Description
Case Study on Knowledge Management Views in Eastern and Western Cultures:- Knowledge Management Views in Eastern and Western Cultures
Case Study on Knowledge Management Views in Eastern and Western Cultures
Abstract
Traditional eastern and western views of knowledge continue to influence the knowledge management practices in today's global workplace. Based on these views, several dominant theories have emerged on how to best manage in the international work environment. This research illustrates contradictions in these theories and extracts a new perspective from the dynamic literature stream. This innovative perspective provides an opportunity to leverage cultures and relationships holistically for effective knowledge transfer and cross-cultural understanding, and hence for effective management Keywords: Knowledge, Culture, International Management, Knowledge Management, Hofstede Framework
Introduction The globalization of markets and production continues to bring together people from different cultures and countries in culturally diverse organizations. In the field of international management, it is important not only to recognize these diversities, but it is also vital to understand the cultural differences for the purpose of connecting with and motivating knowledge workers. Traditionally, these cultural distinctions have been classified into 'eastern' and 'western' views that widely vary with respect to workplace activities and, more specifically, with respect to knowledge management. With the 'western' view being more focused on explicit knowledge and tangible individualistic motivational factors, and the 'eastern' view on tacit knowledge and abstract workplace principles; it becomes evident that management of these different cultural perspectives is becoming increasingly complex yet critical in the global workplace. An understanding of these differing views is therefore necessary for effective management in the international sphere, specifically for providing a means for better cross-cultural understanding and successful knowledge transfer.
52
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Knowledge Management in Cross-Cultural Contexts The predominant theories of knowledge management anchor the 'western view' and 'eastern view' on epistemology and knowledge management on opposite poles. .The opposing views themselves do not pose an issue, rather the perspectives in which they were derived, do. This section outlines and discusses some of the characteristics of each view. The North American and European perspectives have generally been associated with the 'western view', and a significant portion of the literature is based on these perspectives (Yoo, Ginzberg, & Ahn, 1999. The western view itself may be prone to bias based on the diversity of the European population as compared to the relative cultural homogeneity of the English-speaking North American population. Based on Hofstede's (1980, 2001) and Hofstede and Hofstede's (2005) cultural analysis of organizations in Europe, the general 'western grouping' in literature does not address or treat the uniqueness and ongoing dynamics of the European expansion and the integration of the central and eastern European countries into the European Union (EU). European management is in a state of flux with the absorption of multiple countries with a socialist and collectivist heritage that indeed may influence the original EU countries as much as these countries will influence the new eastern members (Fink & Holden, 2007). Treating Asian countries as a holistic singular reference group is also prone to bias based on the sheer number of countries and cultures in Southeast Asia that developed over the millennia. With the ongoing importance of Asian counties due to the progression of globalization, this field of inquiry merits close attention. Also as the global economy grows in importance, to ignore these issues would be problematic for the survival of a business entity in today's integrated world economy. There is a preponderance of knowledge-sharing studies that have been conducted in Anglo-American settings or presuppositions. Therefore these studies may be subject to certain behavioral assumptions or ethnocentric biases (Chow, Deng, & Ho, 2000; Mason, 2003). The literature on knowledge management and intellectual capital within the western world is extensive whilst the same literature in the nonwestern world, especially in the English language, is limited (Andriessen & van de Boom, 2007). Much reliance has been placedupon American management practices and theories within countries with different societal conditions and mental programming (Hofstede, 2001). This may lead to much misunderstanding and angst for researchers and practitioners in the management science field.
53
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
In order to develop an effective system of knowledge management within an organization, it is important to understand the way individuals perceive knowledge. (Marr, Gupta, Pike, & Roos, 2003). In relation to knowledge management and the globalization of markets and production, organizations conducting business across countries may need to modify their practices to accommodate unique organizational and member perceptions in those nations (Schulte & Kim, 2007). As cultural implications have been found to have varying effects on the transfer of management knowledge, particularly regarding tacit and explicit knowledge, Webber (1969) an early pioneer of culture and management, argued that despite the spread of managerial philosophies and practical implementations, convergence in these areas will be slow. Jankowicz (1994) suggested that the problems of transfer from the west to the east are not necessarily about knowledge, but about meaning. This is philosophically linked to Nonaka, Toyama and Konno's (2000) inference that without tacit insight, explicit knowledge quickly loses its meaning and interactions between both tacit and explicit elements are therefore needed for effective knowledge transfer. Management systems and educational training packages are predominantly developed in countries that rank towards the individualistic pole on the Hofstede individualism-collectivism index and include the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany among others. Therefore, based on the cultural assumptions; these systems may not be effective in collectivist cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree and its curriculum is one of the primary management qualifications developed in the US is a case in point. Being located at the juncture of management and academia, this program along with the cultural assumptions associated with it has spread throughout the world. However the application of these programs differs from one country to another. For example, in the former communist countries , management topics within an MBA degree program were approached from a 'skills' perspective and participation-based practical relevance, rather than a purely conceptual and theoretical materials model (Bedward, Jankowicz, & Rexworthy, 2003). ). In exploring the factors impeding the transfer of management knowledge to Eastern European transition economies, Kuznetsov and Yakavenka (2005) delved into the translation of western management textbooks into the Russian language to be used in a Belarusian context. The study found that the professors utilizing the textbooks could not attach meaningful context to the codified information presented in the textbooks due to a lack of understanding of the contextual background of the original books. Jankowicz (1994) provides an
54
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
excellent and thorough overview of the differences in meaning and interpretation between the Polish languages and cultures in the context of management perceptions and managerial education. Oftentimes, the management approaches developed in one culture are just assumed to be valid in another by those developing them (Bedward et al., 2003; Laurent, 1986). Entrepreneurial training initiatives developed in the United States and Western Europe to be used in new ventures in the eastern European countries are usually based on management theories developed in the west (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003). This assumption can certainly simplify the process, however, it does not cover all aspects of program development. In recognizing the need for educational preparations with cultural backgrounds for practicing managers, business programs have started including courses in international business, cross-cultural management and international strategy. Entire degree programs in international management are being established to familiarize students with culture, language, business practices and management within contextual studies in economics, politics, psychology and sociology. It is important that these programs do not simply suggest that cultural differences are influential in management, but must discuss what these differences actually are and how these can be used for effective organizational advantage (Egan &Bendick, 2008).
'East' and 'West' Views of Knowledge Cohen (1998) developed a comparison of knowledge perceptions for 'U.S.Japanese' groupings which he later extended, with some reservation, to represent a larger contrast between 'east' and 'west' views of knowledge. The study identified the differences in the perception of knowledge management in American versus Japanese organizations. Whereas the 'west' emphasized the re-use of explicit knowledge and the management of projects and markets, the 'east' focused on the creation of tacit knowledge and the management of cultures and communities (Cohen, 1998). Speaking from an organizational perspective, De Long and Fahey (2000) argue that cultures that are more inclined to rewarding creativity develop differing patterns of interaction around knowledge than cultures that uncover and leverage existing knowledge. Andriessen (2006) conducted an in-depth analysis of the metaphorical conceptualizations of knowledge within the research conducted by Davenport and Prusak (1998), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and Stewart (1991) and he came to the conclusion that western management thinking used 'substance' metaphors whilst the Japanese used 'knowledge as thoughts and feelings' metaphors. The Japanese view knowledge as socially constructed intuition and
55
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
values, involving emotion and not simply as codifiable data that can be stored within information systems (Takeuchi, 2001). Japanese managers recognize that the creation of knowledge is more than information processing; it depends on accessing tacit knowledge, subjective insights, ideals, and intuitions of organizational members (Nonaka, 1991). The American knowledge management approach emphasizes and focuses on the development and implementation of ICT systems for the collection, manipulation, storage, transmission and deployment of explicit knowledge. This contrasts with the Japanese perspective that knowledge management initiatives are focused on social processes where tacit knowledge is shared to create new knowledge. Because of the inability of these ICT systems to fully capture tacit knowledge, these social processes are increasingly becoming the focus of knowledge management implementations (Bhardwaj & Monin, 2006). Ang and Massingham (2007) connect these concepts to individualism and collectivism - western (individualistic) cultures prefer to read whilst eastern (collectivistic) cultures prefer to talk. These concepts are in concord with the research of Redding (1980) that links western society with analytical thinking and focusing on sequential links between cause and effect: the eastern approach being more intuitive and one that considers the universe as being a system of interdependent parts. Western societies are likely to use ICT's for knowledge exchange whereas eastern societies rely more on informal discussion and networks (Desouza & Evaristo, 2003). Cultural influences also play a central role in the predilection towards the acceptance and use of ICT's (Straub, 1994). The western knowledge management literature has a tendency to conceptualize knowledge as a physical manifestation or a 'substance' 'whereas the eastern literature views it as part of a process (Andriessen & van den Boom, 2007). This leads to western managers, with their historically positivist perspectives, to become uncomfortable with abstract and dynamic concepts linked with thoughts and feelings (Beamish &Armistead, 2001). Refer to Table 1 for Cohen's comparison of American versus Japanese concepts of knowledge management. Table 1 exemplifies the traditional differences in eastern and western views regarding knowledge management. With the east focusing more on tacit knowledge, and the west on explicit knowledge, the more individualistic and concrete methodology of the traditional western view becomes evident against the more collectivist, communitarian, and abstract eastern methods.
56
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Table 1: U.S.-Japanese Contrast on Knowledge View (Adapted from Cohen, 1998) West (American) Focus on Explicit Knowledge Re-Use Knowledge Projects Knowledge Markets Management and Measurement Near-Term Gains East (Japanese) Focus on Tacit Knowledge Creation Knowledge Cultures Knowledge Communities Nurturing and Love Long-Term Advantage
Table 2: Metaphors for Knowledge in 'East' and 'West' (Adapted from Andriessen and van den Boom, 2007 Origin Dominant Metaphors Western Literature Knowledge as a thing that can be controlled and manipulated. Knowledge as information that can be codified, stored, accessed and used. Knowledge as resource that can be created, stored, shared, located, or moved, as that is part of the input-throughput-output system of the organization. Knowledge as capital that can be valued, capitalized and measured; that is part of the financial flow and requires a return on investment. Knowledge as thoughts or feelings that is tacit but can be made explicit; that can be communicated and shared. Asian Philosophy Knowledge as spirit and wisdom. Knowledge as unfolding of truth. Unity of universe and human self. Unity of knowledge and action. Knowledge as illumination or enlightenment of an underlying, deeper reality. Knowledge as essence-less and nothingness (Japan). Knowledge creation as a continuous, self-transcending process.
57
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Table 2 summarizes Andriessen's and van den Boom's comparison of metaphors for knowledge in the 'east' and 'west'.Elements of the Cohen (1998) and Andriessen and van den Boom (2007) comparison of knowledge management perspectives between 'east' and 'west' are validated by Hofstede (1980, 2001). Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) also validate the cultural dimensions of individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and long-term orientation. Individualist cultures, having a proclivity towards low-context communication, are more inclined to focus on knowledge as an explicit attribute of a phenomenon (Möller & Svahn, 2004). Collectivist-inclined cultures, like Japan are more comfortable with high-context communication where information must be interpreted through the cultural context (Usunier, 1996); leaning toward the exchange and interpretation of tacit knowledge. This would correspond to Cohen's statements that the 'west' focuses on explicit knowledge and the 'east' on tacit knowledge and Andriessen's (2006) 'substance' versus 'thoughts and feelings', respectively. Japan originally scored high on the Hofstede long-term orientation index indicating perseverance toward goals that could take some time to come to fruition. Similarly, the top five long-term orientation index countries were China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. The nearest eastern European country was Hungary, followed by Denmark from the original EU-15. All other 'western' countries originally scored significantly towards short-term orientation pole in the long-term orientation index. However, this researcher has determined a divergence between Cohen's (1998) assertion that western societies focus on knowledge 're-use' and eastern societies on knowledge 'creation' when related to the Hofstede's (1980, 2001) uncertainty avoidance index. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) revealed that national cultures that score high on the uncertainty avoidance index have shown to be better at implementation than invention. Conversely, low uncertainty avoidance cultures are better at invention, and lacking on implementation. If we define invention as the creation of something that did not exist previously, whether it is an idea or an object, this poses an interesting paradox. With Japan scoring very high on the uncertainty avoidance index, Hofstede and Hofstede made the statement that 'Britain has produced more Nobel Prize winners than Japan, but Japan has put more new products on the market'. Great Britain was rated low on the uncertainty avoidance index. In a study of patent processes across 33 countries, Shane (1992) determined that individualistic and non-hierarchal societies are more innovative and inventive than collectivistic societies with high power distance. This study would certainly correlate with Hofstede and Hofstede regarding statements made about Britain; Britain being very individualistic with low power distance. Countries that are more individualistic and egalitarian may be better choices for research
58
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
and development investment by multinational organizations (Shane, 1992). Cohen's application of the term 're-use' versus 'creation' or the concept of 'innovation' versus 'invention' may be in some need of attention and clarification in future studies; and a distinction may have to be made regarding process versus tangible outcomes. Masculinity-femininity is an interesting aspect when taken into consideration for knowledge sharing in the Japanese context. Low masculinity-femininity scores suggest femininity and indicate an orientation towards social interaction, preference for group decisions and harmonious working across groups. Cohen's (1998) study contrasting Japanese 'nurturing and love' to the American 'management and measurement' are dimensions of femininity versus masculinity, respectively. Japan originally ranked as the most masculine of all the countries in the IBM dataset. This places Cohen's statements in an interesting paradox. For this suggests the possibility that Japanese high-context communication and tacit knowledge transfer is oriented towards Japanese in-groups such as a working team, organization or grouping of organizations within an industry. Japan has been viewed as a 'network society' fostering business networks known as keiretsu (Ibata-Arens, 2004). It is possible that the Japanese view larger units of analysis as in-groups and this would be a unique characteristic of the Japanese culture. It is difficult to determine at what level collectivism ends and femininity begins or at what point uncertainty avoidance encourages group decisions and required social interaction within and across groups. In the high uncertainty avoidance category, Japan ranked among the highest. There is also the possibility that long-term orientation may influence the level of networking and social interaction; long-term goals requiring patience and the development, wanted or unwanted, of long-term relationships to see these goals through.
East' and 'West' Views Refined Zhu (2004) takes Cohen's (1998) comparison and extends it to include a more detailed and discriminating comparison of Japanese, American, European and Chinese approaches to epistemology and knowledge management. Characterized as an individual's consistent approach to organizing and processing information (Tennant, 1988); the international differences in cognitive style have been traditionally seen as an east-west dichotomy (Allinson & Hayes, 2000). Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston and Triandis (2002) extend this concept further by stating that there are strong interactions between cultural patterns and cognitive styles. By separating the 'west' into American and European styles and the 'east' into Japanese and Chinese, Zhu (2004) demonstrated a significant divergence in some areas. He based his comparison
59
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
of knowledge management styles on various publications from Zack (1999), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Blackler and MacDonald (2000) and Zhu (2001). Calori and de Woot (1994) have placed European management between the Japanese and the American; although Fink and Holden (2007) believe that this diverts attention from its uniqueness and establishes invalid comparisons and stereotypes. Table 3 gives a comparison of American, Japanese, European and Chinese knowledge management styles. Table 3: Connecting and Contrasting Knowledge Management Styles (Adapted from Zhu, 2004)
American I succeed, therefore I am Performance-ism Knowledge as resource Knowledge base Knowledge economy Near-term gains Explicit-objectified knowledge Leverage Re-using Rationality Technology Markets Japanese I love, therefore I am Groupism Knowledge as relationship Knowledge company Knowledge culture Long-term advantage Tacit-subject ive knowledge Creation Converting Vision / emotion Trust-care Socialization European I practice, therefore I am (de-) Constructivism Knowledge power Knowledge agent Knowledge discourse Legitimacy Situated-constructe d knowledge Politicization Enacting Identity / meaning Participation Negotiation Chinese I learn, therefore I am Pragmatism as Knowledge virtue Knowledge life Knowledge governance Kingliness-sageline ss Useful-workable knowledge Integration Contextualizing Wuli: Material-technical Shili: Psycho-cognitive Renli: Socio-political The Master is free from four negatives Zhu (2001), What is to be managed: knowledge, knowing or knower, and does it matter? as
Motto
Mentality Ideal-type
Embodimen t Mechanism Aim Focus
Strategy Process Means
Metaphor
Picking hanging fruit
low
Examples
Zack (1999), Managing codifies knowledge
Nurturing an originating ba Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company
Stories making
in
the
Blackler & McDonald (2000), Power, mastery and organizational learning
60
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
The eastern and western ideals on knowledge management are again illuminated through metaphors. The western metaphor represents success through the use of knowledge as a resource, whereas eastern metaphors view knowledge as a long-term process that leads to both success and personal fulfillment. Once again, these views representing the differences in the western focus on explicit knowledge and the eastern focus on tacit, abstract knowledge. This research finds the descriptions in Table 3 as somewhat general in the European category since it does not explicitly mention the countries or regions in Europe. This can vary significantly, especially from western to eastern Europe; as confirmed by Hofstede's original study and historical reality. The identification and broad definition of a general European management style can prove to be problematic as one becomes caught up within various historical, cultural, linguistic and ideological perspectives that influence individuals and organizations at multiple levels of analysis (Fink & Holden, 2007). Although generally applied across contexts and cultures, Glisby and Holden (2003) argue that the Socialization-Externalization-Combination-Internalization (SECI) Model of Knowledge Conversion was developed in a Japanese management context and as such is not necessarily applicable to non-Japanese organizations. By extension, this would place the development and implementation of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in the context of Japanese national cultural values and potentially disqualify it from the universality of application across cultural boundaries without modifications. Hofstede (1980, 2001) and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) espoused that organizational culture is interconnected with national culture. Based on this premise, this would allow for national culture to significantly influence human resources, general management practices, organizational behavior and knowledge management within discrete national organizations. Webber (1969) also stated that cultural factors can influence organizational behavior and management. Thus, macro-environmental elements encroach upon factors internal to the organization and influence its operation (Moffett, McAdam, & Parkinson, 2003). Cultures within organizations in Japan are influenced on the macro level by Japanese national culture, priming them for the adoption of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion with minimal adaptation. Organizational culture would therefore refer to the norms and perspectives that are rooted within a specific organization, however, influenced significantly by the national culture. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion, having been developed within a Japanese national cultural setting, necessitates the use or understanding of Japanese management practices and cultural values to achieve full effectiveness (Glisby & Holden, 2003). Other cultures may not share the assumptions made
61
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
by North American management theories (Allinson & Hayes, 2000; Laurent, 1986; Yoo et al., 1999). Nisbett, Peng, Choi and Norenzayan (2001) found eastern Asians to be more holistic whilst relying on dialectical reasoning, whereas westerners are more analytical, utilizing categories, rules and formal logic to understand behavior. This underpins the assertion of Aharoni and Burton (1994), Hutchings and Michailova (2007), Laurent (1986), Liebenau and Smithson (1991), and Maruyama (1990) regarding the ineffectiveness of generalities and of unquestioningly copying managerial methods developed in other countries that may not be compatible with local culture. De Long and Fahey (2000) even state that any discussion of knowledge within an organizational setting that does not take culture into consideration is likely to be misleading. Holden (2001) and Pauleen, Wu and Dexter (2004) observed that there is little published research on the subject of knowledge management across cross-cultural dimensions; although Fink, Holden and Lehmann (2007), Kaminska-Labbé and Thomas (2007), and Hutchings and Michailova (2007) reinvigorated the theme with specific research into knowledge management in the central and eastern European transition economies from a cross-cultural perspective. Ang and Massingham (2007) were the first to specifically examine standardization versus adaptation of knowledge management within the context of national culture in multinational organizations; standardization referring to a common approach versus the different approach in each market view of adaptation Schulte and Kim (2007) compared cultural collectivism to knowledge management perceptions between Taiwanese and American workers. Ralston, Holt, Terpstra and Kai-Cheng (2008) delved into the socio-cultural and economic ideologies (workplace philosophies) of western and eastern societies using the United States, Japan, Russia and China as examples , and found distinct differences in individual versus group-oriented culture and individual versus grouporiented ideologies. Regardless of the underlying deep-rooted reasons for cross-national differences in cognitive style, the implications are important for management practitioners and caution must be exercised when transferring management practices between nations (Allinson & Hayes, 2000; Hutchings & Michailova, 2007); otherwise managerial assumptions in one nation or society may be misinterpreted in another. This misinterpretation may be counter-productive when used within the new cultural context (Frost & Walker, 2007; Usoro & Kuofie, 2006). As a proactive measure, scientific sampling of cultural groups may allow for the identification and assessment of potential boundaries for the applicability of management science theories and practices to practical organizational realities (Aharoni & Burton, 1994; Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002; Perlaki, 1994).
62
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Although similar physical ICT-based knowledge management systems may be shared across nations, languages and cultures (Liew, 2007); the meaning of information and the effectiveness of information systems can vary significantly across these national cultures (Heier & Borgman, 2002). In an extensive seven-year, five-culture study of the influence of national culture on knowledge management in virtual teams, Vogel, Rutkowski and van Genuchten (2007) determined that different national cultures have differing preferences and usage patterns of knowledge management technologies. Ford, Connelly and Meister (2003) conducted a comprehensive citation analysis that examined areas of information systems research that utilized Hofstede's five dimensions of national culture and examined how this research was used to develop hypotheses and propositions within the information systems field. The research examined 57 articles across 22 journals between 1980 and 1999 in the field of information systems and summarized the contribution of each cultural dimension within a specific management category. The summaries were interpreted and extracted from the individual articles as they related to the field of information systems. Table 4 shows illustrates the dimensions and categories and their cultural impacts with the objective of this research endeavor for extending and applying these items into the field of global knowledge management.
Table 4: Summary of Cultural Dimensions and their Relation to Management (Adapted from Ford et al., 2003)
CATEGORY Organizational Architecture SUMMARY OF CULTURAL IMPACTS Higher power distance results in top-down management directives Higher uncertainty avoidance results in senior management delegating implementation roles to lower-level employees in the organizational hierarchy Collectivism results in easier initiation of projects and risk taking, yet implementation of projects is more difficult Participative planning is not appropriate in higher power distance cultures Cultures with higher uncertainty avoidance experience higher resistance to technological changes within the organization Higher power distance emphasizes professionalism and expertise Lower power distance results in enhanced client/customer participation Female professionals are more collectivistic than male professionals Higher power distance results in less adoption of power-reducing technologies (i.e. discussion forums)
Technology Planning
Human Resources
Technology Transfer
63
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Technology Integration Globalization Technology Technology Development Operations
of
and
Technology Usage
Information Systems
Higher collectivism results in importance being placed on voluntarism in technology adoption Collectivism results in technologies with low social presence and information richness having limited adoption Individualistic cultures will have more varied information technology infrastructures and applications Higher power distance results in technology being seen as less necessary for decentralization with more emphasis placed on the organizational hierarchy Higher power distance results in management controlling projects more, with less participation of end-users Higher uncertainty avoidance results in more focus on automation of and outsourcing of technology, with less access to technology for the organization internally Higher uncertainty avoidance results in the requirement for high-context information technology (i.e. information richness and user friendliness) Higher power distance results in technology becoming a greater equalizer within the organization Formal rules are required for technology use in higher uncertainly avoidance cultures Higher masculinity will result in more conflict in discussion forums and meeting spaces Higher femininity will result in increased anonymous participation in discussion forums and meeting spaces due to preference for conflict avoidance Short-term oriented cultures will be focused more on face-saving than achieving objectives
Hofstede's five dimensions of national culture can help to explain certain traits, behaviors, beliefs, and values in other countries as they pertain to the workplace, which can be of vital importance in the field of management. These cultural dimensions vary widely with respect to eastern and western views, which is why they have critical management implications as different people and cultures respond uniquely to different motivational factors and workplace collaborations. In the case mentioned above, Hofstede's dimensions are examined in different categories relating to the management field.
64
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Conclusions General management and knowledge management theories and practices have to be viewed and reviewed in the context of local cultures. In an organization, the managers bring values, experiences and beliefs that are profoundly rooted in their national cultures; which form personal reference frames (Frost & Walker, 2007). Even the perspective of what management actually entails varies widely across different national cultures (Laurent, 1983). The blind adoption of western knowledge management practices may indeed be problematic. A more thorough understanding and appreciation of local cultures, its perception of epistemology and knowledge management are necessary to adapt to existing practices or to create new ones. Therefore knowledge management initiatives designed to improve organizational performance should incorporate cultural factors to avoid missteps resulting from lack of cultural understanding and awareness (Jennex & Zakharova, 2006). Much of the literature on knowledge management suggests a standardized approach to international knowledge management (Ang & Massingham, 2007). Drawing upon Hofstede's (1980, 2001) research, since knowledge is not shared as freely within certain cultures as others, a standardized approach to the design and deployment of organizational knowledge management initiatives must be avoided and a knowledge management initiative tempered and modified to local culture should be adopted. Kuznetsov and Yakavenka (2005) make a strong case for the shared socio-cultural factors that are required for the effective transfer of knowledge to take place, especially through multiple levels of codification and de-codification. The tacit foundation of Japanese management practices and the free and encouraged exchange of knowledge within Japanese organizations may not necessarily find a compatible home within North American organizations or organizations within other western countries (Glisby & Holden, 2003; May, Puffer, & McCarthy, 2005). Though the 'west' view holds merit in the context of those countries to have a true understanding of the dimensions that are often adopted in Hofstede's model, we need to recognize views other than those in the 'west'. New literature, such as the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) studies and this discussion, has recognized these limitations. Additional studies must be undertaken to have a thorough understanding of the contextual variables and the dynamics that develops. Without new and different perspectives from the traditional and accepted frameworks, such as Hofstede's dimensions, organizations cannot leverage the strengths of the global economy, which can make the difference between survival and success for today's firms.
65
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
References Aharoni, Y., & Burton, R. M. (1994). Is management science international: In search of universal rules. Management Science, 40(1), 1 - 3. Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2000). Cross-national differences in cognitive style: Implications for management. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 11(1), 161 - 170. Andriessen, D. (2006). On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: A textual analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 93 - 110. Andriessen, D., & van de Boom, M. (2007). East is East, and West is West, and
ever its intellectual capital shall meet. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 641 - 652. Ang, Z., & Massingham, P. (2007). National culture and the standardization versus adaptation of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 5 - 21. Ardichvili, A., & Gasparishvili, A. (2003). Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs: A study of value differences. Organization Studies, 24(1), 29 - 46. Beamish, N. G., & Armistead, C. G. (2001). Selected debate from the arena of knowledge management: New endorsements for establishing organizational practices. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(2), 101 - 111. Bedward, D., Jankowicz, D., & Rexworthy, C. (2003). East meets west: A case example of knowledge transfer. Human Resource Development International, 6(4), 527 - 545. Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204 - 221. Bhardwaj, M., & Monin, J. (2006). Tacit to explicit: an interplay shaping organization knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 72 - 85. Blackler, F., & McDonald, S. (2000). Power, mastery and organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies 37(6), 833 - 852. Calori, R., & de Woot, P. (1994). A European management model: Beyond diversity. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead. Chow, C. W., Deng, F. J., & Ho, J. L. (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, 65 - 95. Cohen, D. (1998). Toward a knowledge context: Report on the first annual U.C. Berkeley forum on knowledge and the firm. California Management Review, 30(3), 22 - 39. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge - how organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
66
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113 - 128. Desouza, K., & Evaristo, R. (2003). Global knowledge management strategies. European Management Journal, 21(1), 62 - 67. Egan, M. L., & Bendick, M. (2008). Combining multicultural management and diversity into one course on cultural competence. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 387 - 393. Fink, G., & Holden, N. (2007). Introduction. European Journal of International Management, 1(1/2), 4 - 13. Fink, G., Holden, N., & Lehmann, M. (2007). Survival by subversion in former socialist economies: Tacit knowledge exchange at the workplace. In K. Hutchings, & K. Mohannak (Eds.), Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach (pp. 35 - 51). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Ford, D. P., Connelly, C. E., & Meister, D. B. (2003). Information systems research and Hofstede's Cultures Consequences: An uneasy and incomplete partnership. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(1), 8 - 25. Frost, J., & Walker, M. (2007). Cross cultural leadership. Engineering Management, 17(3), 27 - 29. Glisby, M., & Holden, N. (2003). Contextual constraints in knowledge management theory: The cultural embeddedness of Nonaka's knowledge-creating company. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(1), 29 - 36. Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World Business, 37, 11 - 15. Heier, H., & Borgman, H. P. (2002). Knowledge management systems spanning cultures: The case of deutsche banks hrbase. In Xth European Conference on Information Systems ECIS, Gdansk, Poland. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations - second edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, second edition. New York: McGraw Hill. Holden, N. (2001). Knowledge management: Raising the spectre of the cross-cultural dimension. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(3), 155 - 163. Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2007). Re-examining knowledge sharing in an intercultural context: Findings from the transition economies of China and Russia. In K. Hutchings, & K. Mohannak (Eds.), Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach (pp. 72 90).
67
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Ibata-Arens, K. C. (2004). Alternatives to hierarchy in Japan: Business networks and civic entrepreneurship. Asian Business & Management, 3(3), 315 335. Jankowicz, A. D. (1994). The new journey to Jerusalem: Mission and meaning in the managerial crusade to eastern Europe. Organization Studies, 15(4), 479 507. Jennex, M. E., & Zakharova, I. (2006). Culture, context, and knowledge management. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), i - v. Kaminska-Labbé, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). Fostering learning to build new competencies in times of deconstruction: Lessons from Polish ex-socialist firms. In K. Hutchings, & K. Mohannak (Eds.), Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach (pp. 52 - 71). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Kuznetsov, A., & Yakavenka, H. (2005). Barriers to the absorption of management knowledge in Belarus. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(7), 566 - 577. Laurent, A. (1983). The cultural diversity of western conceptions of management. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13(1/2), 75 - 96. Laurent, A. (1986). The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resources management. Human Resources Management, 25(1), 91 - 102. Liebenau, J., & Smithson, S. (1991). Editorial. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 1 - 2. Liew, C. L. (2007). From concept to context: toward socio-cultural responsibility in the organization of knowledge. In D. J. Pauleen (Ed.), Crosscultural perspectives on knowledge management (pp. 81 - 94). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited. Marr, B., Gupta, O., Pike, S., & Roos, G. (2003). Intellectual capital and knowledge management effectiveness. Management Decision, 41(8), 771 - 781. Maruyama, M. (1990). Some management considerations in the economic reorganization of Eastern Europe. Academy of Management Executive, 4(2), 90 - 91. Mason, R. M. (2003). Culture-free or culture-bound? A boundary spanning perspective on learning in knowledge management systems. Journal of Global Information Management, 11(4), 20 - 36. May, R. C., Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2005). Transferring management knowledge to Russia: A culturally based approach. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 24 - 35. Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2003). An empirical analysis of knowledge management applications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 6 - 26.
68
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Möller, K., & Svahn, S. (2004). Crossing east-west boundaries: Knowledge sharing in intercultural business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 219 - 228. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291 - 310. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 96 - 104. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation . New York: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5 34. Pauleen, D. J., Wu, L., & Dexter, S. (2th004). Knowledge Management through a Cultural Looking Glass. 12 Annual Cross-Cultural Research in Information Systems Meeting, Washington D.C. Perlaki, I. (1994). Organizational development in Eastern Europe: Learning to build culture-specific OD theories. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(3), 297 - 312. Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., & Kai-Cheng, Y. (2008). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), 8 - 26. Redding, S. G. (1980). Cognition as an aspect of culture and its relation to management processes: An exploratory view of the Chinese case. Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 127 - 148. Schulte, W. D., & Kim, Y. K. (2007). Collectivism and expected benefits of knowledge management: A comparison of Taiwanese and US perceptions. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 17(1/2), 109 - 117. Shane, S. A. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 29 - 46. Stewart, T. A. (1991). Brainpower: How intellectual capital is becoming America's most valuable asset. Fortune Magazine, June 3,44 - 60. Straub, D. W. (1994). The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-Mail and FAX in Japan and the U.S. Information Systems Research, 5(1), 23 - 47. Takeuchi, H. (2001). Towards a universal management concept of knowledge. In I. Nonaka, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Managing industrial knowledge - creation, transfer and utilization (pp. 315 - 335). London: SAGE Publications. Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.
69
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Usoro, A., & Kuofie, M. H. S. (2006). Conceptualisation of cultural dimensions as a major influence on knowledge sharing. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 16 - 25. Usunier, J.-C. (1996). Marketing across culture . London: Prentice Hall Europe. Vogel, D., Rutkowski, A-F., & van Genuchten, M. (2007). The influence of national culture on knowledge management in virtual teams. In D. J. Pauleen (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on knowledge management (pp. 111 - 133). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited. Webber, R. A. (1969). Convergence or divergence? Columbia Journal of World Business, 4(3), 75 - 83. Yoo, Y., Ginzberg, M. J., & Ahn, J. H. (1999). A cross-cultural investigation oth f the use of knowledge management systems. Proceedings of the 20 International Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems. Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45 - 58. Zhu, Z. (2001). What is to be managed: Knowledge, knowing or knower and does it really matter?. In Z. Wang, Y. Nakamori, J. Gu, & Y. Dang (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on knowledge and systems science. Dalian, China: Dalian University of Technology. Zhu, Z. (2004). Knowledge management: Towards a universal concept or cross-cultural contexts? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2(2), 67 - 79.
doc_277192597.docx
Case Study on Knowledge Management Views in Eastern and Western Cultures:- Knowledge Management Views in Eastern and Western Cultures
Case Study on Knowledge Management Views in Eastern and Western Cultures
Abstract
Traditional eastern and western views of knowledge continue to influence the knowledge management practices in today's global workplace. Based on these views, several dominant theories have emerged on how to best manage in the international work environment. This research illustrates contradictions in these theories and extracts a new perspective from the dynamic literature stream. This innovative perspective provides an opportunity to leverage cultures and relationships holistically for effective knowledge transfer and cross-cultural understanding, and hence for effective management Keywords: Knowledge, Culture, International Management, Knowledge Management, Hofstede Framework
Introduction The globalization of markets and production continues to bring together people from different cultures and countries in culturally diverse organizations. In the field of international management, it is important not only to recognize these diversities, but it is also vital to understand the cultural differences for the purpose of connecting with and motivating knowledge workers. Traditionally, these cultural distinctions have been classified into 'eastern' and 'western' views that widely vary with respect to workplace activities and, more specifically, with respect to knowledge management. With the 'western' view being more focused on explicit knowledge and tangible individualistic motivational factors, and the 'eastern' view on tacit knowledge and abstract workplace principles; it becomes evident that management of these different cultural perspectives is becoming increasingly complex yet critical in the global workplace. An understanding of these differing views is therefore necessary for effective management in the international sphere, specifically for providing a means for better cross-cultural understanding and successful knowledge transfer.
52
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Knowledge Management in Cross-Cultural Contexts The predominant theories of knowledge management anchor the 'western view' and 'eastern view' on epistemology and knowledge management on opposite poles. .The opposing views themselves do not pose an issue, rather the perspectives in which they were derived, do. This section outlines and discusses some of the characteristics of each view. The North American and European perspectives have generally been associated with the 'western view', and a significant portion of the literature is based on these perspectives (Yoo, Ginzberg, & Ahn, 1999. The western view itself may be prone to bias based on the diversity of the European population as compared to the relative cultural homogeneity of the English-speaking North American population. Based on Hofstede's (1980, 2001) and Hofstede and Hofstede's (2005) cultural analysis of organizations in Europe, the general 'western grouping' in literature does not address or treat the uniqueness and ongoing dynamics of the European expansion and the integration of the central and eastern European countries into the European Union (EU). European management is in a state of flux with the absorption of multiple countries with a socialist and collectivist heritage that indeed may influence the original EU countries as much as these countries will influence the new eastern members (Fink & Holden, 2007). Treating Asian countries as a holistic singular reference group is also prone to bias based on the sheer number of countries and cultures in Southeast Asia that developed over the millennia. With the ongoing importance of Asian counties due to the progression of globalization, this field of inquiry merits close attention. Also as the global economy grows in importance, to ignore these issues would be problematic for the survival of a business entity in today's integrated world economy. There is a preponderance of knowledge-sharing studies that have been conducted in Anglo-American settings or presuppositions. Therefore these studies may be subject to certain behavioral assumptions or ethnocentric biases (Chow, Deng, & Ho, 2000; Mason, 2003). The literature on knowledge management and intellectual capital within the western world is extensive whilst the same literature in the nonwestern world, especially in the English language, is limited (Andriessen & van de Boom, 2007). Much reliance has been placedupon American management practices and theories within countries with different societal conditions and mental programming (Hofstede, 2001). This may lead to much misunderstanding and angst for researchers and practitioners in the management science field.
53
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
In order to develop an effective system of knowledge management within an organization, it is important to understand the way individuals perceive knowledge. (Marr, Gupta, Pike, & Roos, 2003). In relation to knowledge management and the globalization of markets and production, organizations conducting business across countries may need to modify their practices to accommodate unique organizational and member perceptions in those nations (Schulte & Kim, 2007). As cultural implications have been found to have varying effects on the transfer of management knowledge, particularly regarding tacit and explicit knowledge, Webber (1969) an early pioneer of culture and management, argued that despite the spread of managerial philosophies and practical implementations, convergence in these areas will be slow. Jankowicz (1994) suggested that the problems of transfer from the west to the east are not necessarily about knowledge, but about meaning. This is philosophically linked to Nonaka, Toyama and Konno's (2000) inference that without tacit insight, explicit knowledge quickly loses its meaning and interactions between both tacit and explicit elements are therefore needed for effective knowledge transfer. Management systems and educational training packages are predominantly developed in countries that rank towards the individualistic pole on the Hofstede individualism-collectivism index and include the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany among others. Therefore, based on the cultural assumptions; these systems may not be effective in collectivist cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree and its curriculum is one of the primary management qualifications developed in the US is a case in point. Being located at the juncture of management and academia, this program along with the cultural assumptions associated with it has spread throughout the world. However the application of these programs differs from one country to another. For example, in the former communist countries , management topics within an MBA degree program were approached from a 'skills' perspective and participation-based practical relevance, rather than a purely conceptual and theoretical materials model (Bedward, Jankowicz, & Rexworthy, 2003). ). In exploring the factors impeding the transfer of management knowledge to Eastern European transition economies, Kuznetsov and Yakavenka (2005) delved into the translation of western management textbooks into the Russian language to be used in a Belarusian context. The study found that the professors utilizing the textbooks could not attach meaningful context to the codified information presented in the textbooks due to a lack of understanding of the contextual background of the original books. Jankowicz (1994) provides an
54
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
excellent and thorough overview of the differences in meaning and interpretation between the Polish languages and cultures in the context of management perceptions and managerial education. Oftentimes, the management approaches developed in one culture are just assumed to be valid in another by those developing them (Bedward et al., 2003; Laurent, 1986). Entrepreneurial training initiatives developed in the United States and Western Europe to be used in new ventures in the eastern European countries are usually based on management theories developed in the west (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003). This assumption can certainly simplify the process, however, it does not cover all aspects of program development. In recognizing the need for educational preparations with cultural backgrounds for practicing managers, business programs have started including courses in international business, cross-cultural management and international strategy. Entire degree programs in international management are being established to familiarize students with culture, language, business practices and management within contextual studies in economics, politics, psychology and sociology. It is important that these programs do not simply suggest that cultural differences are influential in management, but must discuss what these differences actually are and how these can be used for effective organizational advantage (Egan &Bendick, 2008).
'East' and 'West' Views of Knowledge Cohen (1998) developed a comparison of knowledge perceptions for 'U.S.Japanese' groupings which he later extended, with some reservation, to represent a larger contrast between 'east' and 'west' views of knowledge. The study identified the differences in the perception of knowledge management in American versus Japanese organizations. Whereas the 'west' emphasized the re-use of explicit knowledge and the management of projects and markets, the 'east' focused on the creation of tacit knowledge and the management of cultures and communities (Cohen, 1998). Speaking from an organizational perspective, De Long and Fahey (2000) argue that cultures that are more inclined to rewarding creativity develop differing patterns of interaction around knowledge than cultures that uncover and leverage existing knowledge. Andriessen (2006) conducted an in-depth analysis of the metaphorical conceptualizations of knowledge within the research conducted by Davenport and Prusak (1998), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and Stewart (1991) and he came to the conclusion that western management thinking used 'substance' metaphors whilst the Japanese used 'knowledge as thoughts and feelings' metaphors. The Japanese view knowledge as socially constructed intuition and
55
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
values, involving emotion and not simply as codifiable data that can be stored within information systems (Takeuchi, 2001). Japanese managers recognize that the creation of knowledge is more than information processing; it depends on accessing tacit knowledge, subjective insights, ideals, and intuitions of organizational members (Nonaka, 1991). The American knowledge management approach emphasizes and focuses on the development and implementation of ICT systems for the collection, manipulation, storage, transmission and deployment of explicit knowledge. This contrasts with the Japanese perspective that knowledge management initiatives are focused on social processes where tacit knowledge is shared to create new knowledge. Because of the inability of these ICT systems to fully capture tacit knowledge, these social processes are increasingly becoming the focus of knowledge management implementations (Bhardwaj & Monin, 2006). Ang and Massingham (2007) connect these concepts to individualism and collectivism - western (individualistic) cultures prefer to read whilst eastern (collectivistic) cultures prefer to talk. These concepts are in concord with the research of Redding (1980) that links western society with analytical thinking and focusing on sequential links between cause and effect: the eastern approach being more intuitive and one that considers the universe as being a system of interdependent parts. Western societies are likely to use ICT's for knowledge exchange whereas eastern societies rely more on informal discussion and networks (Desouza & Evaristo, 2003). Cultural influences also play a central role in the predilection towards the acceptance and use of ICT's (Straub, 1994). The western knowledge management literature has a tendency to conceptualize knowledge as a physical manifestation or a 'substance' 'whereas the eastern literature views it as part of a process (Andriessen & van den Boom, 2007). This leads to western managers, with their historically positivist perspectives, to become uncomfortable with abstract and dynamic concepts linked with thoughts and feelings (Beamish &Armistead, 2001). Refer to Table 1 for Cohen's comparison of American versus Japanese concepts of knowledge management. Table 1 exemplifies the traditional differences in eastern and western views regarding knowledge management. With the east focusing more on tacit knowledge, and the west on explicit knowledge, the more individualistic and concrete methodology of the traditional western view becomes evident against the more collectivist, communitarian, and abstract eastern methods.
56
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Table 1: U.S.-Japanese Contrast on Knowledge View (Adapted from Cohen, 1998) West (American) Focus on Explicit Knowledge Re-Use Knowledge Projects Knowledge Markets Management and Measurement Near-Term Gains East (Japanese) Focus on Tacit Knowledge Creation Knowledge Cultures Knowledge Communities Nurturing and Love Long-Term Advantage
Table 2: Metaphors for Knowledge in 'East' and 'West' (Adapted from Andriessen and van den Boom, 2007 Origin Dominant Metaphors Western Literature Knowledge as a thing that can be controlled and manipulated. Knowledge as information that can be codified, stored, accessed and used. Knowledge as resource that can be created, stored, shared, located, or moved, as that is part of the input-throughput-output system of the organization. Knowledge as capital that can be valued, capitalized and measured; that is part of the financial flow and requires a return on investment. Knowledge as thoughts or feelings that is tacit but can be made explicit; that can be communicated and shared. Asian Philosophy Knowledge as spirit and wisdom. Knowledge as unfolding of truth. Unity of universe and human self. Unity of knowledge and action. Knowledge as illumination or enlightenment of an underlying, deeper reality. Knowledge as essence-less and nothingness (Japan). Knowledge creation as a continuous, self-transcending process.
57
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Table 2 summarizes Andriessen's and van den Boom's comparison of metaphors for knowledge in the 'east' and 'west'.Elements of the Cohen (1998) and Andriessen and van den Boom (2007) comparison of knowledge management perspectives between 'east' and 'west' are validated by Hofstede (1980, 2001). Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) also validate the cultural dimensions of individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and long-term orientation. Individualist cultures, having a proclivity towards low-context communication, are more inclined to focus on knowledge as an explicit attribute of a phenomenon (Möller & Svahn, 2004). Collectivist-inclined cultures, like Japan are more comfortable with high-context communication where information must be interpreted through the cultural context (Usunier, 1996); leaning toward the exchange and interpretation of tacit knowledge. This would correspond to Cohen's statements that the 'west' focuses on explicit knowledge and the 'east' on tacit knowledge and Andriessen's (2006) 'substance' versus 'thoughts and feelings', respectively. Japan originally scored high on the Hofstede long-term orientation index indicating perseverance toward goals that could take some time to come to fruition. Similarly, the top five long-term orientation index countries were China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. The nearest eastern European country was Hungary, followed by Denmark from the original EU-15. All other 'western' countries originally scored significantly towards short-term orientation pole in the long-term orientation index. However, this researcher has determined a divergence between Cohen's (1998) assertion that western societies focus on knowledge 're-use' and eastern societies on knowledge 'creation' when related to the Hofstede's (1980, 2001) uncertainty avoidance index. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) revealed that national cultures that score high on the uncertainty avoidance index have shown to be better at implementation than invention. Conversely, low uncertainty avoidance cultures are better at invention, and lacking on implementation. If we define invention as the creation of something that did not exist previously, whether it is an idea or an object, this poses an interesting paradox. With Japan scoring very high on the uncertainty avoidance index, Hofstede and Hofstede made the statement that 'Britain has produced more Nobel Prize winners than Japan, but Japan has put more new products on the market'. Great Britain was rated low on the uncertainty avoidance index. In a study of patent processes across 33 countries, Shane (1992) determined that individualistic and non-hierarchal societies are more innovative and inventive than collectivistic societies with high power distance. This study would certainly correlate with Hofstede and Hofstede regarding statements made about Britain; Britain being very individualistic with low power distance. Countries that are more individualistic and egalitarian may be better choices for research
58
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
and development investment by multinational organizations (Shane, 1992). Cohen's application of the term 're-use' versus 'creation' or the concept of 'innovation' versus 'invention' may be in some need of attention and clarification in future studies; and a distinction may have to be made regarding process versus tangible outcomes. Masculinity-femininity is an interesting aspect when taken into consideration for knowledge sharing in the Japanese context. Low masculinity-femininity scores suggest femininity and indicate an orientation towards social interaction, preference for group decisions and harmonious working across groups. Cohen's (1998) study contrasting Japanese 'nurturing and love' to the American 'management and measurement' are dimensions of femininity versus masculinity, respectively. Japan originally ranked as the most masculine of all the countries in the IBM dataset. This places Cohen's statements in an interesting paradox. For this suggests the possibility that Japanese high-context communication and tacit knowledge transfer is oriented towards Japanese in-groups such as a working team, organization or grouping of organizations within an industry. Japan has been viewed as a 'network society' fostering business networks known as keiretsu (Ibata-Arens, 2004). It is possible that the Japanese view larger units of analysis as in-groups and this would be a unique characteristic of the Japanese culture. It is difficult to determine at what level collectivism ends and femininity begins or at what point uncertainty avoidance encourages group decisions and required social interaction within and across groups. In the high uncertainty avoidance category, Japan ranked among the highest. There is also the possibility that long-term orientation may influence the level of networking and social interaction; long-term goals requiring patience and the development, wanted or unwanted, of long-term relationships to see these goals through.
East' and 'West' Views Refined Zhu (2004) takes Cohen's (1998) comparison and extends it to include a more detailed and discriminating comparison of Japanese, American, European and Chinese approaches to epistemology and knowledge management. Characterized as an individual's consistent approach to organizing and processing information (Tennant, 1988); the international differences in cognitive style have been traditionally seen as an east-west dichotomy (Allinson & Hayes, 2000). Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston and Triandis (2002) extend this concept further by stating that there are strong interactions between cultural patterns and cognitive styles. By separating the 'west' into American and European styles and the 'east' into Japanese and Chinese, Zhu (2004) demonstrated a significant divergence in some areas. He based his comparison
59
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
of knowledge management styles on various publications from Zack (1999), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Blackler and MacDonald (2000) and Zhu (2001). Calori and de Woot (1994) have placed European management between the Japanese and the American; although Fink and Holden (2007) believe that this diverts attention from its uniqueness and establishes invalid comparisons and stereotypes. Table 3 gives a comparison of American, Japanese, European and Chinese knowledge management styles. Table 3: Connecting and Contrasting Knowledge Management Styles (Adapted from Zhu, 2004)
American I succeed, therefore I am Performance-ism Knowledge as resource Knowledge base Knowledge economy Near-term gains Explicit-objectified knowledge Leverage Re-using Rationality Technology Markets Japanese I love, therefore I am Groupism Knowledge as relationship Knowledge company Knowledge culture Long-term advantage Tacit-subject ive knowledge Creation Converting Vision / emotion Trust-care Socialization European I practice, therefore I am (de-) Constructivism Knowledge power Knowledge agent Knowledge discourse Legitimacy Situated-constructe d knowledge Politicization Enacting Identity / meaning Participation Negotiation Chinese I learn, therefore I am Pragmatism as Knowledge virtue Knowledge life Knowledge governance Kingliness-sageline ss Useful-workable knowledge Integration Contextualizing Wuli: Material-technical Shili: Psycho-cognitive Renli: Socio-political The Master is free from four negatives Zhu (2001), What is to be managed: knowledge, knowing or knower, and does it matter? as
Motto
Mentality Ideal-type
Embodimen t Mechanism Aim Focus
Strategy Process Means
Metaphor
Picking hanging fruit
low
Examples
Zack (1999), Managing codifies knowledge
Nurturing an originating ba Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company
Stories making
in
the
Blackler & McDonald (2000), Power, mastery and organizational learning
60
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
The eastern and western ideals on knowledge management are again illuminated through metaphors. The western metaphor represents success through the use of knowledge as a resource, whereas eastern metaphors view knowledge as a long-term process that leads to both success and personal fulfillment. Once again, these views representing the differences in the western focus on explicit knowledge and the eastern focus on tacit, abstract knowledge. This research finds the descriptions in Table 3 as somewhat general in the European category since it does not explicitly mention the countries or regions in Europe. This can vary significantly, especially from western to eastern Europe; as confirmed by Hofstede's original study and historical reality. The identification and broad definition of a general European management style can prove to be problematic as one becomes caught up within various historical, cultural, linguistic and ideological perspectives that influence individuals and organizations at multiple levels of analysis (Fink & Holden, 2007). Although generally applied across contexts and cultures, Glisby and Holden (2003) argue that the Socialization-Externalization-Combination-Internalization (SECI) Model of Knowledge Conversion was developed in a Japanese management context and as such is not necessarily applicable to non-Japanese organizations. By extension, this would place the development and implementation of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion in the context of Japanese national cultural values and potentially disqualify it from the universality of application across cultural boundaries without modifications. Hofstede (1980, 2001) and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) espoused that organizational culture is interconnected with national culture. Based on this premise, this would allow for national culture to significantly influence human resources, general management practices, organizational behavior and knowledge management within discrete national organizations. Webber (1969) also stated that cultural factors can influence organizational behavior and management. Thus, macro-environmental elements encroach upon factors internal to the organization and influence its operation (Moffett, McAdam, & Parkinson, 2003). Cultures within organizations in Japan are influenced on the macro level by Japanese national culture, priming them for the adoption of the SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion with minimal adaptation. Organizational culture would therefore refer to the norms and perspectives that are rooted within a specific organization, however, influenced significantly by the national culture. The SECI Model of Knowledge Conversion, having been developed within a Japanese national cultural setting, necessitates the use or understanding of Japanese management practices and cultural values to achieve full effectiveness (Glisby & Holden, 2003). Other cultures may not share the assumptions made
61
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
by North American management theories (Allinson & Hayes, 2000; Laurent, 1986; Yoo et al., 1999). Nisbett, Peng, Choi and Norenzayan (2001) found eastern Asians to be more holistic whilst relying on dialectical reasoning, whereas westerners are more analytical, utilizing categories, rules and formal logic to understand behavior. This underpins the assertion of Aharoni and Burton (1994), Hutchings and Michailova (2007), Laurent (1986), Liebenau and Smithson (1991), and Maruyama (1990) regarding the ineffectiveness of generalities and of unquestioningly copying managerial methods developed in other countries that may not be compatible with local culture. De Long and Fahey (2000) even state that any discussion of knowledge within an organizational setting that does not take culture into consideration is likely to be misleading. Holden (2001) and Pauleen, Wu and Dexter (2004) observed that there is little published research on the subject of knowledge management across cross-cultural dimensions; although Fink, Holden and Lehmann (2007), Kaminska-Labbé and Thomas (2007), and Hutchings and Michailova (2007) reinvigorated the theme with specific research into knowledge management in the central and eastern European transition economies from a cross-cultural perspective. Ang and Massingham (2007) were the first to specifically examine standardization versus adaptation of knowledge management within the context of national culture in multinational organizations; standardization referring to a common approach versus the different approach in each market view of adaptation Schulte and Kim (2007) compared cultural collectivism to knowledge management perceptions between Taiwanese and American workers. Ralston, Holt, Terpstra and Kai-Cheng (2008) delved into the socio-cultural and economic ideologies (workplace philosophies) of western and eastern societies using the United States, Japan, Russia and China as examples , and found distinct differences in individual versus group-oriented culture and individual versus grouporiented ideologies. Regardless of the underlying deep-rooted reasons for cross-national differences in cognitive style, the implications are important for management practitioners and caution must be exercised when transferring management practices between nations (Allinson & Hayes, 2000; Hutchings & Michailova, 2007); otherwise managerial assumptions in one nation or society may be misinterpreted in another. This misinterpretation may be counter-productive when used within the new cultural context (Frost & Walker, 2007; Usoro & Kuofie, 2006). As a proactive measure, scientific sampling of cultural groups may allow for the identification and assessment of potential boundaries for the applicability of management science theories and practices to practical organizational realities (Aharoni & Burton, 1994; Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002; Perlaki, 1994).
62
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Although similar physical ICT-based knowledge management systems may be shared across nations, languages and cultures (Liew, 2007); the meaning of information and the effectiveness of information systems can vary significantly across these national cultures (Heier & Borgman, 2002). In an extensive seven-year, five-culture study of the influence of national culture on knowledge management in virtual teams, Vogel, Rutkowski and van Genuchten (2007) determined that different national cultures have differing preferences and usage patterns of knowledge management technologies. Ford, Connelly and Meister (2003) conducted a comprehensive citation analysis that examined areas of information systems research that utilized Hofstede's five dimensions of national culture and examined how this research was used to develop hypotheses and propositions within the information systems field. The research examined 57 articles across 22 journals between 1980 and 1999 in the field of information systems and summarized the contribution of each cultural dimension within a specific management category. The summaries were interpreted and extracted from the individual articles as they related to the field of information systems. Table 4 shows illustrates the dimensions and categories and their cultural impacts with the objective of this research endeavor for extending and applying these items into the field of global knowledge management.
Table 4: Summary of Cultural Dimensions and their Relation to Management (Adapted from Ford et al., 2003)
CATEGORY Organizational Architecture SUMMARY OF CULTURAL IMPACTS Higher power distance results in top-down management directives Higher uncertainty avoidance results in senior management delegating implementation roles to lower-level employees in the organizational hierarchy Collectivism results in easier initiation of projects and risk taking, yet implementation of projects is more difficult Participative planning is not appropriate in higher power distance cultures Cultures with higher uncertainty avoidance experience higher resistance to technological changes within the organization Higher power distance emphasizes professionalism and expertise Lower power distance results in enhanced client/customer participation Female professionals are more collectivistic than male professionals Higher power distance results in less adoption of power-reducing technologies (i.e. discussion forums)
Technology Planning
Human Resources
Technology Transfer
63
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Technology Integration Globalization Technology Technology Development Operations
of
and
Technology Usage
Information Systems
Higher collectivism results in importance being placed on voluntarism in technology adoption Collectivism results in technologies with low social presence and information richness having limited adoption Individualistic cultures will have more varied information technology infrastructures and applications Higher power distance results in technology being seen as less necessary for decentralization with more emphasis placed on the organizational hierarchy Higher power distance results in management controlling projects more, with less participation of end-users Higher uncertainty avoidance results in more focus on automation of and outsourcing of technology, with less access to technology for the organization internally Higher uncertainty avoidance results in the requirement for high-context information technology (i.e. information richness and user friendliness) Higher power distance results in technology becoming a greater equalizer within the organization Formal rules are required for technology use in higher uncertainly avoidance cultures Higher masculinity will result in more conflict in discussion forums and meeting spaces Higher femininity will result in increased anonymous participation in discussion forums and meeting spaces due to preference for conflict avoidance Short-term oriented cultures will be focused more on face-saving than achieving objectives
Hofstede's five dimensions of national culture can help to explain certain traits, behaviors, beliefs, and values in other countries as they pertain to the workplace, which can be of vital importance in the field of management. These cultural dimensions vary widely with respect to eastern and western views, which is why they have critical management implications as different people and cultures respond uniquely to different motivational factors and workplace collaborations. In the case mentioned above, Hofstede's dimensions are examined in different categories relating to the management field.
64
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Conclusions General management and knowledge management theories and practices have to be viewed and reviewed in the context of local cultures. In an organization, the managers bring values, experiences and beliefs that are profoundly rooted in their national cultures; which form personal reference frames (Frost & Walker, 2007). Even the perspective of what management actually entails varies widely across different national cultures (Laurent, 1983). The blind adoption of western knowledge management practices may indeed be problematic. A more thorough understanding and appreciation of local cultures, its perception of epistemology and knowledge management are necessary to adapt to existing practices or to create new ones. Therefore knowledge management initiatives designed to improve organizational performance should incorporate cultural factors to avoid missteps resulting from lack of cultural understanding and awareness (Jennex & Zakharova, 2006). Much of the literature on knowledge management suggests a standardized approach to international knowledge management (Ang & Massingham, 2007). Drawing upon Hofstede's (1980, 2001) research, since knowledge is not shared as freely within certain cultures as others, a standardized approach to the design and deployment of organizational knowledge management initiatives must be avoided and a knowledge management initiative tempered and modified to local culture should be adopted. Kuznetsov and Yakavenka (2005) make a strong case for the shared socio-cultural factors that are required for the effective transfer of knowledge to take place, especially through multiple levels of codification and de-codification. The tacit foundation of Japanese management practices and the free and encouraged exchange of knowledge within Japanese organizations may not necessarily find a compatible home within North American organizations or organizations within other western countries (Glisby & Holden, 2003; May, Puffer, & McCarthy, 2005). Though the 'west' view holds merit in the context of those countries to have a true understanding of the dimensions that are often adopted in Hofstede's model, we need to recognize views other than those in the 'west'. New literature, such as the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) studies and this discussion, has recognized these limitations. Additional studies must be undertaken to have a thorough understanding of the contextual variables and the dynamics that develops. Without new and different perspectives from the traditional and accepted frameworks, such as Hofstede's dimensions, organizations cannot leverage the strengths of the global economy, which can make the difference between survival and success for today's firms.
65
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
References Aharoni, Y., & Burton, R. M. (1994). Is management science international: In search of universal rules. Management Science, 40(1), 1 - 3. Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (2000). Cross-national differences in cognitive style: Implications for management. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 11(1), 161 - 170. Andriessen, D. (2006). On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: A textual analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 93 - 110. Andriessen, D., & van de Boom, M. (2007). East is East, and West is West, and
ever its intellectual capital shall meet. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 641 - 652. Ang, Z., & Massingham, P. (2007). National culture and the standardization versus adaptation of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 5 - 21. Ardichvili, A., & Gasparishvili, A. (2003). Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs: A study of value differences. Organization Studies, 24(1), 29 - 46. Beamish, N. G., & Armistead, C. G. (2001). Selected debate from the arena of knowledge management: New endorsements for establishing organizational practices. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(2), 101 - 111. Bedward, D., Jankowicz, D., & Rexworthy, C. (2003). East meets west: A case example of knowledge transfer. Human Resource Development International, 6(4), 527 - 545. Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204 - 221. Bhardwaj, M., & Monin, J. (2006). Tacit to explicit: an interplay shaping organization knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 72 - 85. Blackler, F., & McDonald, S. (2000). Power, mastery and organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies 37(6), 833 - 852. Calori, R., & de Woot, P. (1994). A European management model: Beyond diversity. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead. Chow, C. W., Deng, F. J., & Ho, J. L. (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, 65 - 95. Cohen, D. (1998). Toward a knowledge context: Report on the first annual U.C. Berkeley forum on knowledge and the firm. California Management Review, 30(3), 22 - 39. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge - how organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.66
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113 - 128. Desouza, K., & Evaristo, R. (2003). Global knowledge management strategies. European Management Journal, 21(1), 62 - 67. Egan, M. L., & Bendick, M. (2008). Combining multicultural management and diversity into one course on cultural competence. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 387 - 393. Fink, G., & Holden, N. (2007). Introduction. European Journal of International Management, 1(1/2), 4 - 13. Fink, G., Holden, N., & Lehmann, M. (2007). Survival by subversion in former socialist economies: Tacit knowledge exchange at the workplace. In K. Hutchings, & K. Mohannak (Eds.), Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach (pp. 35 - 51). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Ford, D. P., Connelly, C. E., & Meister, D. B. (2003). Information systems research and Hofstede's Cultures Consequences: An uneasy and incomplete partnership. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(1), 8 - 25. Frost, J., & Walker, M. (2007). Cross cultural leadership. Engineering Management, 17(3), 27 - 29. Glisby, M., & Holden, N. (2003). Contextual constraints in knowledge management theory: The cultural embeddedness of Nonaka's knowledge-creating company. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(1), 29 - 36. Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World Business, 37, 11 - 15. Heier, H., & Borgman, H. P. (2002). Knowledge management systems spanning cultures: The case of deutsche banks hrbase. In Xth European Conference on Information Systems ECIS, Gdansk, Poland. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations - second edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, second edition. New York: McGraw Hill. Holden, N. (2001). Knowledge management: Raising the spectre of the cross-cultural dimension. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(3), 155 - 163. Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2007). Re-examining knowledge sharing in an intercultural context: Findings from the transition economies of China and Russia. In K. Hutchings, & K. Mohannak (Eds.), Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach (pp. 72 90).
67
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Ibata-Arens, K. C. (2004). Alternatives to hierarchy in Japan: Business networks and civic entrepreneurship. Asian Business & Management, 3(3), 315 335. Jankowicz, A. D. (1994). The new journey to Jerusalem: Mission and meaning in the managerial crusade to eastern Europe. Organization Studies, 15(4), 479 507. Jennex, M. E., & Zakharova, I. (2006). Culture, context, and knowledge management. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), i - v. Kaminska-Labbé, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). Fostering learning to build new competencies in times of deconstruction: Lessons from Polish ex-socialist firms. In K. Hutchings, & K. Mohannak (Eds.), Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach (pp. 52 - 71). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Kuznetsov, A., & Yakavenka, H. (2005). Barriers to the absorption of management knowledge in Belarus. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(7), 566 - 577. Laurent, A. (1983). The cultural diversity of western conceptions of management. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13(1/2), 75 - 96. Laurent, A. (1986). The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resources management. Human Resources Management, 25(1), 91 - 102. Liebenau, J., & Smithson, S. (1991). Editorial. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 1 - 2. Liew, C. L. (2007). From concept to context: toward socio-cultural responsibility in the organization of knowledge. In D. J. Pauleen (Ed.), Crosscultural perspectives on knowledge management (pp. 81 - 94). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited. Marr, B., Gupta, O., Pike, S., & Roos, G. (2003). Intellectual capital and knowledge management effectiveness. Management Decision, 41(8), 771 - 781. Maruyama, M. (1990). Some management considerations in the economic reorganization of Eastern Europe. Academy of Management Executive, 4(2), 90 - 91. Mason, R. M. (2003). Culture-free or culture-bound? A boundary spanning perspective on learning in knowledge management systems. Journal of Global Information Management, 11(4), 20 - 36. May, R. C., Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2005). Transferring management knowledge to Russia: A culturally based approach. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 24 - 35. Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2003). An empirical analysis of knowledge management applications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 6 - 26.
68
Jelavic and Ogilvie: Knowledge Management Views
Möller, K., & Svahn, S. (2004). Crossing east-west boundaries: Knowledge sharing in intercultural business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 219 - 228. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291 - 310. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 96 - 104. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation . New York: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5 34. Pauleen, D. J., Wu, L., & Dexter, S. (2th004). Knowledge Management through a Cultural Looking Glass. 12 Annual Cross-Cultural Research in Information Systems Meeting, Washington D.C. Perlaki, I. (1994). Organizational development in Eastern Europe: Learning to build culture-specific OD theories. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(3), 297 - 312. Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., & Kai-Cheng, Y. (2008). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), 8 - 26. Redding, S. G. (1980). Cognition as an aspect of culture and its relation to management processes: An exploratory view of the Chinese case. Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 127 - 148. Schulte, W. D., & Kim, Y. K. (2007). Collectivism and expected benefits of knowledge management: A comparison of Taiwanese and US perceptions. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 17(1/2), 109 - 117. Shane, S. A. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(1), 29 - 46. Stewart, T. A. (1991). Brainpower: How intellectual capital is becoming America's most valuable asset. Fortune Magazine, June 3,44 - 60. Straub, D. W. (1994). The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-Mail and FAX in Japan and the U.S. Information Systems Research, 5(1), 23 - 47. Takeuchi, H. (2001). Towards a universal management concept of knowledge. In I. Nonaka, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Managing industrial knowledge - creation, transfer and utilization (pp. 315 - 335). London: SAGE Publications. Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.
69
Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Usoro, A., & Kuofie, M. H. S. (2006). Conceptualisation of cultural dimensions as a major influence on knowledge sharing. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 16 - 25. Usunier, J.-C. (1996). Marketing across culture . London: Prentice Hall Europe. Vogel, D., Rutkowski, A-F., & van Genuchten, M. (2007). The influence of national culture on knowledge management in virtual teams. In D. J. Pauleen (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on knowledge management (pp. 111 - 133). Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited. Webber, R. A. (1969). Convergence or divergence? Columbia Journal of World Business, 4(3), 75 - 83. Yoo, Y., Ginzberg, M. J., & Ahn, J. H. (1999). A cross-cultural investigation oth f the use of knowledge management systems. Proceedings of the 20 International Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems. Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45 - 58. Zhu, Z. (2001). What is to be managed: Knowledge, knowing or knower and does it really matter?. In Z. Wang, Y. Nakamori, J. Gu, & Y. Dang (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on knowledge and systems science. Dalian, China: Dalian University of Technology. Zhu, Z. (2004). Knowledge management: Towards a universal concept or cross-cultural contexts? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2(2), 67 - 79.
doc_277192597.docx