Ways HRM Help MNEs t Overme Brriers f Knwledge - Example

Ways НRМ (Нumаn rеsоurсе mаnаgеmеnt) hеlр МNЕs (Мultinаtiоnаl еntеrрrisеs) tо оvеrсоmе bаrriеrs оf knоwlеdgе shаring асrоss Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: As firms become global there is a need to develop global managers in order to remain competitive. This expansion calls for the ability to effectively manage the organisation’s operations effectively and at the same time ensure that there is flexibility at the country level. Organizations need to develop a unique set of managerial skills so as to ensure that there is knowledge sharing globally and blending it with the local market practices (Hakansen& Nobel, 2001). It is important to note that knowledge is one of the key tools for effective development of any organization. Therefore, there is need to manage knowledge by all means to ensure that it becomes an effective tool towards development of and continued development of MNEs operations. Nevertheless, they are several challenges that hinder effective transfer of knowledge among various workers and personnel in those organizations. They include as technology, the diverse cultures of the employees, the language diversity, the identification of the right knowledge to be shared and lack of ability to communicate among others, which hamper efforts of knowledge sharing. With good IHRM (International Human Resource management) strategies the challenges can be overcome and the organization enjoys good returns on its investment. Nevertheless, they as well well various strategies and solutions that have been developed towards ensuring that those challenges are dealt with effectively. Some of the approaches used include holistic approach, ethoncentric approach, global staffing strategy, regiocentric approach among other others. This essay will analyze the ways in which НRМ help МNЕs (Мultinаtiоnаlеntеrрrisеs) to оvеrсоmе barriers оfknоwlеdgе sharing асrоss borders as well as in assisting on knowledge management aspects. Despite the fact that most barriers are intertwined in their effect of hampering knowledge sharing, most are usually addressed on an individual basis. The single most important barrier is the ability of the employee to communicate (Hansen, 1999). Be it verbal or written form of sharing knowledge the fundamental part is the communication skills, which is the ability of the employee to share the knowledge they have acquired over time. The skills are affected by the employees’ personalities (such as introverted or extroverted) and their social skills, which determine how they interact with other people. In most cases, the characteristics of various individuals vary from one person to another, therefore, this is mainly likely to result to an effective communication and consequently hindering sharing of knowledge among various individuals in the organization. Such, lack of capability to communicate effectively with other individuals hinders the way knowledge is transferred from one person to another hence ineffective development and new innovations. It hinders the effective working of HRM in the organization leading to lack of new ways of working in the organization. The culture of the employee also has a bearing on the sharing of knowledge. This culture is a set of values, which is learned by individuals and shapes the thinking and the orientation of the organisation’s employees. Heidenreich (2012) asserts that the diversity in spoken language around the world has a major bearing on the sharing of knowledge in any organisation. Culture barriers can be viewed in terms of organizational culture barriers or national culture barrier. Organizational culture barrier hinders the sharing of knowledge among the individuals in different ranks within the organization. This is mainly from junior to senior managers, this has in a greater way hindered the transfer of knowledge making some low level individuals not be willing to sharing any new knowledge they may have mainly due to fear or just for personal issues. On the other hand, national culture may not allow some individual to share information with others whom they are not from the same culture hence becoming a major hinderance towads knowledge transfer. On a domestic scale these cultures have no major impact but, when it comes to MNE’s there is the need to share information across national borders; hence the need to address the differences in cultures as a way of enabling knowledge sharing (Bartlett et al, 2004). For some time many organizations did not encourage sharing of knowledge since, it was seen as a cause of weakening an employee’s position in an organisation or their status or even as a way of protecting some classified information. Among the best examples of companies with restricted access include companies such as BMW, Price Water House Coopers, ChevronTexaco and Microsoft. Here some knowledge is not shared with certain employees and this is based on the level or status of the employee in these organizations (Andrews &Deiahaye, 2000). Lack of time to share the knowledge is also a major barrier to enhancing the flow of knowledge in any MNE. When people are busy with work or when the working schedules are tight, then it becomes difficult for people to interact and share whatever knowledge they have or acquired. Sharing of knowledge between the people can be achieved well when they have enough time to interact together and socialize within the organization (Benbasat&Zmud, 2003). Therefore, when everyone has a busy schedule throughout the working session, then it becomes difficult for them to socialize and share what they have. Therefore, the transfer of knowledge is greatly hindered hence lack of enough time to socialize may be viewed as a major barrier towards knowledge transfer. Organizations need to ensure that people have enough time to interact and share knowledge and other aspects together to ensure there is adequate sharing of knowledge. Despite the barriers, being a people and organisational issue, technology can also be a major barrier. Failure for an organisation to adopt hybrid solutions which dictate that there be interaction between people and the available technology will amount to lack of appropriate knowledge sharing (Benbasat&Zmud, 2003). There is also a challenge in ensuring that employees are able to share what they know and also make use of what they learn from other employees. Many organisations have difficulties in choosing an appropriate form of technology that will provide a suitable fit between the employees and the organisation. This is because the technology that works well in one organization may not be effective in the next and hence there is the need to adopt a tailor made technology to ensure that there is an effective knowledge in an MNE (Brazelton & Gorry, 2003). Unlike the previously mentioned organizations where knowledge sharing is limited by various factors, with good technologies there will be an equal sharing of knowledge among all the employees of the MNE and by extension all its divisions. A good case example is Buckman Labs where all employees have access to a wide knowledge base regarding the company operations. This practice is also shared with organizations such as the IBM and Accenture. Such, when people interact effectively with such technology, various ideas come out. Therefore, lack of use of current information and technology like facebook and other social media hampers the way knowledge is shared as most communication means are being diversed towards such. Increased use of social media has played a key role in the transfer of knowledge among various individuals in the society. The identification of the right knowledge to be shared has also been a major barrier towards effective knowledge transfer. In most cases, the individual does not know what they need to share with others hence they even fear to share what is good as they are not sure whether it is important (Brazelton & Gorry, 2003). In this case therefore, most of the knowledge remains not shared especially when individuals are not too much familiar with other colleagues or their managers. Lack of ability to communicate among others has also been a major hindrance in one way or the other. Most individuals do not know how well they can share the new knowledge they have with others (Brazelton & Gorry, 2003). This can be attributed to lack of communication skills and knowledge as well as experience to interact with others. This has been a major barrier in many MNEs. There is a need for HRM to effectively put in place different measures and strategies to ensure the above stated barriers are overcome by all means. This will ensure that there is effective sharing and flow of information from one individual to another (Jones et al, 2006). Various approaches and strategies need to be adopted towards an effective knowledge transfer as well as ensuring it becomes of great importance not just mere transfer. The essay shall analyze various ways that MNEs have adopted and should adopt towards effective knowledge transfer. HRM should provide the individuals with more time to interact and socialize within the organization. Such will ensure that they have more time to share knowledge hence its flow. This will greatly reduce the lack of time barrier which hinders knowledge sharing and transfer. There is a need to educate individuals within the organizations on the need to share knowledge and also let them be informed on the type of knowledge they need to share and why. This can mainly be achieved through seminars and other educational means within the organization (Jones et al, 2006). It is the responsibility of the management to ensure that staffs have adequate knowledge regarding various aspects involving knowledge, its transfer sharing, and its other related issues. The individuals should be made aware by all means of what entails knowledge and its importance within the organization. For a more holistic approach an organisation can adopt what is called the global staffing strategy. Here the organization has an appropriate mix of PCNs, HCNs, and TCNs. This factor enables the MNE to achieve strategic objectives such as innovation and performance outcomes. It allows a global coordination which is more like the one achieved through the use of global strategy and at the same time allowing for local autonomy similar to the one that is achieved through the multidomestic strategy (Jones et al, 2006). This can be well described as a perfect blend of both the global and multidomestic strategy. This strategy allows for an integrated form of network of distinct units. This way the strategy allows the MNE to be able to allow for local responsiveness, global efficiency and flexibility suitable for the markets (Desouza & Evaristo, 2003). For an organisation that wants to achieve the most effective knowledge sharing, this strategy offers a chance for the development of knowledge and it’s sharing around the world with minimal barriers. In order to achieve an effective transfer of the core competencies between the divisions and the subsidiaries of the MNE worldwide, then there is need to have adopt a holistic approach strategy as stated earlier (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). This strategy gives the MNE to be able to take advantage of the experience curve while at the same time make good use of the economies of scale in the particular country of location. The MNE reaps all the benefits of global learning and sharing of knowledge among its employees worldwide a factor that allows for better solutions to be reached when issues emerge. Opponents of this strategy feel that it is complicated and hence very difficult to implement. There is the reasoning that some units of the MNE would want to retain autonomy and hence not be very cooperative in fostering knowledge sharing thorough the available avenues (Vance & Paik, 2005). Good examples of companies that use this form of strategy are the Caterpillar and the Nokia companies. For example in the case of Nokia, a mobile telephony company, it has a team of experts which include researchers, sociologists and psychologists who travel the world over studying how people use their mobile phones and hence discovering how to make the phones better. To foster knowledge sharing an organization may adopt an ethnocentric approach in its HR practices. This is a situation where the practice of the home country prevails within an organization with the crucial decisions being made by the headquarters of the home country and the employees of the home country hold the key management positions (Hansen, 1999).  This strategy is based on the belief that the host country does not have skilled individuals who can fill the senior management positions. The firms also view this approach as the best approach to ensure a unified culture within the organization. The approach is helpful in the transfer of core competencies and other necessary forms of knowledge to the subsidiaries (Teigland et al, 2000). This is because the individuals who hold the key management positions are usually well skilled and hence when they are given assignments in the subsidiaries they get to share their knowledge with the local staff (Andrews &Deiahaye, 2000). The organization benefits in that there is a multinational orientation through the knowledge shared by the experienced staff from the parent company. There is also the cultural similarity with the parent company which makes it easier to transfer management practices across the board (Heidenreich, 2012). To take advantage of the local cultures where the subsidiaries operate, other organizations adopt a polycentric approach. By using this approach the natives of the country where the subsidiary is located are given the key management positions within the specific country (Barlett et al, 2004). The key management positions at the headquarters are however reserved for the natives of the parent country. This allows for a more decentralized approach in the management and the running of the organization. The host country natives do not advance to hold key positions in the headquarters as this is reserved for the natives of the parent country. The subsidiaries of the firm are able to identify what is suitable for them and also use their own resources to meet these needs (Tsoukas&Vladimirou, 2001). This allows for the decentralisedself sufficiency and also proper use of and exploitation of the local avenues and resources to facilitate knowledge sharing (Taylor & Wright, 2004). The knowledge is easily developed and retained within the particular units of the MNE. The strategy has its disadvantages as it fails to exploit well the curve effect of experience. Another major disadvantage is that this strategy doesn’t give an allowance for the transfer of knowledge from one market to the other foreign markets (Chow et al, 2003). This is a major undoing as the new established units do not get to benefit from the experience of the already established units which have been in the business for a good period of time. A good example of an MNE that has adopted the multidomestic strategy is the McDonald’s. To illustrate this, when the company entered the Indian market it complied to the local customs. In India cows are sacred animals and for this reason unlike in other areas of the world where McDonald’s operates, it does not serve beef in India. This is called for a form of policies that ensures that the employees at McDonald’s in India can also share their knowledge on the impact of having beer products in their shelves. This form of knowledge is of no use to employees in other regions where they sell beef. On the other hand the employees at McDonald’s in India cannot benefit from the knowledge of other Units in other countries as it regards beef products and hence no use of the experience curves (Hofstede, 2002). To achieve a cultural uniformity an organization can adopt a regiocentric approach where the management staffs are used in a particular region of the business. The regions are usually geographical based on where the business is located. These managers operate independently in the region they work in but they don’t move up the ladder to hold key positions in the headquarters (Duan et al, 2010). This allows for the managers to be moved around the region and hence establish a channel for knowledge sharing in the particular region. With this kind of approach the organisation’s regional approach gives it a chance to establish a similar culture within the region and hence it is easy to lift the approaches from one subsidiary to the next as long as they are in the same region (Zakaria et al, 2004). The best example which uses this approach is the Barclays Bank Ltd which has established regions through which the bank gets its key positions filled by individuals of the region. For example the bank has established the African region where the key positions are filled by people from the region. This makes the sharing of knowledge to be achieved in that the management decisions made in one subsidiary in the region can easily be used in the next.   The organisational culture and many other environmental factors within the organization have a bearing on the knowledge sharing in the particular organisation.  According to John et al (1997), the organization may lack the basic infrastructure that would however facilitate the sharing of knowledge within an organization. These include finance and communication technology abilities of the organisation. Given that knowledge sharing is continuous some organisations policies that are in place today and which are well integrated into the organisation system, may become obsolete as a result of their inefficiencies (Zakaria et al, 2004). In the event of mergers and other growth driven changes it is paramount that an organisation adapts to the new changes in its working environment (Breu et al, 2002). Lack of formal and informal strategies or policies that foster knowledge sharing and hence could also be another limiting factor in the flow of knowledge in an organisation. The size of an MNE and its functional area has an influence on the sharing of knowledge and how effectively the measures that are put in place are going to be at the end of the day (Goshal, 2000). A good example in this direction is the Asea Brown Boveri, which averages about 50 employees in each business unit. Lack of managerial and leadership direction can limit the sharing ability of organisations in any particular organisation. The corporate culture of an MNE is vital to fostering an environment of knowledge sharing. The organisation culture has been described by many as the personality of the organisation. This culture defines what communication is and fosters the environment under which knowledge is shared among the employees in all the units of a particular MNE (Cho & Lee, 2004). The role of staffing in fostering knowledge transfer cannot be overlooked. The movement of people is crucial in creating and ensuring that there exists a channel for sharing knowledge (Breu et al, 2002). Many MNE’s have adopted this policy with the main focus being the transfer of staff from the home or headquarters to the host countries for the subsidiaries. This allows these international assignees to act as information spanners that relay appropriate knowledge that is aimed at ensuring the new subsidiaries are able to kick off. This has been described by many scholars as a way of transporting social capitals to new regions in an attempt to enable flow of knowledge. It has been proven that this form of social network is effective in adopting long term solution to the issue of knowledge transfer (Goshal, 2000). The best HR approach to use the staffing policy as a way of enhancing knowledge transfer is by the use of expatriates who carry an influence that is associated with the headquarters and are hence able to impart good knowledge in the staff where they are sent. This can be seen in PepsiCo Company, which has many expatriates in the areas where they have subsidiaries. These pass on the values of the parent company to the subsidiaries where they are assigned to work in and for this reason the company works in harmony. The sharing of knowledge can be fostered using other HR policies such as establishing a reward system to recognise staff who made efforts to share the knowledge that they posses. An MNE can have a system where rewards are minted out on two bases (Breu et al, 2002). The first is where each individual is rewarded for their contributions of valuable knowledge. The other approach is the group-based reward system where rewards are given out on the basis of the group contribution for the sharing of knowledge. This policy will help to motivate the employees of the particular MNE to try and overcome the inherent barriers that hinder knowledge sharing. Studies have shown that apart from the use of strategies and other more complicated polices to try and tackle the issue of knowledge sharing, rewarding the staff in order to encourage knowledge sharing is one of the cheapest and effective ways of achieving the same objective. On one hand an individual is able to get the satisfaction of having enabled one person to work well and at the same time they are able to be extrinsically be motivativated. In conclusion, despite there being several strategies that can be used to manage the MNEs it is important to ensure that there is a combination of approaches to allow the organisation to remain competitive. It is however very important that an organisation adopts a framework that allows for knowledge sharing practices between the different units without undermining the relevance of domestic issues which have a bearing on the operations in the particular country of residency. The barrier to effective knowledge such as the distance of the different units, the diverse cultures of the employees, the language diversity, and the identification of the right knowledge to be shared is also an important aspect that needs to be addressed since they all have an influence on the success of the knowledge sharing process (Zhao &Luo, 2005). Knowledge sharing is vital to the success of all MNE’s and hence it an element that cannot be wished away if indeed an organisation wants to be competitive in the global market. References Adenfeldt, M., &Lagerstrom, K., 2008, The Development and Sharing of Knowledge by Centres  of Excellence and Transnational Teams: A Conceptual Framework, Management International Review, 48(3), pp. 319-338. Ambos, T et al., 2009, The Impact of Distance on Knowledge Transfer Effectiveness in  MultinationalCorporations,Journal of International Management, 15, pp. 1-14. Andrews, K &Deiahaye, B 2000, Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning:  The psychosocial filter, Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), p. 797-810. Bartlett, C. et al., 2004, Transnational Management, Boston,McGraw Hill. Benbasat, I &Zmud. R 2003, The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and  communicating the discipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly, 27(2), p. 183-194. Brazelton, J., & Gorry, G. A 2003, Creating a knowledge-sharing community: If you build it,  will they come?Communications of the ACM, 46(2), p. 23-25. Breu, K., et al. 2002, Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy.  Journal of Information Technology, 17(1), p. 21-3. Cho, K & Lee, J 2004, Firm characteristics and MNC's intra-network knowledge sharing.  Management International Review, 44(4), p. 435-455. Chow, C et al., 2003, The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: A comparative  study of the United States and the People's Republic of China, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12, p. 65-95. Cohen, E 2009, A philosophy of informing science. Informing Science: the International Journal  of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 12, p. 1-15. DeSouza, K &Evaristo, R 2003, Global Knowledge Management Strategies. European  Management Journal, 21(1), pp. 62-67. Duan, Y., et al., 2010, Identifying Key Factors Affecting Transnational Knowledge Transfer.  Information and Management, 47, pp. 356-363. Dunning, J 2008, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, London, Edward-Elgar  Publishing Limited. Ford, N 2006, The development and evaluation of an information technology support system to  facilitate inter-organizational collaboration in HRD, Journal of European Industrial  Training, 30(7), p. 569-588. Garud, R &Kumaraswamy, A 2005, Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of  knowledge: the case of Infosys technologies, MIS Quarterly, 29(1), pp.9-33. Ghoshal, S 2000, Transnational Management: Text, Cases and Readings in Cross-Border  Management, Boston, Irwin McGraw Hill. Gold, A et al., 2001, Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective.  Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), pp.185-114. Griffith, D et al., 2006, An investigation of national culture's influence on relationship and  knowledge resources in interorganizational relationships between Japan and the United States. Journal of International Marketing, 14(3), pp.1-32. Hakanson, L & Nobel, R 2001, Organization characteristics and reverse technology transfer.  Management International Review, 41(Special issue), p. 392-420. Hansen, M 1999, The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across  organizationsubunits.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, p. 82-111. Heidenreich, M 2012, The social embeddedness of multinational companies: a literature review,  Socioeconomic Review, pp. 549–579. Hofstede, G 2001, Culture’s consequences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Holden, N. et al., 2004, Why cross-cultural knowledge transfer is a form of translation in more  ways than you think.Knowledge& Process Management, 11(2), pp.127-136. Hunsen, M 2002, Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit  companies. Organization Science, 13, pp. 232–248. John, R., et al., 1997, Global Business Strategy, London, International Thomson Business Press. Jones, M. C., Cline, M., & Ryan, S., 2006. Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP  implementation: An organizational culture framework, Decision Support Systems, 41(2),  pp.411-434. Kerlinger, F & Lee, H 2000, Foundations of behavioral research, Fort Worth, Harcourt Brace. Lee, H & Choi, B 2003, Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational  performance: An integrative view and empirical examination, Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), pp.179-228. McEvily, S &Chakravarthy, B 2002 The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An  empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge, Strategic Management Journal, pp.285-305. Taylor, W & Wright, G 2004, Organizational readiness for successful knowledge  sharing:  Challenges for public sector managers, Information Resources Management Journal, 17(2), pp.22-37. Teigland, R., et al. 2000, Knowledge dissemination in global R&D operations: an empirical  study of multinationals in the high technology electronics industry, Management International Review, 40(1), p. 49-78. Tsoukas, H &Vladimirou, E 2001, What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management  Studies,38(7), pp.973-993. Vance, C. M., & Paik, Y 2005, Forms of host-country national learning for enhanced MNC  absorptive capacity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(7), pp.590-606. Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., &Wilemon, D 2004, Working together apart? Building a  knowledge sharing culture for global virtual teams, Creativity & Innovation  Management,13(1), pp.15-29. Zhao, H &Luo, Y 2005, Antecedents of knowledge sharing with peer subsidiaries in other  countries: A perspective from subsidiary managers in a foreign emerging market, Management International Review, 45(1), pp.71-97.   Read More