ABSTRACT
In the last chapter I showed that knowledge transfer is more efficient when knowledge is being received from a low-context culture. Knowledge from a high-context culture is more successfully integrated in high-context cultures such as Japan. But why is this so? Can we assume that Japanese managers have been more exposed to Western knowledge and therefore have a more positive attitude towards it? Does this mean that more intercultural experience will lead to a more successful knowledge transfer process in German organizations as well? Knowledge management scientists have investigated various influence fac-
tors when sharing knowledge. Culture has so far been considered to influence knowledge transfer, but is often treated as a single variable in these investigations. However, working in a cross-cultural business environment culture becomes a more complex concept. Being of different cultural heritage alone is not enough to explain differences in management processes; personality and personal history as well as other factors have a major influence on an individual’s behaviour too. In fact, every knowledge worker does not only have his or her national culture, but also a different exposure to other cultures and a different level of intercultural skills and experiences. Today’s workforce is very mobile; many employees in multinational corporations have a history of studying or living in a different culture for a longer while. The development of cultural knowledge mainly takes place via experiencing intercultural communication challenges and conflicts. When interacting with members from other cultures, individuals develop experience in how to communicate effectively with them. Higher experience in intercultural communication also leads to higher knowledge of possible misunderstandings and possible solutions. ‘In the process of adaptation to new situations and their requirements, human beings have always found ways to deal with differences. Results are mutually beneficial, demonstrating the fact that change and adjustment are taking place’ (Casrnir 1999). Once individuals come into prolonged contact with individuals from other cultures in a shared environment, the ‘other’ as well as the related concepts of difference and change come to the foreground of any individual’s perception (Casrnir 1999) and can improve the flow of intercultural communication. The interviews conducted with experts support this
come to the conclusion to construct the tables using Excel, and which aspects to consider. Things that I took for granted, were not obvious to her at all. So I have started to give very detailed information about what I need and how the things were supposed to be done, to reduce the uncertainty of the orders’. Knowledge transfer across cultures has the aim to integrate knowledge at
another corporate unit and increase its value by applying it in a new environment. Effective knowledge in multinational corporations is, according to Doz et al. (1997), facing two main challenges: the location challenge (knowledge originates from geographically dispersed parts of the world) and the knowledge complexity challenge. There has to be a balance between blindly applying rules developed at home to the new environment and failing under adaptation versus playing entirely by rules of the local environment and thereby failing to leverage the home-base knowledge (Doz et al. 1997). Effective knowledge transfer happens between people who share social
capital with each other. The bases are the structure and configuration of the connections between members and the cognitive compatibility which develops out of a social interaction around a shared language, narrative and common communication codes and protocols as well as the quality of the relationship between the individuals exchanging knowledge (Adler and Kwon 2002). In the case of knowledge, management within a single company unit developing social capital is easy. People share the same context, language and often also the same cultural background. In the case of intercultural knowledge transfer this social capital is difficult to develop because participants in the knowledge transfer process do not share the same context, have often never met and are separated by geographical distance. We can see that national culture does lead to difference in how knowledge is being accepted and reused, but we still need to ask which facets of culture are the most relevant when transferring knowledge. The third research question to be answered in this book is therefore the following:
Which culture-related factors improve or inhibit cross-cultural knowledge transfer?
