The task of unraveling the phenomena that occur in the dynamic organizational context emerges as a great challenge to researchers, pointing out a viable path for understanding actors’ actions in their work environment and the way these same actors negotiate their tensions in the daily organizational context (Hatch, 1997). In the context of this discussion, Spender (1996) argues that the change witnessed in the organizational field provided the transition from the industrial age to the information age, where there is no longer room for the manager’s conception as the rule-maker and the employee only follows his determinations. From a new perspective, it is necessary that the organization be considered as a tangle of subgroups in which knowledge is created and shared, arising individually or in teams, passing through all levels of the organization. Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011) argue that the debate about organizational issues has knowledge as the protagonist. These authors emphasize that organizational knowledge is constituted by a constant mix of contextualized experiences, values and information that, when they are mixed with the interpretation, judgment and creativity of the subject, provide the manifestation of cognitive or behavioral changes. These changes may encompass tacit and explicit components rooted in a variety of repositories, including routines, individuals and various other organizational memory systems. However, Bartol and Srivastava (2002) and Tonet and Paz (2006) emphasize that the great availability of organizational knowledge does not guarantee its use by the organization. The way many organizations are dispersed and arranged provides a great chance that the knowledge needed to carry out the activities is not perceived and identified by individuals. Based on these considerations, Faoro and Oliveira (2014), He et al. (2014), Oliveira et al. (2012), Ramayah et al. (2014) and Yi (2009) emphasize that knowledge sharing must be located at the center of the discussion that involves understanding knowledge management as an organizational action that provides the use of knowledge in support of organizational objectives. From the context of such discussions, there is increased debate about the environmental nuances that affect organizational knowledge, based on the premise that the organization is an open system that interacts with the environment at the same time that it suffers influence in the development of organizational learning processes (Sirmon et al., 2007). The debate produced by these authors opens the way for analysis of the importance of establishing procedures and administrative routines that foster the flow of knowledge, which are essential antecedents for the organization to create a propitious and facilitating environment for knowledge sharing. Amayah (2013), Faoro and Oliveira (2014) and Ragab and Arisha (2013) point out that the management of organizations can occur through management actions that contemplate the identification, creation, acquisition, sharing and updating of organizational knowledge, making it available when it is necessary and required. These authors’ arguments are based on Isidro-Filho (2009), Lipshitz and Popper (1996), Lipshitz et al. (2002), L
opez et al. (2005) and Pokharel and Choi (2015), which authors point out that to share knowledge, it is essential to foster some routine learning situations.