ABSTRACT
Management literature generally talks about cultural differences of unit and the cultural distance between the units to explain cultural distance as an obstacle in international knowledge transfer (Simonin 1999). However, there is a very evident gap in the literature examining this issue from an interpersonal aspect (Williams et al. 1998). Organizations cannot be considered to have a cultural background; their employees do. Scientific management literature does not differentiate here either when talking about cultural distance as hindering knowledge transfer (e.g. Simonin 1999). There is no specification whether this cultural distance applies to different units or to two different individuals. The basis for knowledge sharing is a simple communication model, in
which information is passed on from one individual to another. Two components of the communication are essential: the source (or sender) that sends the message, and a receiver to receive the message. Communication is the whole process of communicating the message from sender to receiver and is also used to share knowledge. It is also considered the basis for the socialization of knowledge. In a first step the sender of the knowledge intends to send it and has to
choose what kind of knowledge to share. Generally, knowledge needs to be codified to be shared with receivers. Here the means of communication plays a major role. In contrast to a communication process, a knowledge-sharing process also includes a learning process. To improve and speed up this process the right choice of medium is very important. Knowledge can be coded via more abstract forms such as data, or reports and objects. In a final step the recipient accepts it and interprets it. Receiver B receives
the knowledge in its codified form, has to decodify it and has to implement it in the working environment. The receiver reacts to the knowledge by starting activities based on it. When transferring knowledge within multinational corporations the communication model has to be extended to integrate contextual influences as well (Figure 7.1). Consequently the transfer of knowledge can be divided into three stages. At
first the relevant knowledge has to be selected. The sender has to select relevant knowledge. In the next step the sender further decides in which way to transfer knowledge. The third part of the process concentrates on the receiver
aware of it or not, resistant to change or doing things differently than they are used to (Hall and Hall 1990a). Therefore culture plays a major role in knowledge transfer, which basically means communicating with company units located in geographically dispersed locations. Culture influences people’s and individuals’ actions and consequently also creates the context for the managerial practices necessary to transfer knowledge, such as knowledge codification (codification style) and the selection of relevant knowledge (procedural and declarative knowledge). Knowledge management differs in East and West. Japanese knowledge
management focuses on tacit knowledge and operational knowledge management. Knowledge management in the West, on the other hand, has a more strategic approach, a need to deal with individualistic perspectives of their knowledge managers at the same time. The differences in knowledge management imply that Japanese employees and their Western counterparts do have a differing understanding of sharing knowledge with their colleagues and among partners (Inkpen 1996). But can differences between Western and Japanese knowledge management
also be found in knowledge transfer within Japanese or German multinational corporations? In a modern business environment communication with individuals in geographical distant locations is a common activity. Employees are in daily contact with members of cultures and other groups from all around the world. These interacting individuals are strongly stamped by the national cultures they live in. Employees bring the assumptions of their culture to work and thereby establish and modify the ways of their organizations (Griffith and Harvey 2001). The first research question investigated in this book will therefore deal with
the whether knowledge is being transferred differently according to the cultural background of sender and receiver of knowledge. The investigation that I present is based on a survey among Japanese and German knowledge managers. Japanese and Germans, being on the extremes of the high-context and low-context continuum, communicate in very different ways. On top of this, Japanese knowledge management processes are supposed to be very different from Western processes. I therefore assume that knowledge transfer processes of German and Japanese managers also differ. I assume that all steps in this process are strongly influenced by the cultural background of the knowledge manager performing them and will differ from each other. In the following sections I will explain the first two steps in more detail and present the results of the comparison.
