cross-cultural knowledge management at virtual interfaces

Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management at Virtual Interfaces

David J Pauleen, Victoria University of Wellington - [email protected] June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

Cross-cultural Management Cross-cultural management describes

organizational behaviour within countries and cultures; compares organizational behaviour across countries and cultures;

seeks to understand and improve the interaction of co-workers, (team members) managers, executives, clients, suppliers, and alliance partners from countries and cultures around the world. (Adler, 2002: Pg. 11)


The core task of cross-cultural management is to facilitate and direct synergistic interaction and learning at interfaces, where knowledge, values and experiences are transferred into multicultural domains of implementation (Holden, 2002)

Greatest challenge is in internationally-distributed work environments, i.e. global (and multi-cultural) virtual teams

Taking CCM a step further


Cross-Cultural Management as Knowledge Management

Interactive Global Networking Teamworking Organizational Learning


Networking

Networks as pathways to resources: Human Special knowledge Rare competencies Sources of finance Forms of influence

How does this relate to Knowledge Management?


Networking as a Cross-Cultural Activity

Internationally-distributed work environment

Sharing (K) across organizations, ‘webs of enterprise and arrays of networks for use years ahead (Holden, 2002;p.43)


The Challenge How will we develop new ways to

understand, manage and downplay* cultural differences while creating and working with new kinds of cross-cultural interactions such as geographically-distributed electronically-mediated multi-cultural project teams?

*Why “downplay cultural differences”?


Culture

something older members of the group pass on to younger members of the group

something (as with language, laws, customs, values, beliefs, attitudes) that shapes behavior or shapes one’s perception of the world

something shared by all members of some social group

culture changes and adapts based on the needs of the members and the environment


Managing Culture in Virtual Teams

Global (multicultural) Virtual Teams require cultural sensitivity re: culturally biased technology different rules different languages different concepts of time different assumptions different values


A Values-Based View of National Culture

Four Dimensions of Difference (Hofstede, 1980)

Individualism vs Collectivism Power Distance – High vs Low Uncertainty Avoidance – High vs Low Career Success vs Quality of Life

(Masculine vs Feminine)

And later # 5 Confucian Dynamism Devotion to work ethic and respect for

tradition


Culture as Context in Cross-cultural Communication as developed by Edward Hall

Context refers to the amount of information imbedded in a message

It plays a crucial role in intercultural communication


Characteristics of High/Low Context Cultures

High-context Cultures Low-context Cultures Covert & implicit Messages internalized much non-verbal

coding Reactions reserved Distinct ingroups and

outgroups Strong interpersonal

bonds Commitment high Time open and flexible

Overt & Explicit Messages plainly

coded Details verbalized Reactions on the

surface flexible ingroups and

outgroups Fragile interpersonl

bonds Commitment low Time highly organized


Reliance on Verbal Communication

Reliance on words low high to communicate

Reliance on nonverbal high low communication

View of silence respected, anxiety - communicative producing

Attention to detail low high Attention to intention high low Communicative indirect,

direct,explicit approachinferential

High Context Low Context


Context and Cultural Differences

Low Context Cultures

High Context Cultures

sender receiver

Information implicitly contained

Japanese

Arabic

Latin American

Italian

English

French

North American (Canadian and USA)

Scandanavian

German

Swiss German

Information explicitly conveyed


The Basic Differences Leading to Conflict

Values, attitudes, behaviors

Language Non-verbal

communication Context Time Ethnocentrism


One result of Contexted/Value-Based Views of Culture: Cultural Scare-mongering

C1 + C2 = Culture Clash, Culture Shock,

Cultural Differences

This view has permeated global management thinking in the last couple of decades.

Is it time for a change?


A Different Perspective (Holden, 2002)

C1 + C2 =C3, where C3 is a new cultural hybrid

Culture and knowledge of culture as an organizational resource, i.e., a knowledge asset

Cross-cultural management as the application of this resource,

(Cross-cultural management as a form of Knowledge management)


Culture as a Problem/Opportunity

As a problem The influence of culture must be

anticipated, controlled and limited As an opportunity

A source of competitive advantage, releasing synergies from international and intranational diversity (Tung, 1997)


New View of Culture Culture based on shared or partly shared

patterns of meaning and interpretation These patterns are produced and

reproduced and continually changed by the people identifying with them and negotiating with them in the course of social interaction; thus

People’s identification and affiliation with a multiplicity of cultures are subject to change. (Hannerz, 1996)


Person from culture 1 Person from culture 3

Person from culture 2

Shared meanings


Extending Adler’s Model (2002) to the Level of Organizations, Groups and Teams

National Attitudes

National Behaviors

National Culture

National Values

Organizational Culture

Org, Values

Org. Attitudes

Org.Behaviors

Group Culture

Group Values

Group Attitudes

Group Behaviors

Individual Actor


A Case of Culture Treaty of Waitangi Negotiation

between Crown (Office of Treaty Settlements – OTS) and the Claimant Group

The Influence of Culture The need to build relationships before

attending to negotiations The selection and use of

communication channels


Team Membership (Extended)

Core Team Members (Crown)

Claimants Extended Team Members

Key Stakeholders

Representatives from OTS, DOC, Treasury

Principal Negotiator, other negotiators appointed by the mandated body

Other departments (Fisheries, Education), Lawyers, Specialists,Consultants

Ministers,Claimant community,Local authority, the public


Conditions Present at Start up of

Team

Key Issues Related Issues Specific Conditions

Team Issues Project Goal Time Frame Team Membership

Complex - negotiate a historical Treaty settlement Long-term with a deadline- -some with experience of electronic communication channels, others with none

Members from different organizations,

Boundary Crossing

Organizational Culture/ language

Claimants and government; different government department Different cultures, different languages on occasions

Organizational Policies and Resources (including technology)

Policies Resources

Policies on e-mail, Quality Assurance policies on letters sent outside the office Unaware of what electronic resources were available to Claimants


Building Relationships “There are two sorts of cultures that we need to

bring together, between the claimant negotiators and the key Government negotiators, who are going to meet and be making hard judgments based on what we are telling them. And that requires a huge level of trust, which we are able to build up through a whole lot of face-to-face meetings over long periods of interaction, two years.

We have got to the position where they can trust us as Government negotiators to be acting in their best interests. We are not going to be running them short, to try and get something from them. That requires a close cultural melding in a sense.”


The Selection and Use of Communication Channels

Through a whole lot of face-to-face meetings over two years of interaction we built up a huge level of trust. This resulted in a close cultural melding.

The last four weeks before the signing of the Heads of Agreement was frantic and involved a different way of working together virtually. After a series of critical face-to-face meetings to work out some difficult points and with just a couple of days to go, communication took place primarily by phone and e-mail. Important issues, normally dealt with face-to-face, were resolved virtually and they performed admirably on their side under that regime. This kind of tells me that although the preference might be there for face-to-face, when the costs are too high they work very fine with other scenarios.


Driving Factors in the Selection and the Use of Communication Channels

Communication Channel

Driving Factors for Selection and Use by Crown Side

Driving Factors for Selection and Use by Claimant Side

Face-to-faceGet core business done Discuss and resolve key issues Get people to do things Convey negative responses to Claimants Allow for credible, but inconclusive dialogue

Build relationships Get core business done To raise key issues Get Crown to focus on Claimant’s issues

Letters

Provide formal official response (must be Quality Assured)

Provide formal, written records of every step of the process Move things along and generate responses


Driving Factors in the Selection and the Use of Communication Channels (cont)

TelephoneDeal with matters under some urgency To discuss issues informally (before or after sending a formal letter)

To check on progress and keep up momentum To discuss issues informally (before or after sending a formal letter)

E-mail Used primarily within the Crown side Inter-departmental email discussion on issues relating to the negotiations. Confirm and clarify details. Possesses speed of a phone call with the paper trail of a written response. Used to quickly transfer working documents back and forth in template form.

E-mail was not used between OTS and the Claimants until the end of the negotiations when time constraints forced its use.

Communication Channel

Driving Factors for Selection and Use by Crown Side

Driving Factors for Selection and Use by Claimant Side


Summary of Case:

Culture as: Relationship Context

Therefore, outcomes of cross-cultural collaboration and integration processes cannot be predicted with certainty.

COMPLEX SYSTEMS that evolve


Coping with Complex Systems require special talents and abilities

Interactive translation = cross-cultural communicative competence = Participative Competence

Cross-cultural management should foster participative competence


What it Takes to Communicate across CulturesWhat it Takes to Communicate across Cultures

Perspective taking – understanding other world views that underpin insight and knowledge generated by a particular community

Participative Competence An open mind

flexible attitude nonjudgmental tolerance for ambiguity

The ability to : communicate respect display empathy personalize knowledge and perceptions


And....And....

Language competency

Interpersonal skills

Area knowledge


Conclusions Management Options

Subscribe to culture shock, etc., and create high hurdles, or

‘embrace culture in all its diversity as a resource to respond to the demands of the global market, reap the benefits of cross-border alliances, and enhance organizational learning’ (Schneider & Barsoux, 1997)


“Organizational renewal for the global, knowledge-based economy is directly linked to the company’s willingness and capacity to integrate best practices and experience from as many as the in-company loci of common knowledge as possible” (Holden, 2002;p. 222)

Virtual Teams and networks provide the potential for rapidly bringing together diverse, organizational (and extra-organizational) knowledge, but they require pro-active and ‘advanced’ management to be successful.


Further Discussion


Culture and Globalisation

Globalization of the economy challenges us to become more internationally aware and cross-culturally savvy. Globalization is not just an economic matter, more and more it is concerned with issues of cultural meaning

Questions Will globalisation see the emergence of cultural homogeneity or cultural ‘Balkanization?

Should global leaders develop a macro perspective, not bound to any one national or cultural identity?


Organizational & National Culture

Prior to 1980, many considered organisational culture to be independent of national culture. This has changed, much recent research focuses on the link between organisational and national culture and their corresponding influences.

Questions Is organizational culture, in effect, a by-product of national or societal

culture?

Can organizational culture persist outside of originating national culture?

How does the introduction of Western management techniques and technologies to non-western countries reflect western biases?

Will there be a ‘backlash’ of indigenous techniques and technologies?

What is the role of organizational leadership in mediating between national and organizational culture?


And More…National Culture and KMIn published reports of knowledge management systems, national culture and ethnic background of users are rarely mentioned.

Issues Are KMS designers implicitly adopting the “culture-free” hypothesis as a basis for design? What is the impact of this hypothesis? What is the impact of implicitly embedded cultural values in models such as the SECI model? Does knowledge loses its contextual embeddedness when it travels? Do cultural differences impact information flows, knowledge management processes, and knowledge sharing?


And more…National Culture and ICTs

Cultural emphasis most widely addressed from the position of how ICTs affect organizational and national culture.

Issues What is the effect of organizational and national culture on ICT and vice-versa?

Are IS tacitly embedded with the cultural values of the originating nation? How does this affect trans-national transfer?

Should cultural levels of analysis be extended to recognise an ICT driven culture? Will proliferance of ICTs result in homogenisation of culture, or will it assist cultures to avoid cultural convergence?


Culture and Social Capital

“…features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives…Social capital, in short refers to social connections and the attendant norms and trust.” (Putnam, 1995)

Social capital has been found to be important at both a national and sub-national level. social capital frameworks are generally developed around the micro, mezzo and macro levels

Issues Are the differences in levels of social capital in different regions of a nation due to culture? Why is social and ethnic heterogeneity associated with lower levels of social capital? How does culture affect the individual measurement criteria for social capital? Is an international measure of social capital valid in a culturally diverse world?


Culture and TrustThe importance and benefits of trust, and the emerging global and multicultural workplace, highlight the need for use to understand how trust develops and the ways national culture impacts the trust building process.

Issues Increasing globalisation necessitates closer examination of the link between culture and trust.

What is the impact of culture when building trust between individuals & organisations when they are operating on a virtual platform?

How do different societies decide whether and whom to trust?

How does trust impact on knowledge sharing?


Culture, Innovation & Creativity Despite many economically-driven studies on innovation

at a national level, little has been written on the impact of national culture on innovation.

Most common measurement is taken at the individual, organisational and national levels.

McElroy (2002) claims that social capital must be taken into account when examining innovation.


Final Questions What is the relationship between

culture, social capital, human capital, intellectual capital, innovation, creativity, virtuality, and knowledge management?

Is there a unifying theory?

cross-cultural knowledge management at virtual interfaces

Documents