Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge

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 -



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.



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-



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

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



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





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



21 2


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.



Bbagat. Kedia, Haiveston, and Triandis

213


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.


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



214


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-



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



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





218


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 .



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.



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



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.



Documents

Cultural Variations in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge