Description
Case Studies for Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management in Central and Eastern Europe: The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion
Procurement is the acquisition of goods, services or works from an external source. It is favorable that the goods, services or works are appropriate and that they are procured at the best possible cost to meet the needs of the purchaser in terms of quality and quantity, time, and location.
(Management) Case Studies for Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management in Central and Eastern Europe: The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion
Abstract.
This research discusses the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion as it relates to the 10 Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) that are now part of the European Union (EU). The socio-economic conversion from socialism to capitalism of these societies is unique in historical precedence, whereby utilising the contextual models in knowl- edge conversion are applicable for understanding the impli- cations of such a phenomenon. The results indicate that there is a unique set of variables that need to be considered within this context and for future similar situations. Keywords: SECI; knowledge conversion; national culture; Ba; central and eastern Europe.
1. Introduction
One of the most widely published and cited models of the knowledge management is Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)original Socialisation-Externalisation-CombinationInternalisation (SECI) Model of Knowledge Conversion (Andreeva and Ikhilchik, 2009; Choo and Bontis, 2002; Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003; Mart ín-de-Castro et al., 2008; Pauleen et al., 2007; Rice and Rice, 2005). This model has also gained signi¯cant acceptance in knowledge management practice as widely applicable (Von Krogh et al., 2000). Although extensively cited, it is certainly not without its criticisms; most notably the practicality and cultural applicability (see Andreeva and Ikhilchik, 2009; Firestone and McElroy, 2003; Glisby and Holden, 2003; Gourlay, 2006; Mart ín-de-Castro et al., 2008; Roy and Gupta, 2007; Weir and Hutchings, 2005). With this model
being extensively adopted, cited and critiqued, this research will pursue an analysis to examine the methods of knowledge conversion as de¯ned by SECI within a cultural context with speci¯c focus on the formerly-communist CEECs that have joined the EU. The similarities among the CEEC countries within this review must be brie°y outlined for contextual purposes. All 10 CEECs had socialist political systems and govern- ments, centrally-planned economies, and were externally regarded as satellite states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All countries renounced communism and asserted independence from the Soviet Bloc, quickly developed democratically-based and inspired political systems, and moved towards free-market economies. There are idiosyncrasies in these countries that are rooted in a matter of circumstance that uniquely a®ected their development to the present day; however, all shared the theme of the intrusive state in the daily lives of the popu- lation. This particular sociopolitical reality uniquely a®ects the theory and practice of knowledge management within these CEECs (Fink et al., 2007). Additionally, similar and dominant policies within the CEECs during the post-com- munist period were transition policies that focused on macroeconomic stabilisation and convergence toward a market-focused economy rather than focussing on growth and structural change (Dyker and Radosevic, 1999). With this rapid political and economic liberalisation, these former communist countries face the two opposing tasks of acquiring the managerial skills needed to deal with the free
161
162
M. Jelavic and K. Ogilvie
market system whilst not blindly copying managerial methods developed in other countries that may not be compatible with the local culture (Bedward et al., 2003; Hutchings and Michailova, 2007; Maruyama, 1990). As a hybrid and multidisciplinary ¯eld of study, knowledge management is a domain that crosses diverse disciplines such as information systems and psychology, and is conceptually complex with many issues and view- points (Collison and Parcell, 2004; Hart and Warne, 2006; Liew, 2007; Smith, 2004). Within this broad expanse of literature, research and professional practice, it is important to identify and develop some concepts that will allow for a more structured and holistic understanding of the ¯eld and a theoretical framework for conducting research. Schultze (1998) reduces knowledge management into two models: functionalist, where knowledge is an objective representation waiting to be discovered by a human agent, and interpretive, where knowledge cannot be removed from human experience or social practices of knowing. McAdam and McCreedy (1999) de¯ne three models for knowledge management: intellectual capital models where knowledge is a tangible asset, knowledge category models where knowledge is identi¯ed within categories, and social constructionist where knowledge is contained within social and learning processes. Alavi and Leidner (2001) de¯ne three perspectives to knowledge management: information-based actionable information and categorisation of data, technologybased data mining and data warehouses, and culture-based collective learn- ing and continuous learning perspectives. Earl (2001) has proposed seven schools of knowledge management strategy undertaken by organisations: systems, cartographic, engi- neering, commercial, organisational, spatial and strategic. These seven schools are categorised within three types: technocratic, economic and behavioural. He further de¯nes each school with focus, aim and philosophy attributes. Marr et al. (2003) believe the suitability of knowledge management di®ers based on epistemological paradigms. These include the cognitivist, connectionist and autopoietic epistemologies within the seven processes of knowledge management: generation, codi¯cation, application, storing, mapping, sharing and transfer (Marr, 2004). The social constructionist model is particularly relevant to the anal- ysis of knowledge creation within certain geographic or industrial contexts that have unique cultural characteristics (Martín-de-Castro et al., 2008). The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion is particularly well-suited for the analysis of knowledge manage- ment within the CEECs because it incorporates the interrelationships of these models between technology, philosophy, culture and the human element to provide an e®ective and robust foundation for delving into the
study of organisations within transitioning economies. Its juncture at humanity and technology, and the Japanese concept of ba (context, space) as an in°uencing factor, allows for the incorporation, analysis and association of cultural elements more readily than other knowledge management models. The use and transfer of tacit knowledge within these former communist countries is particularly similar to the SECI concept of socialisation. Contextually, due to survival needs within oppressive political structures, organisational members would share a large amount of tacit knowledge with each other; this was a common thread among the CEECs where tacit knowledge was embedded in the political language of the time (Fink et al., 2007). Because of the rapid transformation of political systems and market conditions followed by the quick ascension into the EU, the adoption of knowledge management theories and initiatives within the CEECs are truly a unique experiment in the rapid implementation of man- agerial methods that developed in western Europe, the English-speaking countries and Japan. Since there have been no previous models of a transformation from social- ism to capitalism (Perlaki, 1994), the unique environment of the CEECs allows research to be conducted in a radi- cally changing environment that would otherwise be impossible to do within the mature economies in western nations (Meyer and Peng, 2005). By the nature of the continued expansion of the EU to include the former communist counties of eastern Europe, it is important to analyse existing theories and practices regarding knowl- edge, knowledge management and how they will apply within these new EU members.
2. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion: Organisational Context
In order to function within an organisational setting, all four of the quadrants of the SECI model must be working e®ectively. Based on its original holistic construction, a particular de¯ciency in one of these quadrants reduces the overall e®ectiveness of the model, or renders it completely ine®ective. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion, through ba, provides a framework to associate national cultural dimensions within knowledge conversion pro- cesses that could be adapted and applied to other models, as necessary. Although the applicability of the SECI model would require analysis across all cultural demar- cations, this analysis will primarily focus on the CEECs that have recently joined the EU. Ba has no direct translation into the English language, but can be roughly viewed as context or space in which knowledge conversion and creation occurs; where infor- mation is converted to knowledge. Not necessarily a
Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management
163
physical space or time, but a combination of the two, this ba is dependent on socio-cultural contexts and, as such, the knowledge developed cannot be context-free (Nonaka et al., 2000). The concept of ba has contextual uses extending beyond that of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion and knowledge management in general. Ba can transcend the boundaries between macro and micro; existing on many ontological levels (Nonaka et al., 2000). This plurality allows the multiple levels of investigation within this analysis to be viewed as interconnected ba where knowledge, knowledge management, culture and socio-political and economic factors interrelate. This review was placed within the context of the transitioning economies of the CEECs and the concept of national culture. These interrelated factors, extending downwards, can be viewed as individual ba that in°uence and take in°uence from, those above and below them on the hierarchal scale. Nonaka et al. (2000) indicate that the exchanges between the levels of ba can indeed amplify knowledge creation through organic interactions. This was originally intended to apply to the level of the individual to the group, the group to the organisation, and the organisation to the wider market environment; yet conceptually, ba as a context or space can apply to con- textually in°uencing factors such as cultures and other social environments. These social, cultural and historical contexts are necessary for meaning to be derived and meaning to be associated with information, thereby creating knowledge. It is at the level of `shared ideals' as de¯ned by Nonaka et al. (2000) that the associated con- cepts of national cultural values with the context of ba relates to the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in the CEEC's. Certain cultural assumptions cannot be made when applying the SECI model within non-Japanese organis- ations; the ba of knowledge conversion within an organ- isation must be taken into consideration. The usefulness of any of the individual elements of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion cannot necessarily be disquali¯ed as being culture-speci¯c, since each culture may approach them from its own unique perspective. Even individualis- tic cultures may develop close personal relationships that allow for high-context knowledge exchange, except these relationships may be forged in other ways and without the aid of pre-selected in-groups as in collectivistic societies. Feminine collaboration may be replaced with collabor- ation required because of high uncertainty or directives set forth through a high power distance management struc- ture. Long-term orientation may in°uence the outlook of organisational members to embark on projects that are not popular, nor within their comfort level, yet ensure the long- term operational and ¯nancial health of the organisation.
A combination of cultural elements may form to allow the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion, with some adap- tation, to be used in a non-Japanese cultural environment. The e®ectiveness of the SECI Model of Knowledge Con- version may be achieved by means of a comprehensive analysis of cultural enablers, barriers and idiosyncrasies within an organisation.
3. National Culture
Hofstede (1980) developed a cultural model based on a study conducted among International Business Machines (IBM) employees in subsidiaries across 50 countries and three regions in the 1960s. This study yielded what Hofstede initially de¯ned as four dimensions of national culture: Power Distance (PDI), Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV), Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS), and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI). A ¯fth dimension, Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation (LTO), was subsequently added based on a later study carried out in Asian countries (Hofstede, 2001). Two additional dimensions of national culture based on the work of Minkov (2007), Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR) and Monumentalism versus Self-E®acement (MON), were added to a new survey instrument developed by Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov and Henk Vinken and published in the public domain in January 2008. These two new cultural dimensions will not be included in this research due to limited comparative data currently available. Unique to the study of culture, Hofstede's work o®ered a method to assign comparative numerical cultural index values to a group of people determined by a geographical boundary (Straub, Loch Evaristo, Karahanna and Srite, 2002). Hofstede de¯ned the scale from 0 to 100; 100 showing the strongest PDI, IDV, MAS, UAI and LTO. These original ¯ve dimensions of culture were de¯ned as aspects of a culture that can be measured relative to other cultures and will be the focus of this discussion, as the original ¯ve dimensions are the most widely accepted. Organisational culture may act as a mediator for national culture and the ability of an organisation to develop e®ective knowledge management initiatives (Bedward et al., 2003; Ford and Chan, 2003; Pauleen et al., 2007; Retna and Bryson, 2007). In a study of innovation across 33 countries from the late 1960s to early 1980s, Shane (1992) found that national cultural values also operate at the organisational level, with certain organisations having superior innovative capabilities because of their national cultural values. Vogel et al. (2007) acknowledge the interplay and in°uence of professional and organisational culture and the foundational nature of
164
M. Jelavic and K. Ogilvie
national culture as a primary object of analysis. Although each organisation develops it own unique organisational culture and practices within its operational environment or industry, national culture permeates all organisations within a nation and can have a profound in°uence on the way business is conducted. Variations in these cultural dimensions may impact knowledge processes within an organisation and play a pivotal role in knowledge sharing and usage (Bhagat et al., 2002; Desouza and Evaristo, 2003; Ford and Chan, 2003). By extension, the capability of organisational members to share and develop knowledge amongst each other is dependent on their epistemological perspectives and culture (Fink and Lehmann, 2007; Gupta and Roos, 2001). A study by Child and Markóczy (1993) delved into the interrelationship between national culture, industrial governance, managerial behaviour and mode of industrialisation for Chinese and Hungarian joint ventures. This study yielded a model which integrated these four factors and established the impact of national culture on business practices. This consciousness of the impact of national culture was carried forward by other researchers when studying organisations across nations. Chow et al. (2000) found that epistemological perspectives to knowledge sharing within an organisation are based on the nature of the knowledge to be shared, the national culture of the organisational members, and the organisational culture. The Chow et al. (2000) study was derived based on managers from the United States and China; determining that di®erent degrees of collectivism in°uenced the degree of knowledge sharing within their organisations. Ardichvili and Gasparishvili (2003) delved into national culture and its relationship to entrepreneurship in a comparison between Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs; ¯nding that some values are deeply rooted in national culture and
are less inclined to change. Weir and Hutchings (2005) found that the SECI model could be adapted to Chinese and Arab cultures and elements of it can be used within these contexts; cultural analysis being required. Andreeva and Ikhilchik (2009) conducted a study to explore the limits of applicability of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion within the Russian cultural context deter- mining that the model itself could be adapted to the Russian culture. This study concluded that the manage- rial tools required for SECI to be e®ective in Russia would need to di®er from the tools that Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) promote for the model. These variables are folded into Hofstede's (2001) dimensions of culture in the following discussion.
4. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion and Japanese National Culture
The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion was originally developed in the context of Japanese organisations and encompassed four modes of knowledge conversion: socialisation, externalisation, internalisation and combination. It was later re¯ned by Nonaka and Toyama (2003) and Byosiere and Luethge (2004). Nonaka et al. (2000) con- textualised the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion within and across organisations. The four conversion processes of the model are de¯ned as equally applicable across organisational boundaries as they are within organisations, across departments and between individual organisational members. This theoretical °exibility in applicability makes this model especially useful when contextualising within and across national and organisational boundaries, yet further complicates the issue when di®erent cultures are introduced that may have di®erent
TACIT
SOCIALISATION
EXTERNALISATION
TACIT
EXPLICIT
INTERNALISATION
COMBINATION
EXPLICIT Fig. 1. Nonaka's four modes of knowledge conversion (adapted from Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)).
Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management
165
value systems. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the original SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion. The SECI Model of Knowledge conversion was orig- inally developed and extolled by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) in their exceptional work, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create The Dynamics Of Innovation. Although Nonaka and Takeuchi claim the universality of the SECI model, the applicability of the SECI knowledge management model is not necessarily universal across cultures (Fink and Lehmann, 2007; Glisby and Holden, 2003; Mart ín-de-Castro et al., 2008). Kuznetsov and Yakavenka (2005) imply that semantic distortions occur when information is translated from one language to another, whilst di®ering socio-cultural factors only serve to amplify contextual misunderstanding. This position is taken at the level of information, and further complication occurs when this information is used in the generation and transfer of knowledge. The literature reveals that there are striking di®erences between cultures and in the way di®erent cultures view knowledge and the management of knowledge. Since researchers in the ¯eld of management science are bounded by their environment, their ideas re°ect the constraints of their environment (Hofstede, 1993). Nonaka and Takeuchi would have been bounded by their Japanese national culture. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion incorporates both tacit and explicit methods of knowledge conversion, and is weighted equally on both ends of the spectrum. Based on Hofstede's (2001) determination and analysis of cultural dimensions, Japan originally scored 54-PDI, 92-UAI, 46-IDV, 95-MAS and 80-LTO. It can be argued that in order for the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion to be e®ective within a similar context, similar scores on the cultural dimensions would be required; although there would be a multitude of additional factors that could in°uence the e±cacy of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion within a country. However, not all the dimen- sions of culture may in°uence the e±cacy of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion. The striking di®erence between Japan and European countries (both original EU-15 and CEEC, combined) is the long-term orientation index; no European country scores on the long-term pole of the index. The power distance and individualism- collectivism scores are unremarkable, whilst the uncertainty avoidance and masculinity scores are very high. There are many permutations of cultural index scores that may come together to form the necessary cultural environment for the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion. Nonaka et al. (2000) added an additional concept to the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion that further reinforces the Japanese cultural embeddedness of the construct: ba. Ba was the second element in a progression
of stages consisting of SECI, Ba and knowledge assets. Based on this framework, knowledge within an organis- ation is created from knowledge assets through the SECI process inside ba. This further reinforces the need to take cultural elements into consideration when analysing the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in di®erent contexts. Consequently, Glisby and Holden (2003) make a case for the Japanese cultural embeddedness of the four models of knowledge conversion with which this researcher has attempted to link, based on the research of Hofstede (2001), to corresponding cultural dimensions as knowledge drivers, inhibitors or barriers. Fink et al. (2007) categori- cally state that the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion applies very selectively within the CEECs and Andreeva and Ikhilchik (2009) reinforce this in their study of SECI within the Russian culture. Speci¯cally, the role of the `cadre' within organisations in the socialist system erected barriers between workers and supervisors that had a pronounced e®ect on knowledge sharing and the applica- bility of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in itsentirety (Fink et al., 2007). Although communism has disappeared in the CEECs, certain remnants likely remain that, in combination with other cultural factors, may pose unique issues with the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in this environment. The following SECI de¯nitions are derived from Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) with various insights and cultural criticisms from Glisby and Holden (2003) and Fink et al. (2007) expanded and placed into context with national cultural dimensions derived by Hofstede.
5. Discussion 5.1. Socialisation, culture and context
Socialisation is the process of interaction between individuals or groups and results in knowledge sharing through shared experiences and mental models. The sharing of tacit knowledge and exchanging of experiences results in the creation of new tacit knowledge; depicted in the upper-left quadrant of the SECI graphic (refer to Fig. 1). Polanyi (1966) indicated that tacit knowledge is embodied at the junction connecting a person and his culture. As a personalisation and interpretive strategy, this process is dependent on the participant's motivation to exchange knowledge which is in°uenced by cultural factors and is trust-dependent (Chang, 2007; Chen, 2007; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Fink et al., 2007; Müller et al., 2005). Martín-de-Castro et al. (2008) identi¯ed two types of socialisation processes within organisations: `socialisation through mentoring' and `socialisation through infor- mal activities'; identifying the former to the original
166
M. Jelavic and K. Ogilvie
socialisation concept identi¯ed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). The socialisation component of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion was originally decidedly depen- dent on the Japanese personal commitment to an organ- isation and personal communications networks for tacit knowledge sharing (Glisby and Holden, 2003). These elements are highly in°uenced by a long-term commit- ment and service to an organisation through the long-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance indexes, respect- ively, and collectivistic highcontext in-group tacit com- munication through the individualism-collectivism index. Japanese national culture is mildly collectivistic on the individualism-collectivism index and scores very high on both the long-term orientation index and uncertainty avoidance index. Hence, Japanese business relationships are guided by long-term and trust-based relationships (Ibata-Arens, 2004). The SECI model makes the assump- tion that knowledge sharing between individuals is a willing process. Being trust-dependent, this socialisation process and tacit-tacit knowledge transfer was quite developed between certain organisational members within the CEECs during the period of socialism. Knowledge was transferred among workplace friends within in-groups in the guise of highcontext o±cial political language that was undecipherable by the supervising `cadre' (Fink et al.,2007). However, outside of these in-groups, knowledge sharing is more di±cult and the socialisation quadrant of the SECI model may be rendered less e®ective.
5.2. Externalisation, culture and context
Externalisation is the process of capturing and retaining information about knowledge and the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. This activity is the primary one concerned with the transformation of indi- vidual knowledge into organisational knowledge through codi¯cation. It is quite possible that the conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge within an organisational setting may vary across national cultures (Bhardwaj and Monin, 2006). When tacit knowledge is made explicit, the knowl- edge is `crystallised' (Nonaka et al., 2000). Externalisation is in°uenced by Japanese `communitarianism' and group orientation (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1997) and is directly relatable to the individualism-collectivism index where Japan scores mildly on the collectivistic pole. Duplication of the intricate connectedness of Japanese society and business within a nonJapanese context could pose a di±culty in an individualistic society. Collectivist cultures have a social advantage for the externalisation of tacit knowledge (Glisby and Holden, 2003) due to the group-oriented nature of the individuals and the inclination towards high-context communication. Within
collectivist cultures, the social network is the primary source of information, contrary to individualist cultures where media is the primary source of information (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). The externalisation of knowledge is a process that involves capturing cultural elements con- nected with the tacit knowledge and transforming them into explicit knowledge. This process may be fraught with di±culty in maintaining the true meaning of the tacit knowledge when unable to codify cultural histories (Glisby and Holden, 2003). Since tacit knowledge is tied to the individual, elements of culture are embedded with the knowledge and may be di±cult to transfer in explicit form. In a cross-cultural environment, knowledge consists of information, personal elements and social and cultural values (Liew, 2007). Selectively applied, tacit-explicit transfer of knowledge through the externalisation process between workers and supervisors in the CEECs was virtually non-existent; however, this same transfer was strong between trusted colleagues (Fink et al., 2007). Although generally collectivistic according to Hofstede's original research, CEEC society was divided into workers and the `cadre', which minimised or completely eliminated the trust otherwise required for such knowledge conversion between the groups. Trust is critical between management and non-management within a learning organisation that depends on knowledge transfer (Retna and Bryson, 2007). Low trust within an organisation constrains the °ow of knowledge between members of that organisation (De Long and Fahey, 2000). Both workers and the `cadre' were members of their own in-groups that did not yield the bene¯ts of collectivism when communicating across these groups. Research by Hutchings and Michailova (2007) in a study of knowledge sharing in two collectivistic countries, China and Russia, has suggested that knowledge sharing is greater if an ingroup relationship exists between the parties.
5.3. Combination, culture and context
Combination coalesces existing knowledge with newly generated knowledge and occurs where explicit knowledge in transformed into more sophisticated explicit knowledge. Traditional university studies and research endeavours are examples of the combination process, although there are elements of tacit knowledge elements that make their way into written works. By its very nature, combination requires access to knowledge within the organisation so that it can be used for combination, regardless of the position of the person within the organisation. Because of its basis on informatics and the processing of information, the explicit-explicit combination process is very dependent on the capabilities and e®ectiveness of ICTs, applications
Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management
167
and the quality of information that is stored within them; falling within the codi¯cation and functionalist perspec- tives on knowledge management. Combination also requires a holistic, open and participatory management style (Glisby and Holden, 2003) that is, in the case of Japan, connected to the very high level of uncertainty avoidance. High uncertainty avoidance leans towards group decisions, consultative management and non- competition between organisational members. This is typical of the traditional de¯nition of Japanese manage- ment where the permanent worker group is the core of the organisation and management plays a supporting role (Glisby and Holden, 2003; Hofstede, 1993). The condition of organisations within the CEECs instilled a lack of trust between workers and `cadre' supervisors which nulli¯ed the explicitexplicit knowledge conversion in the combi- nation mode between these groups (Fink et al., 2007).
SECI. With the relatively new dynamic and context of the CEEC's transitioning from socialism to capitalism and joining the EU, as this analysis outlines, it is imperative to determine the best course of action for managers, organis- ations, industries, and governments by leveraging each of these themes independently and holistically. By doing so, the result will be the only valid methodology in determining the best course of action to provide knowledge manage- ment solutions within the context of such a great socio- political and economic change in recent history. As the discussion portion of this research outlines, the importance of the variables discussed interrelate, therefore for the long- term prosperity of these nations, thorough interpretations of the relationships between the variables must be under- stood. This will then result in a successful transition at a micro- and macro-level, as well as lessons learned from such a dynamic for future similar occurrences.
5.4. Internalisation, culture and context
Internalisation is the understanding and contextual comprehension of existing knowledge which, in turn, trans- forms information into knowledge through interpretation. Through this process of embodying explicit knowledge, organisational members can re°ect on this knowledge and enrich their tacit knowledge base (Nonaka et al., 2000). This allows the internalisation of experiences gained through other methods of knowledge generation into an individual's tacit knowledge repository (Byosiere and Luethge, 2004; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Internalis- ation is primarily facilitated by `learning by doing' (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000) and involves a commitment from organisational members towork well within and across groups; in-group collectivistic and feminine traits, respectively. As such, the SECI spiral continues to a higher level of socialisation and the process continues. This form of explicit-tacit knowledge transfer within organisations in the CEECs was quite developed (Fink et al., 2007).
References
Alavi, M and D Leidner (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107À136. Andreeva, TE and Ikhilchik, IA (2009). Applicability of the SECI model of knowledge creation in Russian cul- tural context: Theoretical analysis. Russian Management Journal, 7(3), 3 À20. Ardichvili, A and A Gasparishvili (2003). Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs: A study of value di®erences. Organization Studies, 24(1), 29À46. Bedward, D, D Jankowicz and C Rexworthy (2003). East meets west: A case example of knowledge transfer. Human Resource Development International, 6(4), 527À545. Bhagat, RS, BL Kedia, PD Harveston and HC Triandis (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204À221. Bhardwaj, M and J Monin (2006). Tacit to explicit: An interplay shaping organization knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 72À85. Byosiere, P and DJ Luethge (2004). Realizing vision through envisioning reality: Strategic leadership in building knowledge spheres. In Leading in Turbulent Times. Managing in the New World of Work, RJ Burke and C Cooper (eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 243À258. Chang, LS (2007). The Peruvian asparagus cluster: Realizing pro¯tability from social capital and shared knowledge management in a traditionally low-trust environment. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 195À217.
6. Conclusions
The underlying themes discussed in this analysis have broader implications in the management of knowledge within transitioning countries. Much of the mainstream literature within this thematic structure relies on the understanding and analysis of knowledge management considerations, government structures, which in turn drive economic makeup, environmental e®ects, and in°u- ence from national culture. Each of these variables has speci¯c widespread accepted theories within each of the contexts, i.e. Hofstede's cultural dimensions, Ba, and
168
M. Jelavic and K. Ogilvie
Chen, TF (2007). Knowledge management among Taiwanese high-tech industries and SME's. In Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross- Cultural and Institutional Approach, K Hutchings and K Mohannak (eds.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 93À110. Child, J and L Markóczy (1993). Host-country managerial behaviour and learning in Chinese and Hungarian joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 611À631. Choo, CW and N Bontis (eds.) (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chow, CW, FJ Deng and JL Ho (2000). The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: A comparative study of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12, 65À95. Collison, C and G Parcell (2004). Learning to Fly: Practical Knowledge Management from Leading and Learning Organizations. Chichester: Capstone Pub- lishing Limited. De Long, DW and L Fahey (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113À128. Desouza, K and R Evaristo (2003). Global knowledge management strategies. European Management Journal, 21(1), 62À67. Dyker, DA and S Radosevic (1999). Building the knowledge-based economy in countries in transition— from concepts to policies. SPRU Electronic Working Paper, 36. Brighton: University of Sussex. Earl, M (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215À233. Easterby-Smith, M and MA Lyles (2003). Introduction: Watersheds of organizational learning and knowledge management. In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, M EasterbySmith and MA Lyles (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 1 À15. Fink, G, N Holden and M Lehmann (2007). Survival by subversion in former socialist economies: Tacit knowl- edge exchange at the workplace. In Knowledge Man- agement in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, K Hutchings and K Mohannak (Eds.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 35À51. Fink, G and M Lehmann (2007). People's twist: The cultural standard of loyalty and performance in former socialist economies. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 135À154. Firestone, JM and MW McElroy (2003). Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management. Burlington, MA: KMCI Press/Butterworth Heinemann.
Ford, DP and YE Chan (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: A case study. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 1(1), 11 À27. Glisby, M and N Holden (2003). Contextual constraints in knowledge management theory: The cultural embeddedness of Nonaka's knowledge-creating company. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(1), 29 À36. Gourlay, S (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka's theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1415À1436. Gupta, O and G Roos (2001). Mergers and acquisitions through an intellectual capital perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 297À309. Hampden-Turner, C and F Trompenaars (1997). Mastering the In¯nite Game: How East Asian Values are Transforming Business Practices. Oxford: Capstone. Hart, D and L Warne (2006). Comparing cultural and political perspectives of data, information, and knowl- edge sharing in organisations. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 1À15. Hofstede, G (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Di®erences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81À94. Hofstede, G (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G and GJ Hofstede (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd edn.). New York: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G, GJ Hofstede, M Minkov and H Vinken (2008). Values Survey Module 2008 Manual. Geert Hofstede BV. Retrieved from http://www.geerthofstede.nl/research--vsm/vsm-08.aspx Hutchings, K and S Michailova (2007). Re-examining knowledge sharing in an intercultural context: Findings from the transition economies of China and Russia. In Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, K Hutchings and K Mohannak (eds.), pp. 72 À90. Ibata-Arens, KC (2004). Alternatives to hierarchy in Japan: Business networks and civic entrepreneurship. Asian Business and Management, 3(3), 315 À335. Kuznetsov, A and H Yakavenka (2005). Barriers to the absorption of management knowledge in Belarus. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(7), 566 À577. Liew, CL (2007). From concept to context: Toward sociocultural responsibility in the organization of knowledge. In Cross-cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Manage- ment, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 81À94. Marr, B (2004). Measuring and benchmarking intellectual capital. Centre for Business Performance, Cran¯eld School of Management, Cran¯eld, UK.
Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management
169
Marr, B, O Gupta, S Pike and G Roos (2003). Intellectual capital and knowledge management e®ectiveness. Management Decision, 41(8), 771À781. Martín-de-Castro, G, P López-S0ez and JE Navas-López a (2008). Processes of knowledge creation in knowledgeintensive ¯rms: Empirical evidence from Boston's Route 128 and Spain. Technovation, 28(4), 222 À230. Maruyama, M (1990). Some management considerations in the economic reorganization of Eastern Europe. Academy of Management Executive, 4(2), 90À91. McAdam, R and S McCreedy (1999). The process of knowledge management within organisations: A critical assessment of both theory and practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 101À112. Meyer, KE and MW Peng (2005). Probing theoretically into central and eastern Europe: Transactions, resour- ces, and institutions. Journal of International Business, 36(6), 600À621. Minkov, M (2007). What Makes Us Di®erent and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and other Cross-Cultural Data. So¯a: Klasika i Stil. Müller, RM, M Spiliopoulou and H-J Lenz (2005). The in°uences of incentives and culture on knowledge sharing. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Nonaka, I and H Takeuchi (1995). The KnowledgeCreating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Nonaka, I and R Toyama (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 1(1), 2À10. Nonaka, I, R Toyama and N Konno (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A uni¯ed model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5 À34. Pauleen, DJ, L-L Wu and S Dexter (2007). Exploring the relationship between national and organizational cul- ture, and knowledge management. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 3À19.
Perlaki, I (1994). Organizational development in Eastern Europe: Learning to build culture-speci¯c OD theories. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(3), 297 À312. Polanyi, M (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Retna, KS and JE Bryson (2007). Asian organizations meet North American management theory: The case of Singapore and Senge. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 175À194. Rice, JL and BS Rice (2005). The applicability of the SECI model to multi-organisational endeaveours: An integrative review. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(8), 671À682. Roy, A and RK Gupta (2007). Knowledge processes in small manufacturing. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 77À93. Schultze, U (1998). Investigating the contradictions in knowledge management. Proceedings of IFIP Working groups 8.2 and 8.6 Joint Working Conference on Information Systems. Shane, SA (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 29À46. Smith, AD (2004). Knowledge management strategies: A multi-case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 6À16. Straub, D, K Loch, R Evaristo, E Karahanna and M Srite (2002). Toward a theory-based measurement of culture. Journal of Global Information Management, 10(1), 13À23. Vogel, D, A-F Rutkowski and M van Genuchten (2007). The in°uence of national culture on knowledge management in virtual teams. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.), Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 111À133. Von Krogh, G, K Ichijo and I Nonaka (2000). Enabling Knowledge Creation. New York: Oxford University Press. Weir, D and K Hutchings (2005). Cultural embeddedness and contextual constraints: Knowledge sharing in Chinese and Arab culture. Knowledge and Process Management, 12(2), 89À98.
doc_613521253.docx
Case Studies for Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management in Central and Eastern Europe: The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion
Procurement is the acquisition of goods, services or works from an external source. It is favorable that the goods, services or works are appropriate and that they are procured at the best possible cost to meet the needs of the purchaser in terms of quality and quantity, time, and location.
(Management) Case Studies for Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management in Central and Eastern Europe: The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion
Abstract.
This research discusses the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion as it relates to the 10 Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) that are now part of the European Union (EU). The socio-economic conversion from socialism to capitalism of these societies is unique in historical precedence, whereby utilising the contextual models in knowl- edge conversion are applicable for understanding the impli- cations of such a phenomenon. The results indicate that there is a unique set of variables that need to be considered within this context and for future similar situations. Keywords: SECI; knowledge conversion; national culture; Ba; central and eastern Europe.
1. Introduction
One of the most widely published and cited models of the knowledge management is Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)original Socialisation-Externalisation-CombinationInternalisation (SECI) Model of Knowledge Conversion (Andreeva and Ikhilchik, 2009; Choo and Bontis, 2002; Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003; Mart ín-de-Castro et al., 2008; Pauleen et al., 2007; Rice and Rice, 2005). This model has also gained signi¯cant acceptance in knowledge management practice as widely applicable (Von Krogh et al., 2000). Although extensively cited, it is certainly not without its criticisms; most notably the practicality and cultural applicability (see Andreeva and Ikhilchik, 2009; Firestone and McElroy, 2003; Glisby and Holden, 2003; Gourlay, 2006; Mart ín-de-Castro et al., 2008; Roy and Gupta, 2007; Weir and Hutchings, 2005). With this model
being extensively adopted, cited and critiqued, this research will pursue an analysis to examine the methods of knowledge conversion as de¯ned by SECI within a cultural context with speci¯c focus on the formerly-communist CEECs that have joined the EU. The similarities among the CEEC countries within this review must be brie°y outlined for contextual purposes. All 10 CEECs had socialist political systems and govern- ments, centrally-planned economies, and were externally regarded as satellite states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All countries renounced communism and asserted independence from the Soviet Bloc, quickly developed democratically-based and inspired political systems, and moved towards free-market economies. There are idiosyncrasies in these countries that are rooted in a matter of circumstance that uniquely a®ected their development to the present day; however, all shared the theme of the intrusive state in the daily lives of the popu- lation. This particular sociopolitical reality uniquely a®ects the theory and practice of knowledge management within these CEECs (Fink et al., 2007). Additionally, similar and dominant policies within the CEECs during the post-com- munist period were transition policies that focused on macroeconomic stabilisation and convergence toward a market-focused economy rather than focussing on growth and structural change (Dyker and Radosevic, 1999). With this rapid political and economic liberalisation, these former communist countries face the two opposing tasks of acquiring the managerial skills needed to deal with the free
161
162
M. Jelavic and K. Ogilvie
market system whilst not blindly copying managerial methods developed in other countries that may not be compatible with the local culture (Bedward et al., 2003; Hutchings and Michailova, 2007; Maruyama, 1990). As a hybrid and multidisciplinary ¯eld of study, knowledge management is a domain that crosses diverse disciplines such as information systems and psychology, and is conceptually complex with many issues and view- points (Collison and Parcell, 2004; Hart and Warne, 2006; Liew, 2007; Smith, 2004). Within this broad expanse of literature, research and professional practice, it is important to identify and develop some concepts that will allow for a more structured and holistic understanding of the ¯eld and a theoretical framework for conducting research. Schultze (1998) reduces knowledge management into two models: functionalist, where knowledge is an objective representation waiting to be discovered by a human agent, and interpretive, where knowledge cannot be removed from human experience or social practices of knowing. McAdam and McCreedy (1999) de¯ne three models for knowledge management: intellectual capital models where knowledge is a tangible asset, knowledge category models where knowledge is identi¯ed within categories, and social constructionist where knowledge is contained within social and learning processes. Alavi and Leidner (2001) de¯ne three perspectives to knowledge management: information-based actionable information and categorisation of data, technologybased data mining and data warehouses, and culture-based collective learn- ing and continuous learning perspectives. Earl (2001) has proposed seven schools of knowledge management strategy undertaken by organisations: systems, cartographic, engi- neering, commercial, organisational, spatial and strategic. These seven schools are categorised within three types: technocratic, economic and behavioural. He further de¯nes each school with focus, aim and philosophy attributes. Marr et al. (2003) believe the suitability of knowledge management di®ers based on epistemological paradigms. These include the cognitivist, connectionist and autopoietic epistemologies within the seven processes of knowledge management: generation, codi¯cation, application, storing, mapping, sharing and transfer (Marr, 2004). The social constructionist model is particularly relevant to the anal- ysis of knowledge creation within certain geographic or industrial contexts that have unique cultural characteristics (Martín-de-Castro et al., 2008). The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion is particularly well-suited for the analysis of knowledge manage- ment within the CEECs because it incorporates the interrelationships of these models between technology, philosophy, culture and the human element to provide an e®ective and robust foundation for delving into the
study of organisations within transitioning economies. Its juncture at humanity and technology, and the Japanese concept of ba (context, space) as an in°uencing factor, allows for the incorporation, analysis and association of cultural elements more readily than other knowledge management models. The use and transfer of tacit knowledge within these former communist countries is particularly similar to the SECI concept of socialisation. Contextually, due to survival needs within oppressive political structures, organisational members would share a large amount of tacit knowledge with each other; this was a common thread among the CEECs where tacit knowledge was embedded in the political language of the time (Fink et al., 2007). Because of the rapid transformation of political systems and market conditions followed by the quick ascension into the EU, the adoption of knowledge management theories and initiatives within the CEECs are truly a unique experiment in the rapid implementation of man- agerial methods that developed in western Europe, the English-speaking countries and Japan. Since there have been no previous models of a transformation from social- ism to capitalism (Perlaki, 1994), the unique environment of the CEECs allows research to be conducted in a radi- cally changing environment that would otherwise be impossible to do within the mature economies in western nations (Meyer and Peng, 2005). By the nature of the continued expansion of the EU to include the former communist counties of eastern Europe, it is important to analyse existing theories and practices regarding knowl- edge, knowledge management and how they will apply within these new EU members.
2. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion: Organisational Context
In order to function within an organisational setting, all four of the quadrants of the SECI model must be working e®ectively. Based on its original holistic construction, a particular de¯ciency in one of these quadrants reduces the overall e®ectiveness of the model, or renders it completely ine®ective. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion, through ba, provides a framework to associate national cultural dimensions within knowledge conversion pro- cesses that could be adapted and applied to other models, as necessary. Although the applicability of the SECI model would require analysis across all cultural demar- cations, this analysis will primarily focus on the CEECs that have recently joined the EU. Ba has no direct translation into the English language, but can be roughly viewed as context or space in which knowledge conversion and creation occurs; where infor- mation is converted to knowledge. Not necessarily a
Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management
163
physical space or time, but a combination of the two, this ba is dependent on socio-cultural contexts and, as such, the knowledge developed cannot be context-free (Nonaka et al., 2000). The concept of ba has contextual uses extending beyond that of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion and knowledge management in general. Ba can transcend the boundaries between macro and micro; existing on many ontological levels (Nonaka et al., 2000). This plurality allows the multiple levels of investigation within this analysis to be viewed as interconnected ba where knowledge, knowledge management, culture and socio-political and economic factors interrelate. This review was placed within the context of the transitioning economies of the CEECs and the concept of national culture. These interrelated factors, extending downwards, can be viewed as individual ba that in°uence and take in°uence from, those above and below them on the hierarchal scale. Nonaka et al. (2000) indicate that the exchanges between the levels of ba can indeed amplify knowledge creation through organic interactions. This was originally intended to apply to the level of the individual to the group, the group to the organisation, and the organisation to the wider market environment; yet conceptually, ba as a context or space can apply to con- textually in°uencing factors such as cultures and other social environments. These social, cultural and historical contexts are necessary for meaning to be derived and meaning to be associated with information, thereby creating knowledge. It is at the level of `shared ideals' as de¯ned by Nonaka et al. (2000) that the associated con- cepts of national cultural values with the context of ba relates to the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in the CEEC's. Certain cultural assumptions cannot be made when applying the SECI model within non-Japanese organis- ations; the ba of knowledge conversion within an organ- isation must be taken into consideration. The usefulness of any of the individual elements of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion cannot necessarily be disquali¯ed as being culture-speci¯c, since each culture may approach them from its own unique perspective. Even individualis- tic cultures may develop close personal relationships that allow for high-context knowledge exchange, except these relationships may be forged in other ways and without the aid of pre-selected in-groups as in collectivistic societies. Feminine collaboration may be replaced with collabor- ation required because of high uncertainty or directives set forth through a high power distance management struc- ture. Long-term orientation may in°uence the outlook of organisational members to embark on projects that are not popular, nor within their comfort level, yet ensure the long- term operational and ¯nancial health of the organisation.
A combination of cultural elements may form to allow the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion, with some adap- tation, to be used in a non-Japanese cultural environment. The e®ectiveness of the SECI Model of Knowledge Con- version may be achieved by means of a comprehensive analysis of cultural enablers, barriers and idiosyncrasies within an organisation.
3. National Culture
Hofstede (1980) developed a cultural model based on a study conducted among International Business Machines (IBM) employees in subsidiaries across 50 countries and three regions in the 1960s. This study yielded what Hofstede initially de¯ned as four dimensions of national culture: Power Distance (PDI), Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV), Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS), and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI). A ¯fth dimension, Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation (LTO), was subsequently added based on a later study carried out in Asian countries (Hofstede, 2001). Two additional dimensions of national culture based on the work of Minkov (2007), Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR) and Monumentalism versus Self-E®acement (MON), were added to a new survey instrument developed by Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov and Henk Vinken and published in the public domain in January 2008. These two new cultural dimensions will not be included in this research due to limited comparative data currently available. Unique to the study of culture, Hofstede's work o®ered a method to assign comparative numerical cultural index values to a group of people determined by a geographical boundary (Straub, Loch Evaristo, Karahanna and Srite, 2002). Hofstede de¯ned the scale from 0 to 100; 100 showing the strongest PDI, IDV, MAS, UAI and LTO. These original ¯ve dimensions of culture were de¯ned as aspects of a culture that can be measured relative to other cultures and will be the focus of this discussion, as the original ¯ve dimensions are the most widely accepted. Organisational culture may act as a mediator for national culture and the ability of an organisation to develop e®ective knowledge management initiatives (Bedward et al., 2003; Ford and Chan, 2003; Pauleen et al., 2007; Retna and Bryson, 2007). In a study of innovation across 33 countries from the late 1960s to early 1980s, Shane (1992) found that national cultural values also operate at the organisational level, with certain organisations having superior innovative capabilities because of their national cultural values. Vogel et al. (2007) acknowledge the interplay and in°uence of professional and organisational culture and the foundational nature of
164
M. Jelavic and K. Ogilvie
national culture as a primary object of analysis. Although each organisation develops it own unique organisational culture and practices within its operational environment or industry, national culture permeates all organisations within a nation and can have a profound in°uence on the way business is conducted. Variations in these cultural dimensions may impact knowledge processes within an organisation and play a pivotal role in knowledge sharing and usage (Bhagat et al., 2002; Desouza and Evaristo, 2003; Ford and Chan, 2003). By extension, the capability of organisational members to share and develop knowledge amongst each other is dependent on their epistemological perspectives and culture (Fink and Lehmann, 2007; Gupta and Roos, 2001). A study by Child and Markóczy (1993) delved into the interrelationship between national culture, industrial governance, managerial behaviour and mode of industrialisation for Chinese and Hungarian joint ventures. This study yielded a model which integrated these four factors and established the impact of national culture on business practices. This consciousness of the impact of national culture was carried forward by other researchers when studying organisations across nations. Chow et al. (2000) found that epistemological perspectives to knowledge sharing within an organisation are based on the nature of the knowledge to be shared, the national culture of the organisational members, and the organisational culture. The Chow et al. (2000) study was derived based on managers from the United States and China; determining that di®erent degrees of collectivism in°uenced the degree of knowledge sharing within their organisations. Ardichvili and Gasparishvili (2003) delved into national culture and its relationship to entrepreneurship in a comparison between Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs; ¯nding that some values are deeply rooted in national culture and
are less inclined to change. Weir and Hutchings (2005) found that the SECI model could be adapted to Chinese and Arab cultures and elements of it can be used within these contexts; cultural analysis being required. Andreeva and Ikhilchik (2009) conducted a study to explore the limits of applicability of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion within the Russian cultural context deter- mining that the model itself could be adapted to the Russian culture. This study concluded that the manage- rial tools required for SECI to be e®ective in Russia would need to di®er from the tools that Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) promote for the model. These variables are folded into Hofstede's (2001) dimensions of culture in the following discussion.
4. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion and Japanese National Culture
The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion was originally developed in the context of Japanese organisations and encompassed four modes of knowledge conversion: socialisation, externalisation, internalisation and combination. It was later re¯ned by Nonaka and Toyama (2003) and Byosiere and Luethge (2004). Nonaka et al. (2000) con- textualised the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion within and across organisations. The four conversion processes of the model are de¯ned as equally applicable across organisational boundaries as they are within organisations, across departments and between individual organisational members. This theoretical °exibility in applicability makes this model especially useful when contextualising within and across national and organisational boundaries, yet further complicates the issue when di®erent cultures are introduced that may have di®erent
TACIT
SOCIALISATION
EXTERNALISATION
TACIT
EXPLICIT
INTERNALISATION
COMBINATION
EXPLICIT Fig. 1. Nonaka's four modes of knowledge conversion (adapted from Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)).
Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management
165
value systems. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the original SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion. The SECI Model of Knowledge conversion was orig- inally developed and extolled by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) in their exceptional work, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create The Dynamics Of Innovation. Although Nonaka and Takeuchi claim the universality of the SECI model, the applicability of the SECI knowledge management model is not necessarily universal across cultures (Fink and Lehmann, 2007; Glisby and Holden, 2003; Mart ín-de-Castro et al., 2008). Kuznetsov and Yakavenka (2005) imply that semantic distortions occur when information is translated from one language to another, whilst di®ering socio-cultural factors only serve to amplify contextual misunderstanding. This position is taken at the level of information, and further complication occurs when this information is used in the generation and transfer of knowledge. The literature reveals that there are striking di®erences between cultures and in the way di®erent cultures view knowledge and the management of knowledge. Since researchers in the ¯eld of management science are bounded by their environment, their ideas re°ect the constraints of their environment (Hofstede, 1993). Nonaka and Takeuchi would have been bounded by their Japanese national culture. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion incorporates both tacit and explicit methods of knowledge conversion, and is weighted equally on both ends of the spectrum. Based on Hofstede's (2001) determination and analysis of cultural dimensions, Japan originally scored 54-PDI, 92-UAI, 46-IDV, 95-MAS and 80-LTO. It can be argued that in order for the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion to be e®ective within a similar context, similar scores on the cultural dimensions would be required; although there would be a multitude of additional factors that could in°uence the e±cacy of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion within a country. However, not all the dimen- sions of culture may in°uence the e±cacy of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion. The striking di®erence between Japan and European countries (both original EU-15 and CEEC, combined) is the long-term orientation index; no European country scores on the long-term pole of the index. The power distance and individualism- collectivism scores are unremarkable, whilst the uncertainty avoidance and masculinity scores are very high. There are many permutations of cultural index scores that may come together to form the necessary cultural environment for the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion. Nonaka et al. (2000) added an additional concept to the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion that further reinforces the Japanese cultural embeddedness of the construct: ba. Ba was the second element in a progression
of stages consisting of SECI, Ba and knowledge assets. Based on this framework, knowledge within an organis- ation is created from knowledge assets through the SECI process inside ba. This further reinforces the need to take cultural elements into consideration when analysing the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in di®erent contexts. Consequently, Glisby and Holden (2003) make a case for the Japanese cultural embeddedness of the four models of knowledge conversion with which this researcher has attempted to link, based on the research of Hofstede (2001), to corresponding cultural dimensions as knowledge drivers, inhibitors or barriers. Fink et al. (2007) categori- cally state that the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion applies very selectively within the CEECs and Andreeva and Ikhilchik (2009) reinforce this in their study of SECI within the Russian culture. Speci¯cally, the role of the `cadre' within organisations in the socialist system erected barriers between workers and supervisors that had a pronounced e®ect on knowledge sharing and the applica- bility of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in itsentirety (Fink et al., 2007). Although communism has disappeared in the CEECs, certain remnants likely remain that, in combination with other cultural factors, may pose unique issues with the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in this environment. The following SECI de¯nitions are derived from Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) with various insights and cultural criticisms from Glisby and Holden (2003) and Fink et al. (2007) expanded and placed into context with national cultural dimensions derived by Hofstede.
5. Discussion 5.1. Socialisation, culture and context
Socialisation is the process of interaction between individuals or groups and results in knowledge sharing through shared experiences and mental models. The sharing of tacit knowledge and exchanging of experiences results in the creation of new tacit knowledge; depicted in the upper-left quadrant of the SECI graphic (refer to Fig. 1). Polanyi (1966) indicated that tacit knowledge is embodied at the junction connecting a person and his culture. As a personalisation and interpretive strategy, this process is dependent on the participant's motivation to exchange knowledge which is in°uenced by cultural factors and is trust-dependent (Chang, 2007; Chen, 2007; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Fink et al., 2007; Müller et al., 2005). Martín-de-Castro et al. (2008) identi¯ed two types of socialisation processes within organisations: `socialisation through mentoring' and `socialisation through infor- mal activities'; identifying the former to the original
166
M. Jelavic and K. Ogilvie
socialisation concept identi¯ed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). The socialisation component of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion was originally decidedly depen- dent on the Japanese personal commitment to an organ- isation and personal communications networks for tacit knowledge sharing (Glisby and Holden, 2003). These elements are highly in°uenced by a long-term commit- ment and service to an organisation through the long-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance indexes, respect- ively, and collectivistic highcontext in-group tacit com- munication through the individualism-collectivism index. Japanese national culture is mildly collectivistic on the individualism-collectivism index and scores very high on both the long-term orientation index and uncertainty avoidance index. Hence, Japanese business relationships are guided by long-term and trust-based relationships (Ibata-Arens, 2004). The SECI model makes the assump- tion that knowledge sharing between individuals is a willing process. Being trust-dependent, this socialisation process and tacit-tacit knowledge transfer was quite developed between certain organisational members within the CEECs during the period of socialism. Knowledge was transferred among workplace friends within in-groups in the guise of highcontext o±cial political language that was undecipherable by the supervising `cadre' (Fink et al.,2007). However, outside of these in-groups, knowledge sharing is more di±cult and the socialisation quadrant of the SECI model may be rendered less e®ective.
5.2. Externalisation, culture and context
Externalisation is the process of capturing and retaining information about knowledge and the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. This activity is the primary one concerned with the transformation of indi- vidual knowledge into organisational knowledge through codi¯cation. It is quite possible that the conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge within an organisational setting may vary across national cultures (Bhardwaj and Monin, 2006). When tacit knowledge is made explicit, the knowl- edge is `crystallised' (Nonaka et al., 2000). Externalisation is in°uenced by Japanese `communitarianism' and group orientation (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1997) and is directly relatable to the individualism-collectivism index where Japan scores mildly on the collectivistic pole. Duplication of the intricate connectedness of Japanese society and business within a nonJapanese context could pose a di±culty in an individualistic society. Collectivist cultures have a social advantage for the externalisation of tacit knowledge (Glisby and Holden, 2003) due to the group-oriented nature of the individuals and the inclination towards high-context communication. Within
collectivist cultures, the social network is the primary source of information, contrary to individualist cultures where media is the primary source of information (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). The externalisation of knowledge is a process that involves capturing cultural elements con- nected with the tacit knowledge and transforming them into explicit knowledge. This process may be fraught with di±culty in maintaining the true meaning of the tacit knowledge when unable to codify cultural histories (Glisby and Holden, 2003). Since tacit knowledge is tied to the individual, elements of culture are embedded with the knowledge and may be di±cult to transfer in explicit form. In a cross-cultural environment, knowledge consists of information, personal elements and social and cultural values (Liew, 2007). Selectively applied, tacit-explicit transfer of knowledge through the externalisation process between workers and supervisors in the CEECs was virtually non-existent; however, this same transfer was strong between trusted colleagues (Fink et al., 2007). Although generally collectivistic according to Hofstede's original research, CEEC society was divided into workers and the `cadre', which minimised or completely eliminated the trust otherwise required for such knowledge conversion between the groups. Trust is critical between management and non-management within a learning organisation that depends on knowledge transfer (Retna and Bryson, 2007). Low trust within an organisation constrains the °ow of knowledge between members of that organisation (De Long and Fahey, 2000). Both workers and the `cadre' were members of their own in-groups that did not yield the bene¯ts of collectivism when communicating across these groups. Research by Hutchings and Michailova (2007) in a study of knowledge sharing in two collectivistic countries, China and Russia, has suggested that knowledge sharing is greater if an ingroup relationship exists between the parties.
5.3. Combination, culture and context
Combination coalesces existing knowledge with newly generated knowledge and occurs where explicit knowledge in transformed into more sophisticated explicit knowledge. Traditional university studies and research endeavours are examples of the combination process, although there are elements of tacit knowledge elements that make their way into written works. By its very nature, combination requires access to knowledge within the organisation so that it can be used for combination, regardless of the position of the person within the organisation. Because of its basis on informatics and the processing of information, the explicit-explicit combination process is very dependent on the capabilities and e®ectiveness of ICTs, applications
Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management
167
and the quality of information that is stored within them; falling within the codi¯cation and functionalist perspec- tives on knowledge management. Combination also requires a holistic, open and participatory management style (Glisby and Holden, 2003) that is, in the case of Japan, connected to the very high level of uncertainty avoidance. High uncertainty avoidance leans towards group decisions, consultative management and non- competition between organisational members. This is typical of the traditional de¯nition of Japanese manage- ment where the permanent worker group is the core of the organisation and management plays a supporting role (Glisby and Holden, 2003; Hofstede, 1993). The condition of organisations within the CEECs instilled a lack of trust between workers and `cadre' supervisors which nulli¯ed the explicitexplicit knowledge conversion in the combi- nation mode between these groups (Fink et al., 2007).
SECI. With the relatively new dynamic and context of the CEEC's transitioning from socialism to capitalism and joining the EU, as this analysis outlines, it is imperative to determine the best course of action for managers, organis- ations, industries, and governments by leveraging each of these themes independently and holistically. By doing so, the result will be the only valid methodology in determining the best course of action to provide knowledge manage- ment solutions within the context of such a great socio- political and economic change in recent history. As the discussion portion of this research outlines, the importance of the variables discussed interrelate, therefore for the long- term prosperity of these nations, thorough interpretations of the relationships between the variables must be under- stood. This will then result in a successful transition at a micro- and macro-level, as well as lessons learned from such a dynamic for future similar occurrences.
5.4. Internalisation, culture and context
Internalisation is the understanding and contextual comprehension of existing knowledge which, in turn, trans- forms information into knowledge through interpretation. Through this process of embodying explicit knowledge, organisational members can re°ect on this knowledge and enrich their tacit knowledge base (Nonaka et al., 2000). This allows the internalisation of experiences gained through other methods of knowledge generation into an individual's tacit knowledge repository (Byosiere and Luethge, 2004; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Internalis- ation is primarily facilitated by `learning by doing' (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000) and involves a commitment from organisational members towork well within and across groups; in-group collectivistic and feminine traits, respectively. As such, the SECI spiral continues to a higher level of socialisation and the process continues. This form of explicit-tacit knowledge transfer within organisations in the CEECs was quite developed (Fink et al., 2007).
References
Alavi, M and D Leidner (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107À136. Andreeva, TE and Ikhilchik, IA (2009). Applicability of the SECI model of knowledge creation in Russian cul- tural context: Theoretical analysis. Russian Management Journal, 7(3), 3 À20. Ardichvili, A and A Gasparishvili (2003). Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs: A study of value di®erences. Organization Studies, 24(1), 29À46. Bedward, D, D Jankowicz and C Rexworthy (2003). East meets west: A case example of knowledge transfer. Human Resource Development International, 6(4), 527À545. Bhagat, RS, BL Kedia, PD Harveston and HC Triandis (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204À221. Bhardwaj, M and J Monin (2006). Tacit to explicit: An interplay shaping organization knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 72À85. Byosiere, P and DJ Luethge (2004). Realizing vision through envisioning reality: Strategic leadership in building knowledge spheres. In Leading in Turbulent Times. Managing in the New World of Work, RJ Burke and C Cooper (eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 243À258. Chang, LS (2007). The Peruvian asparagus cluster: Realizing pro¯tability from social capital and shared knowledge management in a traditionally low-trust environment. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 195À217.
6. Conclusions
The underlying themes discussed in this analysis have broader implications in the management of knowledge within transitioning countries. Much of the mainstream literature within this thematic structure relies on the understanding and analysis of knowledge management considerations, government structures, which in turn drive economic makeup, environmental e®ects, and in°u- ence from national culture. Each of these variables has speci¯c widespread accepted theories within each of the contexts, i.e. Hofstede's cultural dimensions, Ba, and
168
M. Jelavic and K. Ogilvie
Chen, TF (2007). Knowledge management among Taiwanese high-tech industries and SME's. In Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross- Cultural and Institutional Approach, K Hutchings and K Mohannak (eds.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 93À110. Child, J and L Markóczy (1993). Host-country managerial behaviour and learning in Chinese and Hungarian joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 611À631. Choo, CW and N Bontis (eds.) (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chow, CW, FJ Deng and JL Ho (2000). The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: A comparative study of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12, 65À95. Collison, C and G Parcell (2004). Learning to Fly: Practical Knowledge Management from Leading and Learning Organizations. Chichester: Capstone Pub- lishing Limited. De Long, DW and L Fahey (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113À128. Desouza, K and R Evaristo (2003). Global knowledge management strategies. European Management Journal, 21(1), 62À67. Dyker, DA and S Radosevic (1999). Building the knowledge-based economy in countries in transition— from concepts to policies. SPRU Electronic Working Paper, 36. Brighton: University of Sussex. Earl, M (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215À233. Easterby-Smith, M and MA Lyles (2003). Introduction: Watersheds of organizational learning and knowledge management. In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, M EasterbySmith and MA Lyles (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 1 À15. Fink, G, N Holden and M Lehmann (2007). Survival by subversion in former socialist economies: Tacit knowl- edge exchange at the workplace. In Knowledge Man- agement in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, K Hutchings and K Mohannak (Eds.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 35À51. Fink, G and M Lehmann (2007). People's twist: The cultural standard of loyalty and performance in former socialist economies. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 135À154. Firestone, JM and MW McElroy (2003). Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management. Burlington, MA: KMCI Press/Butterworth Heinemann.
Ford, DP and YE Chan (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: A case study. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 1(1), 11 À27. Glisby, M and N Holden (2003). Contextual constraints in knowledge management theory: The cultural embeddedness of Nonaka's knowledge-creating company. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(1), 29 À36. Gourlay, S (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka's theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1415À1436. Gupta, O and G Roos (2001). Mergers and acquisitions through an intellectual capital perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 297À309. Hampden-Turner, C and F Trompenaars (1997). Mastering the In¯nite Game: How East Asian Values are Transforming Business Practices. Oxford: Capstone. Hart, D and L Warne (2006). Comparing cultural and political perspectives of data, information, and knowl- edge sharing in organisations. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 1À15. Hofstede, G (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Di®erences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81À94. Hofstede, G (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G and GJ Hofstede (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd edn.). New York: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G, GJ Hofstede, M Minkov and H Vinken (2008). Values Survey Module 2008 Manual. Geert Hofstede BV. Retrieved from http://www.geerthofstede.nl/research--vsm/vsm-08.aspx Hutchings, K and S Michailova (2007). Re-examining knowledge sharing in an intercultural context: Findings from the transition economies of China and Russia. In Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, K Hutchings and K Mohannak (eds.), pp. 72 À90. Ibata-Arens, KC (2004). Alternatives to hierarchy in Japan: Business networks and civic entrepreneurship. Asian Business and Management, 3(3), 315 À335. Kuznetsov, A and H Yakavenka (2005). Barriers to the absorption of management knowledge in Belarus. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(7), 566 À577. Liew, CL (2007). From concept to context: Toward sociocultural responsibility in the organization of knowledge. In Cross-cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Manage- ment, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 81À94. Marr, B (2004). Measuring and benchmarking intellectual capital. Centre for Business Performance, Cran¯eld School of Management, Cran¯eld, UK.
Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management
169
Marr, B, O Gupta, S Pike and G Roos (2003). Intellectual capital and knowledge management e®ectiveness. Management Decision, 41(8), 771À781. Martín-de-Castro, G, P López-S0ez and JE Navas-López a (2008). Processes of knowledge creation in knowledgeintensive ¯rms: Empirical evidence from Boston's Route 128 and Spain. Technovation, 28(4), 222 À230. Maruyama, M (1990). Some management considerations in the economic reorganization of Eastern Europe. Academy of Management Executive, 4(2), 90À91. McAdam, R and S McCreedy (1999). The process of knowledge management within organisations: A critical assessment of both theory and practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 101À112. Meyer, KE and MW Peng (2005). Probing theoretically into central and eastern Europe: Transactions, resour- ces, and institutions. Journal of International Business, 36(6), 600À621. Minkov, M (2007). What Makes Us Di®erent and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and other Cross-Cultural Data. So¯a: Klasika i Stil. Müller, RM, M Spiliopoulou and H-J Lenz (2005). The in°uences of incentives and culture on knowledge sharing. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Nonaka, I and H Takeuchi (1995). The KnowledgeCreating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Nonaka, I and R Toyama (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 1(1), 2À10. Nonaka, I, R Toyama and N Konno (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A uni¯ed model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5 À34. Pauleen, DJ, L-L Wu and S Dexter (2007). Exploring the relationship between national and organizational cul- ture, and knowledge management. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 3À19.
Perlaki, I (1994). Organizational development in Eastern Europe: Learning to build culture-speci¯c OD theories. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(3), 297 À312. Polanyi, M (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Retna, KS and JE Bryson (2007). Asian organizations meet North American management theory: The case of Singapore and Senge. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 175À194. Rice, JL and BS Rice (2005). The applicability of the SECI model to multi-organisational endeaveours: An integrative review. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(8), 671À682. Roy, A and RK Gupta (2007). Knowledge processes in small manufacturing. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 77À93. Schultze, U (1998). Investigating the contradictions in knowledge management. Proceedings of IFIP Working groups 8.2 and 8.6 Joint Working Conference on Information Systems. Shane, SA (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 29À46. Smith, AD (2004). Knowledge management strategies: A multi-case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 6À16. Straub, D, K Loch, R Evaristo, E Karahanna and M Srite (2002). Toward a theory-based measurement of culture. Journal of Global Information Management, 10(1), 13À23. Vogel, D, A-F Rutkowski and M van Genuchten (2007). The in°uence of national culture on knowledge management in virtual teams. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management, DJ Pauleen (ed.), Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 111À133. Von Krogh, G, K Ichijo and I Nonaka (2000). Enabling Knowledge Creation. New York: Oxford University Press. Weir, D and K Hutchings (2005). Cultural embeddedness and contextual constraints: Knowledge sharing in Chinese and Arab culture. Knowledge and Process Management, 12(2), 89À98.
doc_613521253.docx