View
220
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 1/19
* Academy
of anagement
Review
3002. Vol. 27. No. 2, 204-221,
CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN THE CROSS-
BORDER TRANSFER OF ORGANIZATIONAL
KNOWLEDGE: AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK
RABI S. BHAGAT
BEN L. KEDIA
The Universi ty of Memphis
PAULA D. HARVESTON
Berry Col l ege
HARRY C. TRIANDIS |-
Universi ty of I l l inois
Little is known about the effectiveness of cross-border transfer of organizational
knowledge involving dissimilar cultural contexts. We propose a theoretical frame-
work for unde rstanding the significan ce of four transacting cultural patterns define d
in terms of the dimensions of individualism-col lectivism and verticalness-
horizon talness for their potential in mod erating the effec tiven ess oi cross-border
transfer of organizational knowledge. Drawing foundational support for this new
framework from recent research advan ces in the area of kno wled ge transfer we
explore implications for future research.
The concept of organizat ional knowledge as a
foundation for global competitiveness is of sig-
nificant theoret ical importance and spans many
discipl ines. With the advent oi vast ly improved
communica t ion t echno log ies , t he t r ad i t i ona l
v iews of how global organizat ions t ransfer
knowledge across geographic boundar ies and
po l i t i ca l l y imposed bo rder s a re undergo ing
rapid changes. Davenport and Prusak (1998) note
that spontaneous and unstructured transfers of
knowledge rout inely take p lace wi th in and
across organizat ional boundar ies , whether the
process is act ively managed or not . For exam-
ple , when an employee irom a subsidiary of a
global corporat ion located in Korea, such as
IBM, see ks pertin ent information an d kn ow ledg e
on how to design a business plan from a col-
lea gu e in the U.S. he ad qua rter s, a t ransfer of
knowledge across nat ional borders occurs. Sim-
ilarly, when an engineer from a corporation lo-
A previous version o this paper was presented at the 1997
annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Boston.
Rabi Bhagat thanks the CIBER of The University of Memphis
for a summer grant, which facilitated work on this article.
We thank D. P. S, Bhawuk, Sally McQuaid, and Karen
Moustafa for their helpful sugg estions . We also expre ss our
appreciation to Albert A. Cannella. Jr. . and the (hree anon-
ymous MR
reviewers for their
constructive comments.
cated in Austral ia asks a col league from an un-
related corporation located in Brazil to provide
helpful information on an eng ine eri ng project
that was specifical ly designed by the Brazi l ian,
a cross-bo rder transfer of kno wle dge tak es
p l ace .
Gupta and Govindarajan (1991) conceptual ize
mult inat ional corporat ions as networks of t rans-
act ions that are engaged in knowledge flows.
Harrigan (1985), Teece (1986), and Kogut {1988)
note that organ izat ions seek extern al wel l-
spr ing s of kno wle dge (Leonard, 1995) tha t are
vital for their strategic objectives. In addition,
an organization's ability to search for and find
new knowledge depends on i ts abi l i ty to effec-
t ively monitor, integrate, and absorb newly ac-
quired knowledge within i ts exist ing knowledge
ba se (Cohen & Le vintha l, 1990; Ha m el, 1991;
H an se n, Noh ria, & Tierne y, 1999; Le ona rd, 1995).
Effective cross-border transfer of organization-
al knowledge wil l become increasingly cri t ical
as compet i t ion among mul t inat ional and g lobal
organizat ions intensif ies. New knowledge pro-
vides a basis for the effective development of
organizat ional design and renewal and for com-
pet i tive ad va nta ge (Almeida, G rant , & Song,
1998; Doz, 1996; Ep ple, Arg ote, & D ev ad as , 1991).
U n d e r s t a n d i n g k n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e n t p r o -
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 2/19
Bhagat Kedia Harveston and Tiiandis
5
cesses in g lobal and mul t inat ional organiza-
t ions requires developing crucial insights into
the complexit ies of acquiring, t ransferring, and
in tegrat ing knowledge.
The effect iveness of cross-border t ransfer of
organizat ional knowledge i s general ly faci l i -
ta ted by the capabi l i t i es of the t ransfer r ing
and the recip ient organizat ions to use appro-
pr iate ins t i tu t ional mechanisms (e .g . , l i cens-
i n g a g r e e m e n t s , p a t e n t - r e l a t e d i n t e l le c t u a l
property r ights, and so forth) to accomplish
such transfers. In addit ion, i t is important for
the recip ient organizat ion to po sse ss ap propr i -
ate absorpt ive capaci ty to ut i l ize such knowl-
ed ge {Cohen Le vinth al, 1990; Ke dia Bha-
ga t, 1988; Le on ard , 1995; S he nk ar Li, 1999).
Several researchers (e.g., Almeida et al . , 1998;
A sa ka w a, 1999; Inkp en, 1998; Kogut Za nde r,
1992;
L a r s s o n , B e n g t s s o n , H e n r i k s s o n ,
Sp ark s, 1998; Sh en ka r Li. 1999) ha ve pro-
vided ins ights into the acquisi t io n, m obil iza-
t ion , and implementat ion of knowledge. We
seem to know a great deal regarding the s ig-
n i f icance of knowledge and i ssues concerning
cross-border t ransfer of organizat ional knowl-
e d g e , but we know relat ively l i t t le about the
ro le of cu l tural var iat ions on such processes .
In this art icle we examine the process of
cross-border transfer of knowledge between or-
ganizat ions located in dissimilar cul tural con-
texts (e.g., Australia and Brazil). These organi-
zat ions could be subsidiaries of a mult inat ional
or global corpora tion (e.g., IBM, G en era l M otors,
Microsoft, Samsung, Siemens, Toyota) or two
distinct global corporations (i.e., IBM from the
United States and Mitsubishi from Japan) en-
ga ge d in t ransa ct ion s of important o rganizat ion-
al k now ledg e. Specifically, w e (1) pre sen t a con-
cep tua l model o f c ross -bo rder t r ans fe r o f
organizat ional knowledge that explici t ly takes
into account the nature of cul tural variat ions,
(2) adv an ce som e proposi t ions that explain var-
ious scenarios involved in the effectiveness of
kno wle dge transfer, a nd (3) ex am ine the rele-
vance of these propositions for future research
on knowledge transfer .
It should be noted that our theoretical ap-
proach i s concerned wi th the in t r icacies of
knowledge transfer involving organizat ions in
two distinct nations that differ in terms of cul-
ture.
However, we recognize that there could be
within-country differences existing in some cul-
tu re s , since the concept of cul ture is rarely
monoli thic and may be characterized by some
degree of heterogeneity. Transfer of knowledge
across var ious occupa t iona l cu l tu res t akes
plac e frequently ( i.e. , from au tom obile eng i-
neers , who design cars, to marketers, who are
responsible for selling cars to consumers), but
this is not a concern in our paper. We also rec-
ognize that t ransfer of knowledg e can tak e pla ce
between organizat ions within a given cul tural
context (i.e., transfer of knowledge from IBM to
Apple Computers) , but , as emphasized earl ier ,
our focus is on the theoretical intricacies involv-
ing cross-border knowledge transfers between
org aniz ation s located in different cou ntries with
dissimilar cul tural backgrounds.
CROSS-BORDER TRANSFER OF
ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE:
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The model , shown in Figure 1, sug ges ts that
the ef fect iveness of cross-border know ledge
transfer is directly related to the type of knowl-
edge involved in the t ransfer process. In addi-
tion, the transfer of knowledge is moderated by
(1) the natur e of tran sac ting c ultural pa tte rns
an d (2) the cognitive s tyles of the ind ividu als
involved in such transactions. In our formulation
the type of knowledge being transferred is the
most impor tant an tecedent of ef fect iveness .
However, it should be noted that there are strong
interact ions between cul tural pat terns and cog-
ni t ive styles. In addit ion, som e cultural contexts
might foster some cognit ive styles that are
uniquely res pon sible for the evolut ion a nd prac-
tice of certain types of organizational knowl-
edge , com pared to other cul tural contexts, which
might emphasize different styles. In the follow-
ing sect ion we discuss the types of knowledge
and their significance in cross-border t ransfers.
Knowledge and Knowledge Flow: Theoret ical
Considerat ions
Knowledge is broader, deepe r, and richer tha n
data or information. Data reflect discrete, objec-
tive facts about events in our world, while infor-
mation is organized around a body of data. Dav-
enport a nd P rusak (1998) define kn ow ledg e a s a
fluid mix of framed experience, important val-
ues , contextual information, and expert insight
that provides a framework for evaluat ing and
incorporat ing new experiences and information.
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 3/19
206
Academy of Management Review
FIGURE 1
A Model of Know ledge Transfer in a Cross-Border Contex t
April
Systemic Human
Independent
Complex
Social
y
Structured
ae s
of k no jvledge
Simple
Explicit Tacit
Nature of
t ransact ing
cultural patterns
Effectiveness
of cross-border
knowledge transfer
Cognitive style
• Tolerance for
ambigui ty
• Signature skills
• Holistic versus
analy tic m ode of
thinking
Key: - • p resum ed cau sal influence; •••• presum ed m oderating influence.
Knowledge originates from unique experiences
and organizat ional learning by key const i tuents,
and it often remains embedded, not only in writ-
ten documents but also in the routines, tasks,
processes, pract ices, norms, and values of or-
ganizations. Just as information is derived from
data, knowledge is derived from information by
contextual izing the information and comparing
it with an exist ing standard and by examining
the consequences a given body of information
may have for immediate and long-term organi-
zat ional act ions and decisions. We adopt the
Davenport and Prusak defini t ion, which cap-
tures , in our view, the sense of what knowledge
is and what knowledge can do for organizat ions.
Although the terms information a nd knowl
edge are often used interchangeably, we should
clearly different iate between them. Knowledge
is created , restructured, or cha nge d from relate d
and unrelated pieces of information, to the ex-
tent that the information has the right kinds of
signals that, in the mind of the receiver, are
conducive to the creat ion of knowled ge. N onaka
1994) an d N ona ka an d Ta ke uch i 1995) no te tha t
knowledge i s created , organized , and t rans-
ferred by the commitment and belief patterns of
i ts holders a nd i ts recipients, who transm it their
culture-specific sets of values and frames of ref-
erence. I t is the receiver—not the sender—who
decides whether the communicat ion he or she
receives is t ruly information or knowledge.
De Long an d Fa he y 2000) note tha t a m ajor
source of con fus ion abou t kn ow led ge a nd
knowledge management i s resolved i f we rec-
ognize that there are at leas t three dist inct ty pes
of knowledge: human knowledge, social knowl-
edge ,
and s t ructured knowledge.
Human knowl
edge
const i tutes what individuals know or know
how to do, is manifested in important skills, and
usu ally comp rises both explicit e.g., arch itec-
tural drawing ) an d taci t know ledge e.g., men-
toring a junior colleague). It could be conceptual
or abstract in orientat ion. Social knowledge ex -
i s t s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g i n d i v i d u a l s o r
within group s. Social or col lect ive know ledge is
largely taci t , composed of cul tural norms that
exist as a result of working together, and its
salience is reflected in our ability to collaborate
and develop transact ional relat ionships. Sfruc-
tured knowledge i s em bedd ed in organizat ional
systems, processes, rules, and routines. Accord-
ing to De Long and Fahey, this kind of knowl-
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 4/19
Bhagat. Kedia. Harveston. and Triandis
7
edge is expl ic i t and rule based and can exis t
independently of the human knowers (Glazer,
1998). We ad op t th is typology in constru cting our
theory of cross-border transfer of organizational
knowledge .
We analyze these three types of knowledge in
terms of the three dimensions of knowledge, as
proposed by Garud and Nayyar (1994): simple
versus complex, explicit ve rsus tacit an d inde-
pendent
ve rsus
systemic.
Fol lowing an ear l ier
conc eptua lization by Winter (1987), the se au-
thors outline the relevance of these three dimen-
s ions o f knowledge . The f i r s t d imens ion—
simplic i ty versus complexi ty—is re levant in
cross-border knowledge t ransact ions . Complex
knowledge evokes more causal uncerta int ies ,
and, therefore, the amount of factual informa-
tion required to completely and accurately con-
vey such types of knowledge is greater than
would be the case with simple types of knowl-
edge. S imple knowledge can be captured with
lit tle information a nd is , therefore, relatively
easy to transfer.
The explicit versus tacit dimension concerns
how well articulated or implicit the knowledge
is .
Polanyi (1958) notes that we know more than
we can tell . Knowledge is often highly personal
in na tur e, difficult to co m m un icat e (Polanyi,
1958), highly specia l ized, and not a lway s valued
or eas i ly t raded in the external marketplace
(G hem aw at, 1991). The transf er of tacit know l-
edge requires richer context and richer media,
because tac i t knowledge requires more than
just codification (i.e., indexing). Often, it is em-
bedded within individuals ' cogni t ive processes
or is deeply ingrained in the routine and non-
rout ine processes of an organiza t ion ' s unique
cultu re an d v al ue s (Dalt & Leng el, 1986), an d
there are cons iderable causal ambigui t ies sur-
rou nd ing it (Szulanski, 1996). C au sa l am big uity
is present w hen the knowledg e cannot be eas i ly
reduced to a precise list of factors in the repro-
duction and implementation of knowledge. Ex-
plicit knowledge, however, can be codified and
is transferred with relative ease. For example,
explicit knowledge can be transferred when the
sending organization informs the recipient or-
ganization about its record-fceeping
rules
which
specify which records are to be kept and how
records ar e to be m ain tain ed (Cyert & March,
1992).
The third dimens ion of knowledge deals wi th
the independent versus sys temic character of
know ledge— that is , the extent to which the
knowledge is embedded in the organiza t ional
context . Knowledge tha t is independent can be
described by itself whereas knowledge tha t i s
systemic must be described in relation to a body
of knowledge existing in the transferring organ-
ization.
Using these dimens ions , we can conceptual-
ize human knowledge as e i ther s imple or com-
plex, as tacit or explicit (or both), and, generally,
as more independent or systemic. Social knowl-
edge can be either s imple or complex and is
largely tacit and systemic in character. Struc-
tured knowledge is either s imple or complex, is
usually more explicit than tacit , and is largely
systemic in char acter. Sticky kno wled ge (Szu-
lans ki, 1996), wh ich is m ore com plex, tacit, an d
systemic, is more difficult to transfer, reg ard less
of cultural differences. Some combinations of
human, socia l , and s t ructured knowledge can
take on the character of s ticky knowledge and
become even more difficult to transfer, regard-
less of the cultural differences involved betw een
the t ransact ing organiza t ions .
Garud and Nayyar (1994) note that the position
of knowledge along each of the three dimen-
sions affects the amoun t of information requ ired
to describe it and the amount of effort needed to
transfe r it. Therefore, if the type of k no w led ge
(human, social , or s tructured) being transferred
is tacit, complex, and systemic, then it is more
difficult to transfer and to absorb. Davenport
and Prusak's (1998) notions of velocity (i.e., the
speed with which knowledge moves through an
organization) and viscosity (i .e . , the richness or
thickness of knowledge) are useful to consider
in this respect . Com puter-m edia ted comm unica-
tion excels at enhancing the velocity of knowl-
ed ge transfer. The issu e of viscosity, how ever, is
more complicated; viscosity is influenced by a
number of cognitive and organizational factors
and, in part icular , by the mode of t ransfer .
Knowledge transferred through a long process
of apprent iceship or mentoring is character ized
by high viscosity, with the recipient gaining a
significant amount of tacit knowledge, but only
after a long period of time.
Both of these criteria of effective knowledge
transfer are affected when knowledge transfers
involve t ransact ing organiza t ions tha t a re lo-
cated in dissimilar cultural contexts . The above
discussion leads us to our central proposition.
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 5/19
8
Academy
of
Manag ement Review
April
Proposition 1: Cross-border transfer of
organizational knowledge is most ef
fective in terms of both velocity and
viscosity when
the
type
of
knowledge
i.e., huma n, social,
or
structured)
be
ing transferred
is
simple, explicit,
and
independent and when such transfers
involve similar cultural contexts. In
contrast, transfer is least effective
when
the
type
of i tnowiedge
being
transferred
is
comp lex, tacit,
and sys
temic
and
involves dissimilar cultural
contexts.
Nature of Transact ing Cultural Pat terns
Cul ture
is to a
society what memory
is to an
Individual Triandis, 1994, 1995, 2000). As shown
in
our
mo del Figure 1),
the
differences betw een
the cul tural pat terns
of the
societ ies
in
which
the organizat ions are located exert strong mod-
erat ing influences. We conceptual ize the four
pat terns as
vertical individualism, horizontal
in
dividualism, vertical collectivism, and horizon-
tal collectivism.
While other dimensions of cul tural v ariat ions
are relevant for the ana lys i s of cross-border
transfer
of
organizat ional knowledge,
we
focus
on
the
role
of
vert ical
and
horizontal individu al-
ism-collectivism in modera t i ng the effective-
ness of knowledge transfers. The individual ism
and col lect ivism constructs have been promi-
nent in organizat ional sciences fol lowing the
seminal work of Hofstede {1980, 1991). A number
of sch olars Earley
Gibson. 1998; Erez
Earley,
1993; Hofstede, 1980, 1991, 1994; Triandis, 1989,
1990,
1994, 1995, 1998, 2000) have argued that the
indiv idual i sm-col lect iv i sm dimension of cul-
tural variat ion is the major dist inguishing char-
acterist ic in the way that the various soc ieties of
the world analyze social behavior
and
process
information.
Individual ism
and
co llectivism
are
social
pat-
terns tha t define cultura l synd rom es Earley
&
Gibson,
1998;
Ho fstede , 1980, 1991; Triandis, 1994,
1995,
1998), which are shared pat terns of beliefs,
at t i tudes, norms, values, and so forth organ ized
a s one theme. Some countries are clearly more
individual ist ic than other countries in their ori-
entat ions. Individual ism
can be
defined
as a
social pat tern that consists
of
loosely linked
in-
dividuals
who
v iew themselves
as
i ndependen t
of collectives and who are motivated by their
own preferences, needs, r ights, and cont racts .
Collectivism, however, can be defined as a so-
cial pat tern that consists of closely linked indi-
v iduals who see t hemselves as belonging to one
or more collectives e.g., family, coworkers, in-
groups, organizat ions, t r ibe)
and who are
moti-
vated
by
norms, dut ies,
and
obligat ions, which
are imposed by the col lect ives. People are in-
cl ined to give priority to the goa l s of t hese col-
lectives over their own pers ona l go als. People of
a given cul ture emphasize and sam ple different
segmen t s of information from a given body of
knowledge; they bel ieve that thei r ways
of
th inking about themselves and their groups are
obviously correct and do not quest ion their va-
lidity Triandis, 1994, 1995, 1998).
Individual ism
and
collectivism strongly influ-
ence ways
of
thinking. Specifically, they influ-
ence how m e m b e rs of a culture process, inter-
pret, and m a k e use of a body of information and
knowledge. They provide a b a s i s for sampl ing
the domain of a m e s s a g e , how much weight to
give to w h a t is sampled , and w h a t the relat ion-
ships
are
among var ious domains
of
m e s s a g e s ,
as well
as
what p ieces
of
information
to
sample
and what kind of associat ions a l ready exist wi th
the i tems and domains of knowledge.
Our interest in examin ing the moderat ing role
of these four cul tural pat terns
is as
follows.
First, the re is ev iden ce i.e., M arkus Kitayama,
1991;
Markus, Kitayama, He im an, 1996) tha t, in
processing information, people
in
individual ist
cultures think
of the self as
i ndependen t
of the
immediate social envi ronment and see each
piece of information as i ndependen t of its con-
text. People in coUectivist cultu res see the self
as funct ioning interdependently with signifi-
cant others w ithin the imm edia te social environ-
ment
and
look
for
contextual cues
in
each p iece
of inform ation Ka gitcibas i ,
1997;
M a r k u s
&
Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995, 1998).
Second, when
the
know ledge c once rns infor-
mation about organizat ional history, pat terns
of
obligat ions, norms, or ingroups and outgroups,
people in coUectivist cultures are likely to pay
more at tent ion to it. In terms of a t t end ing to,
comprehend ing , and put t ing th i s know ledge
into action, collectivists are much more sensi-
tive
to
such types
of
context-specific informa-
tion.
In
contrast, peo ple
in
individual ist cul tures
are more likely to focus on knowledge when it
concerns personal at t r ibutes, such
as
personal -
ity, beliefs, feelings, and at t i tudes toward an
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 6/19
Bhagat, Kedia, Haiveston nd Tiiandis 209
event, object,
or
person. Compared
to
collectiv-
ists, individual is ts are more concerned with
ra-
t ionality when they transfer and receive knowl-
edge (Bhawuk, 2001; Triandis, 1998).
Third,
in
making sense
of
even ts, collectivists
emphasize his tor ical
and
contex tual informa-
tion
and
knowledge
to a
greater extent than
individual is ts . People
in
coUectivist cultures
are
less l ikely than individualists
to
emphas ize
the
signif icance
of
information that
is
written
and
codified
and are
more likely than indiv idua lists
to disregard such information.
In
contrast,
peo-
ple in individ ualist so cieties pay closer atten -
tion
to
perso nal goa ls over collective goals
and
emphasize ra t ional analyses over his tor ical
and
contextual information. Individualists look
for
information
in its
aco ntex tual form,
and
they
emphas ize
the
signif icance
of
information
in
written
and
codified form
and are
more likely
to
accept such information (Kagitcibasi, 1997; Tri-
andis ,
1990, 1995,
1998).
Fourth, people
in
vertical cultures consider
their
self to be
different from o the rs
in
social
s ta tus , whereas
in
horizontal cultures peo ple
consider their
self to be
more
or
less
the
s a m e
as oth ers (Bhawuk, 2001; Ch en, Me indl, Hunt,
1997;
Triandis , 1995, 1998; Triandis & Bhawuk,
1997).
In vertical cultu res the process ing of infor-
mation
and
know ledge takes pla ce according
to hierarchical ar rangements within
the
organi-
zation, with superiors having f irst access
to im-
por tant pieces
of
information
and
knowledge
derived from external sources. Superiors
may
also have
the
power
to
decide w hen
and how
such information
and
knowledge
are
diffused.
It
is important
to
note that,
in
conduct ing these
organiza t iona l ac t ions ,
the
super ior
may not
necessar i ly have
the
right technica l abili t ie s
to
mak e these decis ions . However,
the
fact that
he
or she is in a higher position in an o rganizat ion
located
in a
society character ized
by
vertical-
ne s s e na b l e s
him or her to
hav e such r ights
and
pr i v i l ege s . L a ngua g e
use
tak es different forms
for different situations
in
ver t ical socie t ie s ,
where forms and conten ts of gr e e t i ngs and
m e s s a ge s va r y a c c o r d i ng
to the
s t a t u s
of the
receiver .
In
other w ords , when
the
di m e ns i on
o f h o r i z o n t a l n e s s - v e r t i c a l n e s s
is
s u p e r i m -
posed upon
the
m or e funda m e n t a l d i m e ns i on
of individual ism-col lect ivism,
one
ge t s
a bet-
ter sense
of how
information
and
k n o w l e d g e
m ay
be
select ively t ransfer red
and
pr oc e s s e d
by m e m be r s
of
societ ie s that dif fer a l on g the se
d i m e ns i ons .
Ve r t i c a l
and
h o r i z o n ta l d i m e n s i o n s
are
needed when expla in ing c ross -border knowl-
edge t r ans f e r , because communica t ion f lows
differently when
the
society
is
ver t ica l
(pri-
marily from the top to the bottom) tha n w hen it
i s h o r i z o n t a l (c o m m u n i c a t i o n f lo w s b o t h
ways—from
top to
bottom
and
from botto m
to
top).
Fur thermore ,
in
collect ivism,
one
commu-
nica tes on ly wi th ingroup member s ,
and
t he s e
m ay
be
very
few
with in
the
or ga n i z a ti on .
In
i nd i v i dua l i s m ,
one
c om m uni c a t e s w i th
any-
one
in the
orga niza t ion. Therefore , comm uni-
ca t ion presumably would
be
m os t w i de s p r e a d
within hor izontal coUect ivis t cul tures .
Before delineating the role of d is t inctive cul-
tura l pat terns (in terms of horizontal and vertical
individual ism
and
collectivism)
on
cross-border
transfers,
we
first discuss
the
role
of
individual-
ism versus collectivism
on
these processes .
Ta-
ble
depicts
the
rela t ive emphases
of the
three
dimens ions
of
kno wled ge ( i.e. , s imp le ver sus
complex, tacit versus explicit ,
and
i nde pe nde n t
versus systemic)
in
individual is t
and
coU ectivist
societies.
It
show s that while peop le
in
individ-
ual is t
and
coUectivist cu ltur es
do not
differ
in
terms
of
their preferences
for
handl ing e i the r
s imple
or
complex type s
of
knowledge, people
in
individual is t cu l tures em phasiz e expl ic it knowl-
edge , whereas those
in
coUectivist cultures
em-
phasize tacit information
and
knowledge .
Peo-
TABLE
1
Relat ive Emphasis
of
Different Fa cet s
of
Knowledge
by
People
in
Individual is t
and
CoUectivist
Cul tur es
Dimensions o Knowledge Individualist ultures
oUectivist ultures
Simple versus complex
Tacit versus explicit
Independent versus systemic
No distinct preferences or handling either sim ple or complex k nowledge
Explicit
Tacit
Independent Systemic
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 7/19
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 8/19
Bhagat. Kedia, Harveston, and Tiiandis
211
TABLE
Cross Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge As a Function of Types and Dimensions of
Knowledge and I-C and V-H Dimensions
Types of Knowledge
Dim ensions ol Knowledge Hum an Knowledge Sociol Knowledge Structured Knowledge
Simple versus complex
Tacit versus explicit
Independent versus sys temic
Cell
1
Neither I-C nor V-H
dimension is important
Cell
4
I-C dim ension is slightly
more important than V-H
dimension
Cell 7
I-C dim ension is more
important than V-H
dimension
Cell
2
I-C and V-H dimensions are
equally important
Cei J5
I-C and V-H dimensions are
equally important
Cell 8
I-C and V-H dime nsions are
equally important
Cell
3
Neither 1-C nor V-H
dimension is important
Cells
I-C is more im portant th an
V-H dimension
Cells
I-C dim ension is more
important than V-H
dimension
Key: I, individualism; C, collectivism; V, verticalne ss; H, horizo ntalness.
than the V-H dimension in Cells 4 and 7, wh ere
transfer of human knowledge is involved. Wh en
transferring social knowledge,
I-C and
V-H
di-
mensions
are
equa lly important ,
as
shown
in
Cells
2, 5,
an d 8. Cell
3
show s that nei ther di-
mension is part icularly im portant when trans-
ferring structured knowledge of the simple or
complex variety. However, the I-C dimension be-
comes more important than the V-H dimension
in transfe rring tacit ve rsus explicit Cell
6 as
well
as
indep ende nt versus systemic Cell
9
k n o w l e d g e .
By
i n t e g r a t i n g
the
typology
of
knowledge as sug ges ted by De Long and Fahey
2000) with the cultural variations of individual-
ism-collect ivism and ver t icalness-hor izontal -
ness , we
suggest that hum an
and
structured
knowledge
are
more affected
by the
cul tural
var i a t i on
of
indiv idual i sm -col lect iv i sm than
ver t icalness-hor izontalness . However , for so-
cial ly relevant knowledge, both dimensions are
equally important .
Organizat ions located in societ ies charac ter-
ized by the cultural pattern of vertical individu-
alism will process information
and
knowledge
differently than will organizations located in so-
cieties characterized by horizontal collectivism.
Therefore, it seems re ason able to argue that the
transfer of organizat ional knowledge among so-
ciet ies characterized by dissimilar pat terns can
be fraught with problems. When
the
cul tural
profile of two countries is the sam e e.g., vertica l
individual ism to vert ical individual ism), knowl-
e d g e is t ransfe rred without muc h distort ion.
However, when there is a difference in one facet
e.g., vertical individualism to vertical collectiv-
ism),
knowledge transfer becomes more diffi-
cult. When there are differences along two fac-
ets e.g., vert ical individua l ism to horizontal
collectivism), knowledge transfer is mo st diffi-
cult . Based on these argum ents , we ad vanc e the
following propositions relating to the mod erat-
ing effects
of
the t ransact ing cul tural pat terns .
Proposition 3a: The transfer of knowl-
edge huma n, social, or structured) is
most effective when
the
transacting
organizations are located
in
national
contexts with identical cultural pat
terns e.g., vertical individualist to
vertical individualist, horizontal
col
lectivist to horizontal coUectivist).
Proposition 3b: The transfer of knowl-
edge
is
less effective w h e n
the
trans-
acting organizations
are
located
in
national contexts that differ on the
individualism-collectivism dimen-
sion e.g.. from individualist to coUec-
tivist contexts) or
on the
verticalness-
horizontalness dim ension e.g., from
vertical to horizontal contexts).
Proposition 3c: The transfer
of
knowl-
edge
is
least effective
when
the trans-
acting organizations
are
located
in
national contexts that differ on both
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 9/19
21 2
Academy of Management Review
April
facets e.g., vertical individu alist to
horizontal coUectivist).
Figure 2 dep icts all the possib le sce nario s of
knowledge transfer involving the four cultural
pa t te rns .
Transferring Knowledge from
a
Vertical
Individualist Culture
Organizations in societies where vertical in-
dividual ism is the dominant cul tural pat tern
(e.g.. United States, United Kingdom) have a
c lea r p r e f e r ence for types of knowledge—
whether human, social, or structured—that is
line ar (i.e., cause-effect re lati on sh ips are cle arly
specified), credible, and explicitly logical (Ji,
Pen g, & Nisbett, 2000; Nisbett, Pe ng, Cho i, &
No renz aya n, 2001; Tri an dis , 1994, 1998). W e ex-
pect vertical individualists to be more comfort-
able in t ransfer r ing and receiving knowledge
that can be eas i ly codif ied and s tands indepen-
dent of the organizational context ( i .e. , indepen-
dent).
Vertical individualists might experience
signif icant d iff iculties in trans ferr ing know l-
edge to horizontal or vertical collectivists , who
are l ikely to put more emp ha sis on ingroup
goa ls and norms and w ho are more re la t ional in
FIGUR 2
Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational
Knowledge Among Four Cultural Pat terns
Key: 1, les s difficult to tran sfer in either d irectio n; 2, mo re
difficult to trans fer in eith er direc tion: 3, most difficult to
transfer in either direction.
natu re (Kashima
Ka shim a, 1998). Wh en collec-
tivists communicate, they tend to use an inter-
depe nde nt or ienta tion, us ing we more than
I, and to put more emphasis on the context
than content and on what was mutual ly agreed
upon than wha t wa s precisely commun icated. In
contras t , individual is ts emphasize an indepen-
dent or ienta tion, us ing I more than we, and
they put more emphasis on the content than the
context and on the specif ics of the communica-
tion.
Tudjman (1991) sug ge sts that ind ivid ual ists
believe it is possible to ar ticulate, organize, and
create knowledge pr imar i ly f rom theoret ical
analys is , whereas col lect ivis ts emphasize the
salience of context in addition to analysis . This
is not to say that coUectivist thinking is not con-
ducive to advanced scientif ic analysis; rather , i t
is different. The strength of coUectivist cultures
lies in their propensity to absorb and transmit
tacit information, whereas cultures that are pri-
mar i ly individual is t are bet ter able to process
complex information that is l inear , complex, an d
explicit, such as scientific frameworks (Nisbett
et a l , 2001).
Glenn a nd G lenn (1981) note that indiv idualist
cul tures are general ly more abs tract ive than
coUectivist cultures. In individualist cultures,
cause-ef fect re la t ionships and ludeo-Chr is t ian
modes of thinking are important, whereas in
coUect ivist cul tures , people emp hasize associa-
tive modes of thinking, sometimes leading to
associa t ion among events that may not neces-
sarily be logically related; in addition, the con-
text of communication is clearly more important
in coUectivist cultures.
Scientif ic discoveries involving logical and
systematic thinking are typically found in West-
ern contexts that are more abs tract ive than as-
sociative (e.g.. United States versus Mexico)—
the associative mode of thinking being found
more commonly in the Asian and Latin Ameri-
can cu lture s (Glen n & G len n, 1981). CoU ectivist
cultures are noted for their propensity to absorb
and transmit tacit information (Hall
Hall, 1990;
Rosch, 1987). Wh en th e dim en sio n of vertical-
ness-hor izontalness is cons idered in conjunc-
tion with individualism-collectivism, it seems
that vertical individualists are more likely to em-
phasize transfer of knowledge that is explicit and
relatively independent of organizational context.
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 10/19
Bbagat. Kedia, Haiveston, and Triandis
213
Proposition 4: Cross-border transfer of
organizational knowledge huma n,
social, or structured) from organiza-
tions in vertical individualist cultures
to those in vertical individualist cul-
tures is likely to be most effective.
Such transfers from organizations in
vertical individualist cultures to those
in horizontal coUectivist cultures are
likely to be least effective. The
process
of
cross-border transfer is facilitated
virhen the type of knowledge being
transacted is expiicif an d inde pen -
dent , as opposed to tacit and systemic.
Transferring
Knowledge
from a orizontal
Individual ist Culture
Horizontal individualists are quite adept in
art iculat ing and absorbing knowledge that is
explici t and independent of context and are
most effect ive in t ransferring knowledge to
other horizontal individual ist cul tures. Such a
pat tern is found in Austral ia, Denmark, and
Sweden (Triandis, 1998).
Horizontal individualists are self-reliant, but,
unlike vertical individualists, they do not like
people who stick out (Triandis, 1995, 1998). They
are most comfortable in t ransferring knowledge
that is clearly po ssib le to articu late (i.e., explicit)
and organize and that is logical , and they are
l ikely to pay more at tent ion to the abstract ive
nature of the knowledge and to ignore informa-
t ion concerning hierarchy, since they are much
less concerned about the d is t inct iveness of
h i e ra rch i es , s t a tu s , pos i t i on , o r s imi l a r a t -
t r ibutes. Horizontal individual ists are more com-
fortable in t ransferring and receiving knowl-
edge that , in addit ion to being logical and
abstract ive, also helps in sustaining the same-
ness of the self with others.
Proposition 5: Cross-border transfer of
organizational knov^ledge hum an, so-
cial, r structured) from organizations in
horizontal individualist cultures to
those in horizontal individualist cul-
tures is likely to be most effective. Such
transfers from organizations in horizon-
tal individualist cultures to those in ver-
tical coUectivist cultures are likely to be
least effective. The process of cross-
border transfer is facilitated when the
type of knowledge being transferred is
explicit and independent, as opposed to
tacit and systemic.
Transferring Knowledge from a Vertical
CoUectivist Culture
People in vert ical col lect ivist cul tures are
likely to be more effective in transferring organ-
izat ional knowledge to organizat ions in other
vertical coUectivist societies. They are more sen-
sitive to information and clues coming from au-
thori t ies and more sensi t ive to knowledge that
includes information on hierarchy.
In t ransferring know ledge to organ izat ions lo-
cated in vertical collectivist cultures, such as
Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Nigeria, the Philip-
pines , and Venezuela, firms encounter difficul-
ties mainly because of the fact that while the
broad context of collectivism facilitates transfer,
the differences owing to horizontalness versus
vert icalness may impede such transfers. Part ic-
u l a r i s t i c no rms , pa t e rna l i s t i c p rac t i ces , f a -
mil ism, and other nepotism-based pract ices that
are found in some developing countries ( largely
vertical coUectivist in orientation) in the African,
Asian, and Latin American context (Kiggundu,
Jo rg en se n, Hafs i, 1983) m ak e it difficult to
transfer knowledge to other cul tural pat terns.
Proposition 6: Cross-faorder
transfer of
organizational icnowiedge human,
social, and structured) from organiza-
tions in vertical coUectivist cultures to
those in vertical coUectivist cultures is
likely to be most effective. Such trans-
fers from organizations in vertical col-
lectivist cultures to those in horizontal
individualist cultures are likely to be
least effective. The process of cross-
border transfer is facilitated when the
type of knowledge being transferred is
tacit and systemic, as opposed to ex-
plicit and independent.
Transferring
Kn owle dge from a orizontal
CoUectivist Culture
People in horizontal coUectivist cultures (e.g.,
Israel , Japan) emphasize ingroup goals, norms,
and relationships. In such cultures there is a high
degree of interdependence in the development of
th e
self
People focus on give and take, think much
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 11/19
214
Academy of Management Review
April
more interdependently, and explore ideas while
emphasizing consensual decision making. Such
consensual decision making, facilitated by the
sameness of one's self with that of others, is a
strong characteristic in this cultural pattern.
Nonaka (1994) suggests that the building of
trust among members increases the creat ion of
implici t perspect ives brought in by members as
taci t knowledge. These shared implici t perspec-
t ives are then conceptual ized through continu-
ous in terchange among the members . People in
horizontal collectivist cultures engage in knowl-
edge transfers in those si tuat ions that lead to
coevolut ion of shared me ntal m odels. They are
better at transferring tacit knowledge to other
collectivist contexts because they tend to be rel-
at ively similar in the amount of interdepen-
dence of selves and they foster and emphasize
shared mental models .
In these cul tures people are comfortable with
the ideology of equali ty among various seg-
ments of society. I t seems that knowledge that
may create dissonance in the construal of self
as being interdependent with others is not eas-
ily assimilated by people in horizontal collectivist
cultures. Since horizontal societies emphasize a
sense of oneness and social cohesiveness with
members of the ingroup, knowledge that would
sustain social harmony would be most effectively
utilized.
People in organizat ions located in horizontal
coUectivist cul tures are bet ter at absorbing and
transferring knowledge that is taci t and sys-
temic. Horizontal collectivists value knowledge
that is tacit and that is historically and contex-
tual ly grounded. Members of organizat ions in
such societ ies appreciate systemic knowledge
in terms of its immediate as well as its long-
term potent ial applicat ion. Consider technology-
shar ing al l iances between European and Japa-
nes e compet i t o r s . Jap ane se f irms ge nera l l y
request more information about the European
market structure involving detai led customer
and competi tor an aly se s ( i.e. , know ledge tha t is
more systemic in character) . Their European
counterparts, however, focus on learning about
new technology through formal agreements and
licensing (i.e., knowledge that is independent of
context). As a result, while Europeans learn one
thing at a t ime, the Japanese gain a more com-
prehensive unde rs tanding of the European mar-
kets , which enhances their global effect iveness
(Ham el, Doz, Pr ah al ad , 1989).
The structure of go als in horizontal coUectivist
cul tures is highly interdependent with ingroup
members , and knowledge created in such con-
texts is more easi ly shared by members within
the system (e.g., agricul tural- and irr igat ion-
related innovations in the Israeli kibbutz). This
knowledge tends to be more taci t and systemic.
Thus , people in horizontal collectivist culture
find i t easier to t ransfer knowledge to members
of other horizontal collectivist organizations, but
they find it more difficult to transfer knowledge
to vertical collectivists and most difficult to
transfer know ledge to vert ical individual ist or
horizontal individual ist types of organizat ions.
Transferring tacit knowledge from one coUec-
tivist organization to another collectivist organi-
zat ion may be easier because col lect ivists are
social ized by many implici t messages and also
are used to deal ing with information that may
not be very explicit . Absorbing tacit knowledge
is easy for the col lect ivists because they are
socialized to think in more relational terms. Ex-
amples of successful t ransfer of knowledge are
found more among Japanese companies t rans-
ferring knowledge to companies in South Asia,
such as India or South Korea. Transfer of knowl-
edge f rom success fu l Japanese knowledge-
creat ing comp anies such a s Honda, Canon, Mat-
sush ita, Kao, an d S harp to U.S. organ izat ions is
rem ark ably less effective (i .e., No nak a
Takeu-
chi, 1995). Th ese exa m ple s tend to lend cre de nce
to our thesis that cul tural commonali t ies, espe-
cial ly along the d imension of col lect iv i sm-
individual ism, faci l i tate t ransfer of knowledge.
This leads us to our next proposition.
Proposition : Cross-border transfer of
organizational know^ledg e huma n.
social, and structured) from organiza-
tions in horizontal coUectivist
cuifures
to those in horizontal collectivist cul-
tures is likely to be most effective.
Such transfers from organizations in
horizontal collectivist cultures to those
in vertical individualist cultures are
likely to be least effective. The p rocess
of cross-border transfer is facilitated
when
the type of knowledg e being
transferred is tacit and systemic, as
opposed to explicit and independent.
In summary, we propose that the above four
prop osition s (4, 5, 6, an d 7) prov ide a clea r theo-
retical lens we can use to help us lay the foun-
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 12/19
Bhagat Kedia Haiveston and Tiiandis
215
dation for organizing our analyses involving
cross-border transfer of organizational knowl-
ed ge invo lving similar (i.e., vertica l indiv idual-
ist to vertical individualist) and dissimilar (i .e.,
vertical individualist to horizontal coUectivist)
cultural patterns. We are now in a position to
examine the moderat ing ef fect of cogni t ive
style—an individual-level concept .
Moderating Effect of Cognitive Style
While differences among cultural pat terns in
which transact ing organizat ions are located are
very important, we should not forget that it is
individuals who are responsible for t ransferring
and absorbing knowledge. These indiv iduals
also help determine the relative ease or diffi-
culty of absorbing knowledge that is sticky and,
therefore, cannot be transferred easily. In devel-
oping our model , we have focused on three ele-
ments of cognitive style we consider most sig-
nificant when individuals t ransact cross-border
knowledge.
Figure
1
shows the moderating effects of these
three elements of cognitive style (i .e., tolerance
for ambiguity, signature skills, and holistic ver-
sus analytical modes of thinking) in affecting
the process of cross-border transfer of knowl-
edge . Transfer and absorption of tacit knowl-
edge require a higher tolerance of causal ambi-
gu itie s (Szulansk i, 1996) in both the tran sfe rring
and the receiving context. Tolerance for ambi-
guity is an important psychological trait that
scholars have found useful in explaining a va-
riety of organizational behavior processes (e.g..
Lord & M ahe r, 1991; W eis s & Adle r, 1984). Ind i-
viduals with a high tolerance for ambiguity are
bet ter able to t ransfer and receive knowledge
that is tacit, complex, and systemic, compared to
those with a relatively low tolerance for ambi-
guity. In our view, horizontal individualists are
more likely to possess a higher tolerance for
ambiguity and, therefore, are bet ter able to ab-
sorb knowledge that i s complex and perhaps
sticky in nature.
The second factor concerns signature ski l ls
(Leonard, 1995). Sig na tur e skil ls a re sim ilar to
s ignature e nt rees in res taurants . Indiv iduals de-
velop idiosyncratic skills and proficiencies and
becom e emo tional ly at tache d to part icular sets
of problem -solv ing and informa t ion-seeking
styles by which they establish their own profes-
sional identi ty in the organizat ional context .
Leon ard (1995), wh o ha s ad va nc ed the con cept of
signature skills, notes that they are the result of
three interactive factors: individuals' preferred
type of task (what tasks they are l ikely to
choose), their preferred cognitive approach to
problem solving as required by the task (how
they frame the problem), and their preferred
technology (the tools, methods, and methodolo-
gies they choose) for performing the task. Spe-
cialists, in her view, make extensive use of sig-
nature sk i l l s , and these s ignature sk i l l s are
critical in the se ns e that they ar e emo tionally
tied to ind ivid ua ls' ego s an d identitie s (Leo-
nard ,
1995:
63). Distinc tive differe nces in the sig-
nature skills of key participants involved in the
knowledge transfer process wil l impede both
the f low and ef fect iveness of cross-border
know ledge transfer. In our view, signatu re ski l ls
are likely to be hallmarks of vertical individual-
ists,
because it is important for vertical individ-
ual is ts to dist inguish them selves from others.
The third element of cognitive style relevant
to our model is holistic versus analytic modes of
thinking. Ethnographers, phi losophers, and his-
torians of science have observed that in the
West there is a predominant tendency to locate
causality of behavior in the individual. In the
East , part icularly in East Asia, the predominant
tendency is to locate caus al i ty in the who le con-
text of beh avio r that can be calle d situatio nal-
ism or con textu alism (Hirschfeld, 1995; Hsu,
1981; Lloyd, 1990; M arku s & Kita yam a, 1991; Na-
ga sh im a, 1973; N ak am ura , 1985; Nisbe tt et al.,
2001; Triand is, 1995). Holistic vers us an aly tic
thinking concerns the tendency to analyze the
entire spectrum of information versus the ten-
dency to analyze each piece of information,
take n on e at a time, for its un iqu e contribution to
knowledge. Those using an analyt ic perspect ive
reta in information to as sim ila te it after signifi-
cant scrut iny, w he rea s those using a holistic one
quickly assimilate information as part of a
larger whole in an associat ive sense (Choi , Nis-
bett, & No renz aya n, 1999; Nisbe tt Norenzayan,
2001; Nisbett et a l., 2001; Nore nzay an, Choi, &
Nisbett, 1999).
Significant differences in cognitive style be-
tween the members of the t ransact ing organiza-
tions in different cultural contexts are likely to
exacerbate difficulties in the flow and effective-
ness of cross-border knowledge transfer. In our
view, cul tures of the East , which are character-
ized by vertical collectivism, are likely to foster
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 13/19
6
Academy of Management Review p r i l
holistic perspe ct ives. The United Kingdom, Can-
ada, and Austral ia, in contrast , characterized by
vertical and horizontal individualism, are likely
to encourage more analyt ical thinking.
Proposition 8 : Tolerance for amb igu-
ity signature skills and holistic ver-
sus analytic modes of thinking moder-
ate the effectiveness of cross-border
transfer of organizational knowledge
regardless of the cultural patterns in-
volved
Specifically, our predictions are as follows.
Proposition
8a : Higher tolerance for
ambigu ity in the recipient organiza-
tion facilitates the process of cross-
border transfer and absorption of
knowledge.
Proposition
8b:
Higher levels of signa-
ture skills on the part of individuals in
the transferring as well as in the re-
cipient organizations facilitate the
transfer and absorption of cross-
border organizational knowledge .
These two ski l ls might be more important when
the knowledge being transferred is complex,
tacit, and systemic, or sticky in character, as
opposed to simple, explici t , and independent .
Proposition 8c: Higher levels of analytic
thinking in the transferring as w^ell in
the recipient organization facilitate the
transfer and absorption of comp lex ex-
plicit and systemic knowledg e.
Proposition 8d: Higher levels of holistic
thinking in the transferring as well in
the recipient orga nization facilitate the
transfer and absorption of tacit com-
plex and systemic types of knowledg e.
Knowledge in the t ransferring as well as the
receiving organizat ion is widely dispersed and
assumes many forms; however, i ts qual i ty is
revealed in the spectrum of capabil i t ies that
both organizat ions possess as a resul t of this
knowledge (Choo, 1998). W hile most of an organ -
izat ion's knowledge is rooted in the expert ise
and experience of i ts individual members, the
organizat ion provides a physical , social , and
cultural context so that the exercise and growth
of this knowledge can be sustained for enhanc-
ing organizat ional effect iveness (De Long
Fahey, 2000).
Organizat ional knowledge i s a l so the out -
come of strategic relat ionships that the organi-
zat ion has nurture d over time with i ts custom ers,
sup pliers , an d pa rtn ers (Brannen Salk, 1999;
Leona rd, 1995). Bec ause k now ledg e in orga niza -
t ions is highly personal and widely dispersed,
o rgan iza t i ons des ign appropr i a t e soc i a l and
technical st ructures to en ha nc e effect ive shar-
ing of all types of kno wle dge (Pan Scarbrough,
1999). Such design strate gies c an b e further fa
cilitated if the key individuals in charge of ab-
sorbing and d is t r ibut ing knowledge poss ess the
requisite cognitive diversity in terms of toler-
anc e for ambiguity, sign ature ski l ls , an d holist ic
versus analyt ic modes of thinking.
DISCUSSION
We began with the perspect ive that cross-
border transfer of knowledge is crucial to global
and mul t inat ional organizat ions ' compet i t ive-
ness . Organizat ions succeed wi th knowledg
transfers by engaging in joint ventures and stra-
tegic al l iances and by creat ing various kinds of
organizat ional rout ines pertaining to creat ion,
diffusion, and transfer of knowledge across their
various units. These processes are clearly im-
portant, but the role of distinctive cultural pat-
terns that might characterize the t ransact ing or-
ganizat ions is also significant .
In this paper we have chosen to focus on and
clarify the complexit ies that are bound to arise
in the cross-border t ransfer of organizat ional
knowledge. Despite a great deal of research on
individual ism-collect ivism as a major dimen-
sion of cul tural variat ion, no one has systemat-
ical ly examined i ts theoret ical relevance in the
context of cross-border transfer of organization-
al knowledge. By incorporat ing ver t icalness-
horizontalness , we hope to further highlight this
important line of inquiry. In our model we delin-
eate the nature of t ransact ing cul tural pat terns
in moderating the transfer of knowledge. Fur-
thermore, by extending our analyses to the role
of cognitive styles, we also incorporate the role
individual differences play as they affect such
processes .
We developed our proposi t ions to i l lustrate
the complex nature of these cross-cul tural t rans-
act ions. While t ransfer of knowledge between
two distinct organizations (i .e., which are not
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 14/19
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 15/19
218
Academy of Management Review
April
kinds of organizat ional knowledge—what Leo-
na rd (1995) ca lls we llspring s of know ledge — is
definitely important for enhancing global com-
petitiveness. There is no doubt that such pro-
cesses are influenced by unique cul tural prac-
tices of the society and of the organization.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) discuss the relative
superiority of collectivist cultures (i.e., Japan) in
being able to convert tacit types of knowledge
into explicit forms; however, it was our decision
not to delve into the nature of cultural patterns
that are selectively responsible for such types of
knowledge creat ion .
IMPLICATIONS
The strategic and long-term importance of or-
ganizat ional knowledge is being covered in the
popular press ( i .e. . Business Week 2000; Th e
Economist
2001) and in a growing body of aca-
demic l i terature. However, researchers have yet
to systematically explore the role of cultural
var iat ions . Some of the impl icat ions of the
present approach are as fol lows.
First , in proposing that knowledge has impor-
tant dimensions and that t ransfer of knowledge
can be constrained by these different dimen-
sions, we highUght the significance of difficul-
t ies associated with cross-border t ransfer of
organizat ional knowledge. The point has been
made that sticky knowledge (Szulanski, 1996),
which is more complex, tacit, and systemic, is
more difficult to transfer, regardless of cultural
differences. However, one clear implication is
that, within the global context, i t is important to
consider the type of knowledge being trans-
ferred before one considers the effectiveness of
transfer . Although global corporat ions engage
in knowledge transact ions of the routine and
nonroutine variety on an ongoing basis, and
al though some are fair ly adept in such cross-
border t ransfers, our analysis clearly implies
that there is no guarantee that such knowledge
is t ransferred across cul tures without consider-
able difficulty.
Second, given that differences in cultural pat-
terns affect cross-border transfer of organizational
knowledge, our focus should now be on system-
at ical ly incorporat ing cul tural variat ions into
theory-building efforts. While many aspects of
cul tural variat ion play important roles in the
transfer processes, we highlight the seminal im-
portance of individual ism versus col lect ivism.
especial ly of vert ical and horizontal individual-
ism and col lect ivism. These cul tural pat terns
are extremely important in understanding multi-
nation al an d glob al organiza tions' ability to effec-
tively transfer and absorb knowledge across bor-
ders . Table 2 provide s som e insigh ts into the
dynamics of how the individualism-coUectivism
a n d v e r t i c a l n e s s - h o r i z o n t a l n e s s d i m e n s i o n s
select ively interact in the process of cross-
border t ransfer of organizat ional knowledge.
Third and finally, our model also implies that
while cultural patterns are clearly important, one
should be mindful of the moderating roles of cog-
nitive styles of the transacting parties involved.
Ineffective and biased processing of information
and knowledge by individuals with inappropriate
cognitive styles may impede the flow. Effective-
ness of knowledge transfers is greatly enhanced
when individual differences pertaining to toler-
ance for ambiguity, signature skills, and holistic
versus abstract ive cognit ive style match the re-
quirements of the si tuat ion. By examining the
validity of the propositions dealing with such
processes, we expect to gain increased insights
into the significance of the interaction between
such indiv idual - level var iables wi th cul tural
pat terns in affect ing knowledge transfers. We
hope that our integrat ive approach wil l st imu-
late further theory building and research in this
important yet rather unexplored area of organi-
zat ional knowledge management .
R F R N S
Alm eida , P., Gra nt, R. M.. & Song , J. 1998. The r ole of t he
international corporations in cross-border knowledge
transfer in the sem iconduc tor indus try. In M. A. Hitt, J. E
Ricart, I. Cos ta, R. D. Nixon (Eds.), M an ag ing strategi
caUy in an interconnected world 119-148. New York:
Wiley.
Asakawa, K. 1999. The intra-firm transfer of contextual
knowledge across borders: Barriers and solutions to
adoption diffusion and institutionalization of the U.S.
practices into the Japanese and European environment
in pharmaceufical companies . Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chi-
cago.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. 2001. Evolution of culture assimilators: To-
ward theory based ass imilators . /nfernat ionai
Journal o
Intercultural Relations 25(2): 141-164.
Brann en. M. Y., & Salk, ]. E. 1999. Pa rtne ring acr oss bord ers:
Nego t i a t ing o rga n iza t io na l cu l tu re in a Germ an-
Ja pa ne se joint venture . Hum an R eJalions. 53: 451-487.
Business Week. 2000. Management by web. August 21: 88 .
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 16/19
Bhagat, Kedia, Haiveston. and Tiiandis
21 9
Ch en , C. C . Mein dl, J. R., Hunt, R. G. 1997. Tes ting th e
eilects of vertical and horizontal collectivism: A study of
reward al locat ion preferences in China.
Journal of
Cross-CuUural Psychology. 28: 44-70.
Cho i, I., Nisbe tt, R.,
Norenzayan, A. 1999. Causal attribution
across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 125: 47-63.
Choo, C. W. 1998.
The knowing organization: How organiza-
tions use information to construct mea ning, create
knowledge, and make decisions.
New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press,
Coh en, W . M.,
Levinthal,
D .
A. 1990. Absorptive capa city: A
new perspective on learning and innovation.
Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.
Cye rt, R. M., Ma rch, J. G. 1992. A
behaviora l theory of the
firm (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Daft, R. L., 8r Lengel, R. H. 1986. Or ga niz ati on al inform ation
requirements , media r ichness and s t ructural des ign.
Management
Science, 3: 554-571.
Da venp ort, T. H.. Pru sak , L. 1998. Working knowledge.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
De Long,
D.
W., Fahey,
L.
2000. Diagnosing cultural barrie rs
to knowledge management . Academy of Management
Exe cutiv e, 14(4): 113-128.
Doz, Y. 1996. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alli-
ances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strate-
gic Management Journal, 17: 55-85.
Earley, P. C , Gibs on. C. B. 1998. Taking stock in our
progres s on individualism-collectivism: 100 years of sol-
idarity and community.
Journal of Management,
24: 265-
304.
The Economist. 2001.
Is there life in e-commerce? February 5:
69-72.
Epple, D.. Argote, L., De vad as. R. 1991. Org aniz ation al
learning c urves: A method for inves tigating intra-plant
transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by do-
ing. Organizafion Science, 2: 58-70.
Erez. M..
Earley, P. C. 1993. Cuiture, se/f-idenfif)', and work.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ga rud, R., Nayyar, P. R. 1994. Trans form ative cap acity :
Cont inual s t ructuring by intertemporal technology
transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 365-385.
Gh em aw at, P. 1991. Comm jfment:
The dynamic of strategy.
New York: Free Press.
Glazer, R. 1998. Measuring the knower: Towards a theory oi
knowledge equi ty . California Management Review.
40(3): 175-194.
Glenn, E., Glenn, P. 1981. Man and m ankind: Conflicts and
communication between cultures.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Greenfield. P. 1999. Three approaches to the psychology of
culture: Where do they come from? Paper presented at
the Third Conference of the Asian Association of Social
Psychology, Taiwan.
Gup ta, A.,
Govindarajan, V.
1991.
Knowledge flows and the
structure of control within multinational corporations.
Academy
of Management Review.
16: 768 -792.
Hall. E. T,. E Hall. M. R. 1990. Un ders tandin g cuJturoi differ-
ences .
Yarmou th, ME: Intercu ltural P ress .
Ham el, G. 1991. Com petition for com petenc e a nd inter-
partner learning within in ternat ional s t rategic al l i -
ances . Strategic M anagement Journal, 12: 83-103.
Hamel, G. C, Doz, K., 8f Prahalad, C. K. 1989. Collaborate
with your compet i tors and win. In C. Bart let t
S. Ghoshal (Eds.), Managing across borders: The (rans-
national solution: 459-468. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., 8f Tierney, T. 1999. What's your
strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business
Review.
77(2): 106-116.
Ha rrig an, K. R. 1985. Sfrafeg ies for joint venture success.
Lexington. MA: Lexington Books.
Hirschfeld. L. A. 1995. Anthropology, psycho logy, a nd the
me anin gs of social cau sality. In D. Sperber. D. Premack,
A. Pre ma ck (Eds.), Causa l cognition: A multidisci-
plinary debate:
313-350. Oxford: Oxford U niver sity
Press .
Hofstede, G. 1980. Cuiture's consequences; International dif-
ferences
in wori-reiated vaJues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofsted e, G. 1991. Cu lture s and organizations: Software of
the mind
London: McGraw-Hill.
Hoistede, G. 1994. M anage me nt sc ientists ar e hum an. Man-
agement Science.
40: 4-13 .
Hofstede. G. 200i. Culture s conseque nces: International dif-
ferences in work-related values
(2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks. CA: Sage.
Hsu, F. L. K.
1981.
Am erican and Chinese: Passage to differ-
ence. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Inkpen, A. 1998. Learn ing an d kno wled ge acq uis i t io n
through international strategic alliances. Academy of
iVJanagemenf Executive, 12{4): 69- 80 .
Ji, L.-J., Pen g, K., Nisb ett. R. E. 2000. Cu ltur e, control a nd
perception of relationships in the environment. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,
78: 943-955.
Kagitcibasi, C. 1997. Individualism and collectivism. In J. W.
Berry. M. H. Seg all,
C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbooi of
cross-cuitura/psychology, vol. 3: 1-50. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn
Bacon.
Kashim a, E. S., Kashim a, Y. 1998. Culture and l ang uag e:
The case of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun
use. Journal oi Cross-Cultural Psychology. 29: 461-486.
Kedia. B. L., Bha gat, R. S. 1988. Cu ltural c ons train ts on
transfer of technology across nations: Implications for
research in in ternat ional and comparat ive manage-
ment. Academy of Management Review, 13:
S59-571.
Kigg undu , M. N., Jor gen sen , J. J., Hafsi, T. 1983. Adm inis-
trative theory an d practice in develop ing countries: A
synthesis . Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 66-85.
Kogut, B. 1988. Joint ventu re: Theo retical and em pirical per-
spectives. Strategic iWanage ment/ournaJ, 9: 319-332.
Kogut, B., Zand er, U. 1992. Kno wledge of the firm a nd the
evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation.
Journal of International Business Studies,
24: 625-645.
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 17/19
Academy of Management fleview
April
Lar sso n, R., Be ngts son . L.. He nrik sso n, K., Sp ark s. J. 1998.
The interorganizational learning dilemma: Collective
knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organi-
zation Science, 9: 285-305.
Leonard, D. 1995. Wei/springs oi knowledge: Building and
sustaining the source of innovation. Boston: Harvard
Business School.
Lioyd, G. E. R. 1990. Dem ystifying mentalities. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lord, R., Ma her, K. J. 1991. Co gnitiv e theory in indu str ial
and organiza tional psychology. In M. D. Dunnette
L. M.
Hough (Eds), HandbooJt of industriai and organizationaJ
psychology:
1-62. Palo Alto, CA: Co nsu lting Ps ycholo-
gists Press.
Lytla, A. L.. Brett. J. M., Barsness, Z. 1., Tinsley, C. H..
Jan sse ns. M. 1995. A par adig m for confirmatory cross-
cultural research in organizational behavior.
Research
in Org an iza tio na l Behav ior, 17: 167-214.
Mark us. H.. Kitayam a. S. 1991. Cultu re an d self Implica-
tions for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psycholog-
ical Review. 98: 224-253.
M arku s, H., Kita yam a. S. 1994. A colle ctive fear of the
collective: Implication for selves and theories of selves.
Persona/ify
and Social Psychology Bulletin,
20: 568-57 9.
Marku s, H., Kitayam a, S., Heim an, R. J. 1996. Cu lture a nd
basic psychological principles. In E. T. Higgins
A. W.
Krug lanski (Eds.), Sociai psychology: Handbook of basic
principles:
857-915. New York: Guilford Pr es s.
M arku s, H., MulIaUy. P. R., Kita yam a, S. 1997. Selfw ays:
Diversity in mo des of cultur al p articip ation . In U. Neis-
ser D. Jopling (Eds.), The concep tual self in context:
13-61.
Cam bridge: Cambridge Univers ity Press .
Na gas him a, N. 1973. A reverse d world: Or is it? In R. Horton
R. Fin neg an (Eds), Modes of thoug ht: 92-111. London:
Faber 8t Faber.
Nakamura, H. 1985. Ways of thinking of Eastern peoples.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Nisbett. R. E.,
Norenzayan, A. 2001. Culture and cognition.
In D. L. Medin (Ed.). Stevens' handbook of experimental
psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley .
Nisb ett, R. E.. Pen g. K., Cho i. L, No renz aya n, A. 2001. Cu l-
ture and systems oJ thought: Holistic versus analytic
cognition. Psychological Review. 108: 291-310 .
Non aka. I. 1994. A dyna mic theory of orga niza tiona l k nowl-
edg e creation. O rganization Science, 5: 4-37.
Non aka, I, Take uchi. H. 1995. The knowledge creating
company.
New York: Oxford U niversity Pres s.
No renz aya n. A., Ch oi. I.. Nisbe tt, R. E. 1999. Ea ste rn a nd
Western perceptions oi causality for social behavior:
Lay theories about personalities and situations. In D. A.
Pre ntic e D. T. Miller (Eds.),
Cultural
divides:
Under-
standing and overcoming group conflict: 239-272. New
York: Russell Sa ge Foundation.
Pa n. S. L..
Scarbrough, H. 1999. Knowledge m ana gem ent in
practice: An exploratory case study. Technoiogy Anaiy-
si s Strategic Management, 11: 359-374.
Pa rso ns , T.. 8E Sh ils. E. 1951. Tow ard a general theory of
action. Cam bridge , MA: Harvard University Pres s.
Polanyi, M.
1958.
Person a] knowied ge. Ch icago: University o
Chicago Press .
Rosch. M. 1987. Communications: Focal point ol culture.
Management International Review, 27: 60-77.
Shenkar, O.,
Li, J. 1999. Know ledge sea rch in inte rna tion al
cooperative ventures. Organization Science. 10: 134-14
Szulan ski, G. 1996. Exploring inte rna l stic kine ss: Impe di-
ments to the transier of best practice within the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27-44.
Teece, D. 1986. Tra nsac tion cost econo mic s and mu ltina-
tional enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Or
ganization,
: 21-45.
Trian dis, H. C. 1989. The seli an d so cial be hav ior in differing
cultural contexts. PsychoJogicaJ Review, 96: 269-289.
Tria ndis . H. C. 1990. Cro ss-cu ltural stu die s of in divid ualis m
an d collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.). WebrasJta symp o-
sium on motivation, vol. 37: 41-133. Lincoln: University
o
Nebraska Press .
Trian dis, H. C. 1994. Cuiture
and social behavior.
New York
McGraw-Hill.
Trian dis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder
CO:
W estview.
Tria ndis . H. C. 1998. Vertical an d ho rizonta l individ ualis m
and collectivism: Theory and research implications for
internat ional comparat ive management . Advances i
International Comparative Management, 12: 7-35 .
Triandis, H. C. 2000. Greek identity: Implications for indi
vidual development in English speaking countries . Pa
per presented at the Fif th Internat ional Conference on
Greeks in Engl ish Speaking Countries , Speros Basi l
Vryonis Center for the Study of Hellenism, Sacra-
mento, CA.
Trian dis, H. C . Bhaw uk. D. P. S. 1997. Cultu re theory an d
the m ea nin g of rela ted ne ss . In P. C. Early 8f M. Erez
(Eds.). New perspectives on international industrial/or
ganizational psychology:
13-52. New York: Josse y-Bas s
Tudjman, M.
1991.
Culture and information society: The Jap
anese way .
Information Process and Management,
27
229-243.
We iss, H.. Adler, S. 1984. Pers onality and o rga niza tiona l
behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 1-50
Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge a nd com petence as strategic
assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.). The competitive challenge
159-184. New York: Harper
Row.
Witkin, H. A.. Berry, ]. W. 1975. Ps ych olog ical differ entia-
tion in cross-cultural perspective, /ournai of Cross-
Cuituraf Psychology, 6: 4-87.
Rabi S. Bhagat is professor of organ izational beh avior and interna tional m ana gem ent
at The University of Memphis. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. His current research interests include cultural variations in
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 18/19
Bhagat Kedia Harveston. and Triandis 221
human stres s and cognition in organizations knowledge management processes in
global corporations and developing the global mindset.
Ben L. Kedia is the Wang Professor of International Management at The University of
Memphis. He received his Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University. His current
research interests include international strategy knowledge transfer and privatiza-
tion in transition economies.
Paula
D.
arveston
is an assistant professor of management at Berry College. She
rece ived her Ph.D. irom The University of Memphis. Her research in terests include
issues such as knowledge transfer international entrepreneurship. and privatization
in transition economies.
arry C. Triandis is professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University. He is a fellow of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His distinguished research
caree r has spanned over 40 years and his major contributions inc lude the study of
subjective culture and individualism and collectivism.
8/11/2019 Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-variations-in-the-cross-border-transfer-of-organizational-knowledge 19/19
Recommended