ABSTRACT
Successful knowledge management and transfer is considered key to the success of contemporary organizations (Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2004). When transferring knowledge to other operating units of a multinational company, the overall goal is to implement the knowledge sent successfully at the receiver’s unit (Sorensen and Snis 2001). Therefore, a shared, explicit understanding of concepts, categories and descriptors lays the foundation for effective communication and knowledge transfer in organizations (Zack 1999). Sustainable advantages of a company depend less on having correct and
valuable information, but on the efficient use of this information (Porter 1985). The use of knowledge is often a complex process involving many people and organizational units. The ‘correct’ knowledge needs to be accessible to the receiver at the ‘right’ time, at the ‘right’ place, in the ‘right’ form and in the ‘right’ quality. The receiver considers knowledge as ‘right’, if he or she can understand the knowledge received easily and use it accordingly (Stock 2000). We can also assume that knowledge from a culturally close source will lead to higher usage in the receptive unit. After being transferred to a geographically distant unit of the corporation
the codified knowledge is decodified and deployed and dissemination of the knowledge into the existing knowledge base of the receiver’s unit takes place (Hedlund and Nonaka 1993). The receiver makes sense of the knowledge in his or her own setting or context. But the meaning that is given to the transferred knowledge is not necessarily the meaning of the knowledge sent (Doz and Santos 1997) and the knowledge after decodification may not be the same as before codification. Knowledge is used through interpretation. Interpretation is the very process of making sense of the environment during action (Dupouet and Laguecir 2002). Firms have to make sense of the accumulated knowledge through interpretative codification processes, called decodification processes (Singh and Zollo 1998). After the decodification process knowledge reaches the wider environment of the organization. The result is the output of the organization, which can take the form of statements (such as patents), action (starting manufacturing) or tangible products (Hedlund
the right knowledge is chosen and the sharing process is taking place without hindrances, the main objective of transferring knowledge is its reusage at the target location. If not being reapplied, knowledge transfer becomes obsolete. Expectations play an important role when talking about successful knowl-
edge transfer. From a headquarters point of view successful knowledge transfer therefore refers to knowledge first being sent away and then being implemented in exactly the way headquarter official expect. In the subsidiary on the other hand, a lot of knowledge and expectations cannot be fulfilled, knowledge needs to be adapted to local standards. This happens via reinterpretations, adaptation or simply in only using the parts of knowledge which are applicable in the new context. In fact, successful knowledge transfer can be called a dialogue between the sender and the receiver about their contexts and the object of knowledge (Doz and Santos 1997). Successes in knowledge transfer are therefore extremely difficult to measure. Implementing knowledge management and financing knowledge management tools can therefore often be problematic. It is hardly possible to relate knowledge management measures to financial results of an organization. Another difficult aspect is defining knowledge transfer success. Scientific literature shows many attempts to identify meaningful and dependent variables to explain the success of knowledge transfer (von Krogh 1998) and has widely addressed the issue of how to define the success of knowledge transfer and its measurement (Lähteenmäki et al. 2001, Moilanen 2001). As I discussed in at the beginning of this book, a single person can have a
very strong impact hindering or promoting knowledge transfers. The main player influencing successful knowledge transfer without interruption is therefore the recipient of knowledge. He or she decides how to react to knowledge received from overseas, by either accepting it or not. The recipient further interprets and – most importantly – reuses knowledge at the local subsidiary. So far, we have developed arguments indicating that the degree of abstractness and the type of knowledge sent are influenced by national culture. Accordingly, we presume that the successful implementation of knowledge at the receivers’ units is also influenced by national culture. Successful knowledge management and transfer is considered to be the key
to the success of contemporary organizations (Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2004). When transferring knowledge to other operating units of a multinational corporation, the overall goal is to implement the knowledge sent successfully (Sorensen and Snis 2001). Therefore, a shared, explicit understanding of concepts, categories and descriptors lays the foundation for effective communication and knowledge transfer in organizations (Zack 1999). The knowledge needs to be sent in a format that can be understood by the receiver (Thomas 2002). But most of the time the encoded messages cannot be considered universal, they are culture specific and arbitrary (Roth 2001). This
to home culture messages; their culture-specific differences are often ignored. This might also influence the transfer of knowledge negatively. Successful transfer of knowledge must thus be based on a collaboratively established consensus among the participants (Sorensen and Snis 2001) and can improve relationships among organizational communities if there is a commonly acknowledged context in which the signification given by the users to the symbols are unique (Dupouet and Laguecir 2002). Considering the differences in knowledge management and communication between Japanese and German managers, we can therefore assume that there will be differences in knowledge implementation also. In detail, we talk about knowledge that is being transferred but can only be
implemented when the receivers are able to interpret the knowledge accordingly. Successfully interpreting the knowledge requires prior acquisition of considerable specialized knowledge, since not all people in the world possess the knowledge needed to interpret the knowledge sent properly. So context factors as described above do become an important consideration in any discussion of knowledge transfer (Cowan et al. 1999). Individuals prefer to share information with similar people. Consequently,
communication between people who have the same background is generally more effective than communication with people who do not share a similar background (Dodd 1997). Sender and receiver of messages share the same context and may have similar goals. Codification and decodification happen in similar surroundings. The effectiveness of communication processes is therefore higher and more satisfying for all participants. If the context of sender and receiver differ, this may not always be the case. Human communication implies that what is said by the speaker is not always received, comprehended or retrieved by the listener and miscommunication arises because of the differences in patterns of discourse (Scollon and Wong-Scollon 1995). If individuals with differing cultural backgrounds communicate, there is a very big chance of misunderstanding due to their differences in communication patterns. This is not only true for communication aspects, but also for knowledge
transfer. Williams et al. (1998) come to the conclusion that cultural differences across countries affect the probability of cross-national business relationships. Individuals willingly participate in knowledge transfer, if they share a sense of identity with their colleagues (Bresman et al. 1999). In multinational corporations a shared identity may be an organizational goal, but is often missing in corporate reality. An individual has a uniquely structured view of the world. This view is influenced by the individuals experience and embedded in mental models. It leads to a strong perception that one’s own thinking is correct: individuals feel strongly about their views and tend to defend their positions even if they are not compatible with those of others (McKenzie and van Winkelen 2004).
