Knowledge management: raising the spectre of the cross‐cultural dimension

Abstract

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.

Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice

“…However, only very few recent studies have explicitly concentrated on the discussion of cultural factors, influencing knowledge management and transfer (Chow et al, 2000;Ford and Chan, 2003;Holden, 2001;Hutchings and Michailova, 2004). Bhagat et al (2002) have made a significant contribution to this body of literature by providing a conceptual framework of international transfer of organizational knowledge, which we will refer to on several occasions.…”

Crossing cultural boundaries : transfer of management knowledge and skills between organisational cultures

“…Similar to the literature (e.g. Holden, 2001) the perception of the opposite direction of knowledge sharing, i.e. between managers and employees was slightly more polarised.…”

“…A variety of authors, from traditional anthropologists to contemporary scientific oriented researchers have been searching for measurement and validation. Many researchers describe OC as a key factor in managing KT (Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston & Triandis, 2002;Holden, 2001;Moffett, Mc Adam & Parkinson, 2003;Glisby & Holden, 2003;Holden & von Kortzfleisch, 2004). Weissenberger-Eibl (2005) recognises four direct influential design parameters of KM: human resources, methodological approaches, technology, and organisation.…”

“…Russian organisations, as a number of other organisations globally, are influenced by the overarching NC, which leads to certain peculiarities of these organisations (Holden, 1991(Holden, , 2001May et al, 2005;. A rather authoritarian style of top-down management, a more collective oriented internal environment, an absent or restricted flow of information, a lack of trust among 196 employees and employees and management, hostility towards sharing knowledge, hiding of mistakes and failures and the lack of initiative and the dependence on receiving direct orders, were expected to be manifested in Russian organisations based on the peculiarities of the Russian NC described in the literature.…”

Culture and Knowledge Transfe: Theoretical Considerations

“…But there are considerable evidence supports the importance of culture in the success or failure of knowledge management within organizations. Reference [5] is very critical of the viewpoints ignoring culture influence on knowledge management. He point out that these viewpoints gives the impression that knowledge management operates in a kind of unitary vacuum in which diversity in terms of language, cultural and ethnic background are compressed into one giant independent variable which is in any case pushed to the side.…”