteffectiveness, reduced density, lowered warranty, andincreased software development efficiency (Tiwana, 2004). According tothese studies, it is hypothesized that knowledge managementpositively contributes to organizational effectiveness. H1. Knowledge management relates positively toorganizational effectiveness.

MEDIATING ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Organizational knowledge reflective of cultural, structural, and characteristics of the organization is utilized to help produce new products and services, improve efficiency, and enhance effectiveness.In turn, Knowledge resources are an outcome oforganizational culture and structure, because knowledge iscreated, a sense, and utilized in accordance with a set of culturalvalues and norms, embedded in structural relationships. (Nonaka et al., 2000). Grant (1996) state that the challenge of the knowledge-based view of the organization is effective coordination among organizational members as their knowledge and needs to be integrated. The division of tasks between individuals and the specification of the interface between them lie within the dimension of organizational design (Grant, 1996). Organizational culture andstructure constitute critical dimensions of organizational design. Their influence on organizational effectiveness may be channeled through their interface with knowledge management.

Organizational culture-knowledge management-organizationaleffective
Organizational culture is a source of sustainedcompetitive advantage (Barney, 1991) and empirical research showsthat it is a key factor to organizational effectiveness (Gordon and Di Tomaso, 1992;Peters and Waterman, 1982;Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983). Organizational culture does not directly lend its influence on organizational effectiveness; rather, it exerts its influence through shaping the behavior of organizational members. In an uncertain environment, the important part of decision-making is to change the information from the environment to structure (Waterman, 1990). Denison andMishra, 1995;Denison and Neale, 1996;Fey and Denison, 2003 identified three dimensions of organizational culture thatare helping to produce to organizational effectiveness: adaptability,involvement, and mission. Adaptability refers to the degree towhich an organization has the ability to alter behavior, structures, andsystems in order to survive in the wake of environmental changes. Involvement refers to thelevel of participation by an organization's members in decisionmaking.Mission refers to the existence of a shared definition of theorganization's purpose. This study uses this framework.Existing literature implies a positive relationship between organizationalculture and knowledge management. Brockman and Morgan's (2003) find the positiverelationship between entrepreneurship and innovation; Young et al.'s (1999) study of the favorable influenceof flexibility on knowledge transfer ability; O'Reilly's (1989) identifying the significant role of involvementin facilitating innovation; and Davenport and Prusak's (1998) focus on clarity of vision in knowledge management. Therefore, organizationalculture is positively associated with knowledge management.Knowledge management practices make the process ofhow new external and internal information is absorbed, changed, and integrated into an organizational memory. The whole process isconditioned by organizational culture, because the values and behavioralnorms held by organizational members serve as a filter in thesense-making andmeaning-construction processes (De Long and Fahey,2000). Further, the sense-making mechanisms entailed in knowledgemanagement also serve as preceding events to other outcomes of culturesuch as ethical behavioral, job stress, and self-confidence (Posner et al., 1985) that have a bearing on organizational effectiveness. H2. Organizational culture (adaptability, mission, andinvolvement) relates positively with organizational effectiveness. H3. Organizational culture (adaptability, mission, andinvolvement) relates positively with knowledge management. H4. Knowledge management mediates the relationship betweenorganizational culture and organizational effectiveness.

Organizational structure-knowledge management-organizationaleffectiveness
Organizational structure indicates configuration oftasks and activities (Skivington and Daft, 1991). A most studieddimension is centralization (Rapert and Wren, 1998). Centralizationrefers to extent the decision-making power is concentratedat the top levels of the organization" (Caruana et al., 1998, p. 18). A minority studies shows a positive impact of highcentralization on organizational effectiveness (Ruekert et al., 1985),the majority of scholars have agreed that a decentralized organizationalstructure is helping to produce to organizational effectiveness (Burnsand Stalker, 1961; Dewar and Werbel, 1979; Floyd and Wooldridge,1992; RapertandWren, 1998; Schminke et al., 2000). It is found that adecentralized structure encourages communication (Burns andStalker, 1961) and increases employee motivation and satisfaction (Dewar and Werbel, 1979), because in less centralized environments,free flow of the side and vertical communication is encouraged, expertson the subject had greater say in decision-making than the designatedauthority (Burns and Stalker, 1961), and responsiveness to marketconditions is enhanced (Schminke et al., 2000).In a similar way, regarding therelationship between organizational structure and knowledge management(Tsai, 2002), a decentralized structure has often been seen asfacilitative to knowledge management success (Damanpour, 1991;Dealand Kennedy, 1982;Gold et al., 2001). High centralization unwilling to expressinteractions among organizational members (Gold et al., 2001), reducesthe opportunity for individual growth (Kennedy,1983), and prevents using solutions to problems (Deal andKennedy, 1982). On the contrary, decentralization facilitates internalcommunication (Bennett and Gabriel, 1999), adoption of innovation (Miller, 1971), and higher levels of creativity (Khandwalla, 1977).The knowledge-based view emphasizes the importance in understanding the processes through which organizations access and utilizes knowledge possessed by its individual members (Grant, 1996).Structure can influence knowledge management processes throughshaping patterns and number of communication among organizationalmembers,locations of decision-making and affectingefficiency and effectiveness in implementing new ideas.Knowledge management cantransfer the structural impact ontoorganizational effectiveness, because the way knowledge is organized,knowledge management activities are coordinated, and the extent of knowledge management practices are embedded in the dailywork processes influence the effectiveness and efficiency of organizationalperformance. At the same time, structure influences organizationaleffectiveness through channels other than knowledgemanagement. It influences organizational effectiveness through no knowledgerelated functions, especially through regular processes,tasks, and systems, because of their smallest in degree of involvement of activeknowledge management. H5. Organizational structure relates negatively toorganizational effectiveness. H6. Organizational structure relates negatively toknowledge management. H7. Knowledge management partially mediates the relationshipbetween organizational structure and organizational effectiveness. METHOD In this study we collect data on organizational members' process of the four constructs: organizational culture, structure, knowledge management, and organizational effectiveness.The data were collected from two HR organizations members in a west of Iran constitutedwhich target response group. HR organizationswere chosen as the respondents because they usually have good knowledge of organizational members (Gilley and Maycunich, 2000) and a realistic view of what the organizational characteristics are rather than what they should be. The member base of the two organizations totaled 3200. A total of 700 responses were received, thatconstitutes a response rate of 24%. Among the respondents, 38.6% were at the middle management level, 22.9% at the senior management level, 29.2% at the non-management level, and 9.3% at the supervisory level. A MANOVA test was conducted on the mail-based survey results (Wilks' lambda=0.79, p=0.71). To assessnonresponse bias (Amstrong and Overton, 1977), all responsesreceived within the first five weeks were treated as early responsesand the rest as late respondents. No statistical differences were detected between the samples (Wilks' lambda=0.77, p=0.45 this study is the organization as each organization has unique sets of cultural, structural, andknowledge management characteristics. A total of 600 organizations were represented by the respondents. Seventy-one percent of them were in the service sector, 28.7% in manufacturing, and 0.3% in the agricultural sector (Fig.  1). Average scores were used for those organizations with multiple respondents. Among the 600 organizations, 72of them had multiple respondents (ranging from two to five), and the rest with single informants. Responses from the same organization were averaged to derive the organizational scores on the variables. In order to assess the interrater reliability of the multiple respondents on the variables, interclasscorrelation tests were used. The average Cronbach's alpha was 0.60, indicating that there is a generally acceptable inter-rater among the multiple respondents. In this research we used the existing instruments which were available in past research. Measures assessing organizational culture were adapted from Denison and Mishra, 1995;Denison and Neale, 1996;Fey and Denison, 2003; that consist ofthree functional dimensions: adaptability,involvement, and mission. The scale measures on organization areextended to display the three dimensions of characteristics.Organizational structure was measured by centralization. A scale measuring centralization was take and used from Ferrell and Skinner (1988). The scale measures how to centralize on an organization is based on respondents' questioner. A sample item is "my organization whichtries to develop thorough analysis with a major decision is confronted". Organizational effectiveness is "the degree to which an organization realizes its goals" (Daft, 1995, p. 98). In this study, measures assessing organizational effectiveness were adopted from Lee and Choi (2003) and theitems measuring knowledge management were modified fromGold et al. (2001), assessing respondents' process of the existenceof the three knowledge management processes. A sample item is "matching sources of knowledge to problems and challenges". As this study utilized we have to collect data on all of the variables, common method. In order to assess the possible common method bias, Harman's one-factor test was used on the variables, following Konrad and Linnehan (1995) and Simonin (1997). The results of the principal component factor analysis given 8 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which accounted for 70% of the variance. In addition, the first factor did not account for the majority of the variance (37%). It seems that common method bias is not a serious problem (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).Structural equation modeling (SEM) and the LISREL program was used for assessing confirmatory measurement models (factor analysis) and confirmatory structural models (path analysis) (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1989).

RESULTS
Results from the confirmatory factor analysis showed that all of the scales used satisfactoryand thus provided evidences for the construct validity of the measures. Table 1, show the measurement models andtable 2 shows the descriptive of the constructs.The hypothesized model was compared to the structural model (Alternative Model 1 where all paths relating to the constructs were to be estimated), as well as one alternative models, one fixing the path from organizational structure to organizational effectiveness to zero (Alternative Model 2).The two alternative models are shown in Figs. 2. The hypothesized model shows a better model fit than the two alternative models because (1) it contains no insignificant paths while other models do; and (2) chi-square/df ratios in the alternative models (4.92, 4.91) are slightly larger than that of the hypothesized model (4.90), indicating that the hypothesized model fits the data slightly better than the rest. Table 3 shows all the structural models. Fig. 4 shows the hypothesized model with parameter estimates and model fit indices.As Hypotheses 1,2, and 5 predict, are all significantly related to organizational effectiveness, judging from the results of bivariate correlations ( Table 2). Knowledge management (r=0.50,p<0.01), and culture (r=0.50, p<0.01), showed a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness,and structure (r=−0.22, p<0.01) had a negaSve relationship with organizational effectiveness. As hypotheses three,and six, predict, organizational culture (r=0.86, p<0.01) were positively related to knowledge management, and structure (r=−0.20, p<0.01) was negaSvely associated with knowledge management.Hypothesis 4 predicts that knowledge management fully mediates the relationship between organizational culture and organizational effectiveness. Our structural model analyses showed that organizational culture showsa significant direct impact on knowledge management (γ=0.71, p<0.05). There was also a significant relationship between knowledge management and organizational effectiveness (β=0.26, p<0.05). The condition for total mediation was supported by the fact that in Alternative Model 1,the direct path between organizational culture and organizational effectiveness was close to zero (γ=0.07, p>0.05) when knowledge management was modeled as the mediator. Hypothesis 7 predicted that knowledge management partially mediates the relationship between organizational structure and organizational effectiveness. The findings supported this hypothesis. Organizational structure had a small and positive influence on knowledge management (γ=0.12, p<0.05), and a small and negative influence on organizational effectiveness (γ=−0.14, p<0.05), while knowledge management had a posiSve influence on organizational effectiveness (β=0.26, p<0.05).The directionof structure's influence on organizational effectiveness and knowledge management is different. However, the bivariate relationship between structure and organizational effectiveness and that between structure and knowledge management were both negative. Therefor culture may have fullyexpectedfor structure's negative influence on knowledge management but only liking for organizational effectiveness. Therefore, this is consistent with the hypothesis that there are other channels for structure to influence organizational effectiveness other than knowledge management.

CONCLUSIONS
The study findings showed several unresolved issues in the literature as stated in the Rationale section. First, this study provides integrating the resource-based view and knowledge-based view. It display that the resources in an organization may be hierarchical. Knowledge may be closer to organizational effectiveness in the paths leading from organizational resources to organizational effectiveness. Second, this study suggests that knowledge management could be an interfering mechanism between organizational context and organizational effectiveness. The resultssupports the knowledge-based view of the firm in that knowledge management is not only an independent managerial practice, but also a central mechanism that using organizational cultural and structural. It also shows the usefulness of organizational resources varies with changes in organizational knowledge (Penrose's 1959). Knowledge management serves as key using points in organizations.Finally, knowledge management was found to mediate organizational culture's influence on organizational effectiveness. This finding suggests thatknowledge is managed and largely associated with how well cultural values are translated into value to the organization. Further, culture has a greater contribution to knowledge management than other factors examined. This may be due to that culture determines the basic beliefs, values, and norms regarding the why and how of knowledge generation, sharing, and utilization in an organization. This finding strong for attention to creating an organizational culture that is helping to produce to learning and knowledgemanagement (Davenport and Prusak, 1998;De Long and Fahey, 2000;Watkins and Marsick, 1996). Manystudies have focused on the direct relationship between organizational culture and organizational effectiveness. Inthis study, however, it has been shown that organizational culture's influence on organizational effectiveness is not importance when a mediator (in this case, knowledge management) is considered. The results of this study showsatisfactory examining the direct linkage between organizational culture and organizational effectiveness. It seems that a research on culture and effectiveness could proceed to a deeper level by examining the specific mechanism(s) through which organizational culture influences organizational performance.Although this study presents considerable answers to some unresolved issues in literature, the results should be interpreted in itslimitations. A major limitation is that the respondents were mostly the only informant from their organizations. Only 72 companies of the 600companies had multiple respondents (12%). The single informants may not represent the reality of their organizations as well as multiple informants because single informants may over-report certain phenomena (Gold et al., 2001).Among the two organizational factors, culture has the strongest positive influence on knowledge management. This implies that knowledge management practices need to center on makingculture-building activities to growth an environment that is knowledge-friendly. The three dimensions of organizational culture-adaptability, involvement, and mission-when combined positively contribute to knowledge management. Grover and Davenport (2001)suggest that most firms with knowledge management practices have reached the initial plateau because no importance change has occurred in how the organization does business. In order to have long-term, complete success at using knowledge for business advantage, changes need to take place in the aspects of the business such as process, culture, and behavior (Grover and Davenport, 2001). This study shows thatorganizational culture, and structure, has close interrelationships.Organizations that are adaptive, consistent in their values,engaging to employees, and accept common missions in theircultures have a higher turning to investigate into issues, to seek methodsto reduce costs, to look into the future. Such organizations are likely to make a decentralizedstructure. The implication these correlations carry is that thetwo organizational factors create an interdependent system in whichchanges in one of the factors may little move through to anotherfactor(s). Designing knowledge management projects usuallyinvolves organizational changes. Many organizations still view knowledge management as send some software programs without satisfactory consideration of their organizational characteristics to ensure the success of their knowledge management introductory steps. Through analyzing the relevance of organizational

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN COMMERCE, IT & MANAGEMENT
A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed (Refereed/Juried) Open Access International e-Journal -Included in the International Serial Directories www.ijrcm.org.in 32 characteristics to knowledge management success, this study brings to attention the importance of focusing on creating a knowledge-friendly environment that is made up of appropriate cultural, and structural, features. The study findings show that knowledge management can influence organizational effectiveness when it is arranged with organizational culture, and structure. Focus on knowledge management practices, such as providing knowledge management tools, and supporting knowledge management introductory steps, would help transfer the impact of organizational contextual resources to the bottom line.