Inter-cultural knowledge interaction

4.1 Inter-cultural knowledge interaction

At the level of inter-cultural exploration of collaborative knowledge interaction, there are two publications: Publication 1 is on the role of cultural interaction in the creation of new knowledge and dynamic capabilities; and Publication 2 is concerned with the influence of culture on knowledge interaction activities.

4.1.1 Cultural interaction and knowledge co-creation (Publication 1)

Publication 1 is about moving cultures and the creation of new knowledge and dynamic capabilities in emerging markets. The objective of the publication is to explore the mechanisms of cultural and communicative interaction for the creation of new knowledge and dynamic capabilities (DCs) in organizations in emerging markets.

The existent literature draws attention to several identifiable sources and processes.

These include: resource creation, coordination, entrepreneurship, and asset selection (Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997); deliberate learning and the firm’s investment, particularly in knowledge codification activities (Zolla & Winter, 2002); and social capital, emphasizing the role of central actors in rent generation and appropriation

83

(Blyler & Coff, 2003). This line of research lays special emphasis on the crucial role of top management and its direct associates in the creation and development of DCs. An emerging trend is criticism of the neglect of humanistic processes and concerns in organizational life and thus neglect of workers’ work ideology and shared mindset specifying broad, tacitly understood rules and organizational principles acknowledged in capability development (Volberda & van Bosch, 2005; Wooten & Crane, 2004). The role of cultural and communicative interaction revealed at the workplace is rarely discussed in this context. This paper argues that moving communication across and the interaction of multi-cultures in the workplace is a major driver for the creation of the new knowledge and DCs which seems to be evident in Chinese organizations undergoing major transformation.

In today’s emerging and rapidly changing markets, the development of new knowledge and DCs is particularly crucial for business success. In China, with its enormous societal, political and economic change, rapid economic development, great uncertainties, and irregularly evolving markets, there are rarely any just-fit-in business models or so-called best practices to follow. The biggest learning and knowledge management challenge is to learn what is actually not yet available (Engeström, 1987) and particularly in this innovative type of organizational learning, conflicts and tensions arise from diverse mental and cultural models and activity systems (e.g., modern practices and networking vs traditional structures, Western task-oriented vs Chinese relation-centered value systems, rule-based governance vs strong personal reinforcement). The authors of Publication 1 believe that intensive communication, cultural interaction and creative dialogue at all levels in organizations, in terms of the resolution of such conflicts and tensions, may give rise to the creation of new knowledge and DCs.

The findings of the publication further imply: 1) DCs are generated not only through macro-micro social and political interaction (Antonacopoulou, 2009a), but also through cultural and communicative interactions within organizations and practiced in organizations’ daily routines and activities; and 2) the emphasis on both formal (deliberate learning and knowledge codification) and informal (social capital and

84

humanistic work ideology and processes) aspects indicates that in order to understand entirely the creation of new knowledge and capabilities, micro-level socio-cultural structures and processes should be taken into account more fully than has been the case in previous literature on DCs. Therefore, the key contribution to the knowledge co-creation and DC debate emanating from this theoretical analysis is to explore and highlight the role of communicative and cultural interaction at all levels in organizations in the creation of new knowledge and DCs in emerging markets.

4.1.2 Culture and knowledge interaction activities (Publication 2)

Publication 2 is about the cultural implications of collaborative knowledge interaction.

It explores the alignment of culture and activity, emphasizing the study of culture in the context of knowledge interaction activities in light of mutual learning and knowledge creation theorizing based on cultural-historical activity theory (Engeström, 1987;

Engeström et al., 1999; John-Steiner, 2000; Lave, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991;

Scribner, 1985). The objective of the publication is to examine the most relevant studies in terms of culture and knowledge interaction activities and to gain a broad understanding of the cultural implications of collaborative knowledge interaction in preparation for the next step of the study and to inform subsequent empirical exploration.

In Hong et al. (2007), three approaches to collaborative knowledge interaction (i.e., TKT, KI and CKC) are identified. These approaches are further discussed in Publication 2 in connection with knowledge management generation theories and activities proposed by Hong and Ståhle (2005) and knowledge management environments originally developed by Ståhle and Grönroos (2000). The interconnections of the knowledge interaction approaches, knowledge management generation theories and knowledge management environments are presented, and these interconnections are further elucidated with respect to the interface of knowledge interaction, key knowledge management questions, and the intensity of knowledge interaction. Additionally, cultural implications of the most relevant studies on collaborative knowledge interaction

85

at multi-cultural levels are critically reviewed and analyzed with regards to the following aspects: the specific level of cultural influences, the conceptual connotations of culture, knowledge interaction and cultural implications.

The major findings and contribution of the publication can be summarized as follows.

First, TKT has been the focus of most of the reviewed studies, and other forms of knowledge interaction such as interactive KI and CKC seem to have been neglected despite the fact that in organizational partnerships they differ substantially from the TKT type of knowledge interaction. The publication finds that future research needs to pay much more attention to CKC and its underlying cultural mechanisms. Second, the influence of multiple cultures is all-important, and as Rose (1988) noted, a differentiation perspective of organizational culture (with an emphasis on organizational sub-cultures) may be a more realistic approach, particularly in large complex organizations where changes are evident. Third, studies on cultural interaction and the new understanding of cultural diversity based on cultural-historical activity theory indicate that cultural diversity is not something negative but rather a powerful source for creating new knowledge and culture. Fourth, knowledge creation, in Nonaka’s term, is becoming an emerging line of research in U-I studies. This implies that Nonaka’s SECI model has become well recognized not only in KM research, but also in the wider context of U-I collaboration studies. Fifth, knowledge interaction approaches in terms of knowledge management generation theories, activities and environments together accentuate the conception of the relative importance of culture in which the significance of culture is subject to the intensity of knowledge interaction: the significance of cultural influences may increase with the increasing intensity of the knowledge interaction. And finally, the publication emphasizes the need for understanding of the host-country culture and universities in MNC innovation studies - such study would seem to be a promising area. As reviewed, Santoro and Gopalakrishnan (2000) have conducted an interesting study on culture and U-I knowledge interaction. Their study is within a local and the same context (like other mainstream U-I studies), and research in multinational and cross-cultural settings remains an interesting gap. National or societal culture, for instance, may influence U-I knowledge interaction in a significant way (Hemmert et al., 2008). Moreover, the study calls attention to the fact that the study of

86

culture in the context of MNC knowledge interaction activities may provide a work-related situation in which detailed information in terms of the effectiveness of cross-border knowledge interaction could be explored and utilized in workplace practices.

Cultural studies can therefore progress further in combining culture with work activities, thus not remaining just at an abstract level of research on culture per se.

4.2 Inter-organizational knowledge interaction (Publication 3)

Publication 3 is about the role of knowledge in inter-cultural organizational collaboration. The objective of the publication is to examine the interplay of culture and knowledge, proposing a conceptual model for systematically analyzing the moderating role of knowledge in cross-cultural knowledge-based collaboration.

The study identifies cultural distance and partner relationships as key cultural influences, and proposes a systematic way of analyzing knowledge-related variables. In inter-cultural collaboration, sophisticated discussion of cultural influences is likely to be associated with discussion of knowledge. This is understandable because of the intimate relationship between the two (see Nonaka & Tacheuchi, 1995; Sackmann, 1991) and the current stress on the value of context-specific and culturally-bounded tacit knowledge in organizations (Holden, 2008; Hong et al., 2008; Kok, 2006).

Previous studies have mainly discussed two sets of knowledge variables. The first set includes, for instance, the tacit and sticky nature of knowledge (Bhagat et al., 2002;

Simonin, 1999; Szulanski, 2003); types of knowledge by content (e.g. technical vs social knowledge) (Bhagat et al., 2002; Buckley et al., 2005; 2006), and knowledge structure (e.g. the Japanese ‘organizational’ and the British ‘professional’ models of the organization of knowledge) (Lam, 1997). The second set of variables, collaboration-oriented knowledge concepts, include mainly the common knowledge of cross-border knowledge holders (Grant, 1996; Li & Scullion, 2006), the value or desirability of the knowledge of the source organization (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1991; 2000; Pak & Park, 2004; Szulanski, 2003), and the absorptive capacity of the recipient (Miesing et al., 2007; Pak & Park, 2004; Szulanski, 2003). The above-reviewed studies have