Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management at Virtual Interfaces

1. Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management at Virtual Interfaces

2. 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) June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

3. Taking CCM a step further • 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 June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

4. Cross-Cultural Management as Knowledge Management • Interactive Global Networking • Teamworking • Organizational Learning June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

5. Networking • Networks as pathways to resources: • Human • Special knowledge • Rare competencies • Sources of finance • Forms of influence • How does this relate to Knowledge Management? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

6. 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) June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

7. 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”? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

8. 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 June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

9. 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 June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

10. 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 June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

11. Culture as Context in Cross-cultural Communicationas developed by Edward Hall • Context refers to the amount of information imbedded in a message • It plays a crucial role in intercultural communication June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

12. 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 Characteristics of High/Low Context CulturesHigh-context CulturesLow-context Cultures June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

13. Reliance on Verbal Communication High Context Low Context • 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 approach inferential June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

14. Context and Cultural Differences Information implicitly contained High Context Cultures Japanese Arabic Latin American Italian sender receiver English French Low Context Cultures North American (Canadian and USA) Scandanavian Information explicitly conveyed German Swiss German June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

15. The Basic Differences Leading to Conflict • Values, attitudes, behaviors • Language • Non-verbal communication • Context • Time • Ethnocentrism June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

16. 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? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

17. 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) June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

18. 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) June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

19. 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) June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

20. June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

21. National Culture Organizational Culture Group Culture Org.Behaviors National Values Group Values Group Behaviors Org, Values Group Attitudes Org. Attitudes Individual Actor Extending Adler’s Model (2002) to the Level of Organizations, Groups and Teams National Behaviors National Attitudes June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

22. 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 June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

23. 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 Team Membership (Extended) June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

24. 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 Conditions Present at Start up of Team June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

25. 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.” June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

26. 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. June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

27. Communication Channel Driving Factors for Selection and Use by Crown Side Driving Factors for Selection and Use by Claimant Side Face-to-face Get 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 June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

28. Telephone Communication Channel Deal with matters under some urgency To discuss issues informally (before or after sending a formal letter) Driving Factors for Selection and Use by Crown Side To check on progress and keep up momentum To discuss issues informally (before or after sending a formal letter) Driving Factors for Selection and Use by Claimant Side 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. Driving Factors in the Selection and the Use of Communication Channels (cont) June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

29. 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 June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

30. Coping with Complex Systems require special talents and abilities • Interactive translation = cross-cultural communicative competence = Participative Competence • Cross-cultural management should foster participative competence June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

31. What 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 June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

32. And.... • Language competency • Interpersonal skills • Area knowledge June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

33. 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) June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

34. “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. June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

35. Further Discussion June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

36. 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? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

37. 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? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

38. And More…National Culture and KM In 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? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

39. 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? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

40. 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? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

41. Culture and Trust The 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? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

42. 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. June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle

43. 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? June 16, 2006, U o W, Seattle