Nonaka and Takeuchi's book The Knowledge Creating Company is one of the most influential in the field of knowledge management. The famous SECI Model, representing the four modes of knowledge creation (socialization, externalization, combination and internalization) seems to have been accepted by the knowledge management community as universally valid in conception and in application. This paper argues that the model must be seen first and foremost as a product of the environment from which it emerged, namely Japan. It is contended that each of the four modes can only be understood with reference to their embeddedness in Japanese social and organizational culture and related value systems. Thus the model should be used with caution. It should be seen as a map rather than a model; or perhaps as a special kind of mirror, which allows us to see ourselves and our knowledge management practices in new ways for directing change.

Cross cultural management is often regarded as a discipline of international management focusing on cultural encounters between what are perceived as well-defined and homogeneous entities: the organization and the nation-state, and offering tools to handle cultural differences seen as sources of conflict or miscommunication. The authors argue that this approach is out of phase with the business world of today, with its transnational companies that face the challenges of the management of global knowledge networks and multicultural project teams, interacting and collaborating across boundaries using global communication technologies. The authors emphasize the need for an alternative approach which acknowledges the growing complexity of inter- and intra-organizational connections and identities, and offers theoretical concepts to think about organizations and multiple cultures in a globalizing business context.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to supply insights into talent management (TM) in Russia in the light of Soviet experience and the contemporary officially sanctioned business‐antagonistic political culture.Design/methodology/approachA diachronic approach, whereby a key dictum of Karl Marx which underlays Soviet thinking and methods is contextualized and applied to post‐communist Russia, and TM practice in Russian firms and foreign firms in Russia is contrasted.FindingsA key finding is that there is seemingly greater value placed on Russian employees' talents by foreign companies. Six influential factors are identified which give Russian‐style TM a dysfunctional character: Russia's default position (i.e. instinctive gravitation to authoritarian rule), mistrust of institutions, entrenched “bossdom”, persistence of “Soviet mental software”, negative selection, and limited tradition of empowerment.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper highlights needs for: comparative empirical studies, contrasting Russian firms' and foreign firms' understanding and application of TM; investigation into the relationship of Russian‐style TM and career progression in Russian companies; and studies into contrasting ways of transferring TM concepts and practices by Western firms.Practical implicationsForeign firms must be prepared to engage with Russia's prevailing officially sanctioned business‐antagonistic, occasionally xenophobic political culture.Originality/valueThe paper demonstrates how engagement with contemporary Russia for management research purposes requires a deep appreciation of the Soviet period and the complexities of its legacy and judicious use of Russian‐language material adds credibility.

Knowledge transfer is often likened to acts of translation. It is argued that translation is a very robust analogue of knowledge transfer and that theory provides insight into cross-cultural sharing processes. Three issues which affect the quality of translation and, hence, knowledge transfer are highlighted: ambiguity, interference (intrusion from one's own cultural background) and lack of equivalence. Other terms from translation science, which can serve as a useful reference for knowledge management experts, are discussed: translation as a networking activity, process and end-product quality, levels of accuracy and constraints on the production of good translations. A new concept is introduced to the knowledge management community; namely convertibility, which refers to the perceived utility of a knowledge source and the availability of domain experts to reveal its import to final users. Two models representing knowledge transfer as translation are presented, the second of which incorporates Nonaka's SECI model.

Practitioners and theorists of knowledge management are increasingly aware of the practice as an international activity, but the topic is seldom presented in its cross-cultural dimensions. This paper argues that knowledge management in the global economy is a form of crosscultural management, but points out that the literature is vague on how to handle culture in its wider international manifestations. Among other things it is suggested that the division of knowledge into tacit and explicit may have limited applicability when knowledge is to be leveraged cross-culturally. Researchers are cautioned about making use of still pervasive concepts of culture which are out of keeping with the workings of the knowledge economy. It is concluded that the key task of knowledge management is to foster and continually sophisticate collaborative cross-cultural learning. But the point to bear in mind is that the essence of the cross-cultural challenge is not about what to learn from each other, but how to learn.

Marketers are berated for their dependence on Hofstede and his concept of culture which stems from nineteenth century anthropology. International marketing studies need a new approach to culture, which is consistent with the workings of the global knowledge economy. It is argued that it is no longer satisfactory to associate culture with markets perceived as national aggregates of characteristics. Rather culture is seen as a knowledge resource waiting to be discovered in marketing relationships and clusters of affinity. A five-point scheme for the foundation of a new approach to culture is presented.

The treatment of translation in the international business (IB) literature has been predominantly concerned with research methodology and backtranslation. Arguing for a less microscopic concept of translation in IB research, we advocate a more expansive perspective, whereby translation is understood as cross-border interplay of entire terrains of corporate contexts and experience linking multiple mental and social frames of reference. We apply three notions from linguistics and translation studies -equivalence, ambiguity and cultural interference -to problematize the translation of management terms and concepts across languages and to highlight the importance of historical and cultural embedding in the translation process. We substantiate the core argument through analysis of fragments from Russia's first Handbook of Knowledge Management, a text composed of 23 contributions translated from English into Russian, a language in restless regeneration, struggling arduously with Western management terms and concepts after 70 years of communism. This knowledge management text constitutes the essence of an entire corpus of modern management thought and action which is largely unfamiliar to the Russian business and scholarly community. We demonstrate how acts of translation serve as an analog for the cross-cultural transfer of knowledge and how these insights can advance IB translation research into new and rewarding directions.

This paper responds to calls for pragmatic context-dependent crosscultural scholarship. Specifically, with regard to global organisations, we attempt to reconcile the imbalance between global and local concerns by proposing a framework that merges a new understanding of culture with a classical leadership approach. The objective is to achieve more effective crosscultural practice. The article makes the case for an appreciation of what we call 'cross-cultural knowledge management' and the role of wisdom in global business leadership in a modern culturally diverse knowledge economy.