Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Sharing Knowledge - Essay Example

? Global Knowledge Management inserts his/her s Department’s Knowledge management has gained increasing importance in recent times particularly since it is a complex phenomenon that involves various challenges for successful execution in global businesses. Quite surprisingly, research has been centered on particular aspects of knowledge management rather than taking a holistic approach which undermines its strategic potential. There has been little demonstration of the relationship between past progress and the current challenges of knowledge management. The notion of knowledge management views knowledge as tacit or something which is present in one’s mind. Human expression and practice compound to the making of knowledge. However, knowledge cannot be enhanced in an isolated state of mind; that is, for knowledge to flourish, information must be enhanced through interaction (Kalkan, 2008). Both explicit and implicit knowledge must be tapped by organizations in order to progress successfully in today’s globalised world. Knowledge management is, therefore, focused on the attainment of organizational goals and objectives by enhancing the productivity of organizational knowledge in all activities, tasks and programs pertaining to knowledge. The aim is to create and sustain competitive advantage for the firm in the global marketplace by helping organizations exploit untapped knowledge. Hence, knowledge management essentially involves learning through social experiences and interactions. Researchers have broken down knowledge management into four major constructs including the development, manifestation, diffusion and use of knowledge (Kalkan, 2008). It is rather simplistic to think of knowledge management as a linear process in today’s global village. Knowledge management today is an ongoing, recurrent process which involves moving back and forth in order to generate value for the business and help it maintain its business edge. This involves getting access to newer knowledge before competitors. Thus, the quest for knowledge is what makes organizations thrive in today’s competent world. The importance of knowledge management increases manifold in global settings. Factors such as geographic dispersion, interaction across different time zones and cross-cultural differences result in increased challenges for the firm (Pawlowski & Bick, 2012). Thus, the global arena has opened a new window for viewing knowledge management which incorporates introductory level, implementation and process issues pertaining to knowledge management (Alavi & Leidner, 2005). Despite increased awareness of these issues, research indicates that most businesses fail to successfully implement global knowledge management (Pawlowski & Bick, 2012). Global knowledge management encompasses all knowledge related activities, tasks, policies and processes that are performed within or between organizations that are globally dispersed. Culture of both the organization and the nation/region plays a vital role here (Holden, 2001). The global environment, therefore, brings with it a host of challenges including those pertaining to humans, organization, management and technology. All human interaction and communication (including the dissemination of knowledge) is heavily influenced by culture (Holden, 2001). But perhaps, the greatest of these challenges is to define the very nature of knowledge management itself. Although there have been efforts to differentiate data and information from knowledge, a concrete working definition has not yet been developed in the context of global dynamics (Roberts, 2009). Despite increasing emphasis on knowledge-oriented markets, there has been criticism which calls into existence the very existence of such markets. The absence of a concrete definition questions whether or not these markets actually exist or whether they are “old wine in a new bottle” (Roberts, 2009). The term knowledge has become a metaphor rather than a term with clear meaning. Global knowledge management would then become even more difficult to define. Much too often, management may mix up knowledge with information. For instance, some researchers have linked knowledge management with e-business and internal business processes, which essentially means that knowledge is used synonymously with information as a way of gaining consumer insights (Fahey et al., 2001). Also knowledge capital can turn out to be nothing more than information databases. Therefore, what is essentially an information portal may become a knowledge management system. According to some, the development of IT is necessary for knowledge management practices to flourish and that the two cannot be detached. Even though IT may not be synonymous to knowledge management, the former helps accomplish the latter. Evidence suggests that advancement in IT has helped in the codification of knowledge and its global dissemination (Roberts, 2009). Some researchers also claim that the personality type has a direct relation with the way knowledge management is interpreted. Some have gone as far as stating that knowledge management is nothing but a fad which was invented by management consultants and later on taken up by practitioners in response to global changes in socio-economic trends. However, this argument is not backed by substantive empirical evidence; therefore, it is safe to believe that global knowledge management goes beyond that. Nevertheless, consultants such as Drucker argue that organizations are mistaken if they believe that ‘knowledge’ can be managed (Drucker, 1969). According to him, the secretive, confined nature of knowledge makes it difficult to share. This knowledge is only observable in the way individual workers perform their tasks. When these workers quit the organization, they take the knowledge with them (Drucker, 1969). Others argue that the commoditization of knowledge is impossible. It is, therefore, very difficult to quantify knowledge. There is also the difficulty of classifying what constitutes as ‘explicit’ knowledge. The fact that knowledge is ‘valuable’ is also debatable in that no concrete way of measuring its value has been determined yet. Contributions from successful knowledge management cannot possibly be traced through accounting methods which makes it difficult to measure the value of knowledge as resource. Certain types of knowledge, such as social knowledge (pertaining to confidence and trust), may be indirectly valuable to organizations in that it forms the basis of commercial economic dealings especially in a multicultural global economy. For instance, in China most business dealings are done on the ‘mahjong’ table rather than formal business meetings (Holden, 2001). This social capital forms an integral part of global knowledge management. Despite the difficulty in arriving at a clear cut definition of knowledge management, it is important to realize that this is a crucial step prior to the development phase of knowledge management. Unless knowledge is aptly defined, it will be underestimated and organizations will end up losing their competitive edge. Unless the worth of knowledge is assessed tangibly, organizations will continue to waste their investments on the less valuable data mining and IT development programs. Although its definition may vary across economic sectors and across businesses, knowledge needs to be defined precisely in terms of its ingredients. The development of a working definition of knowledge is certainly not possible without interaction and communication amongst organization’s members. Brainstorming techniques are particularly useful in order to generate conscious and unconscious insights. It is important to understand that virtually all knowledge is implicit or has implicit meaning. It is, therefore, increasingly difficult to communicate this knowledge especially since it is contextual and to generalize it based on its particular context would translate to losing its meaning (Pawlowski & Bick, 2012). Yet it is this implicit nature of knowledge that fundamentally makes it a sustainable source of competitive advantage for firms. Imitation becomes difficult since knowledge is embedded in the human brain and cannot easily be replicated. Despite growing awareness on the significance of tacit knowledge, most organizations shy away from dealing with it. Management has focused too much on the already existing explicit knowledge management, thus disregarding the need to make implicit knowledge explicit. Thus, managerial efforts need to be geared towards activities, policies and programs that enable the sharing and communication of tacit knowledge because that it is only way that it can be made explicit. The role of interaction and communication within the organization plays a vital role here. Employees who are isolated from each other cannot share knowledge. It is also often seen that tacit knowledge can usually be unearthed in informal, social gatherings rather than formal sessions. These insights then become valuable in that they enable organizations arrive at important business decisions. The company’s policy must incorporate incentives for managerial efforts to encourage the sharing of tacit knowledge in organizations. However, this communication process is not possible without successful deployment of IT. Firms must not negate the role of successful IT implementation when stressing the role of tacit knowledge. It is important to note that global businesses must not depend on IT, rather, they should incorporate IT into the overall knowledge management process. IT is, therefore, an important subset of the overall knowledge management process. Management should, therefore, provide employees access to explicit resources of knowledge through successful deployment of IT. The traditional use of IT as a source of getting data and information is now being replaced by a more knowledge-oriented use. Organizations must use their IT systems strategically in that the focus should not be just of knowledge acquisition and storage, but that of knowledge creation. Global organizations differ from their local counterparts in that they operate in a larger, more complex and dynamic social environment of which culture is a vital part. In order to thrive in the competitive global marketplace, organizations must continually and rapidly adapt to the changing environment. These changes within the organization (including the dissemination of knowledge) are not possible without a favorable culture. Therefore, organizational culture must be focused on knowledge creation in that the members must possess high trust and confidence (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Also, knowledge sharing requires a participative management style which is not practiced in all organizations. Employees must truly feel empowered if they are to share their ideas openly. Even after knowledge is created, it is hoarded and not shared which presents another challenge. However, there exists a trade-off between knowledge sharing and intellectual property issues which need to be addressed (Kalkan, 2008). Furthermore, since the formation and dissemination of knowledge is highly dependent on the individuals, a motivated and competent workforce is quintessential to successful knowledge management in organizations (Kalkan, 2008). The attraction, development and retention a motivated workforce is in large part, the role of human resource managers (Kalkan, 2008). Behaviors and attitudes that foster knowledge management must be encouraged. Much too often, organizations expect employees to put their best foot forward without acknowledging their efforts. Thus, an effective compensation structure and rewards management system is quintessential to knowledge sharing in the organization. It all boils down to how effective the bond is between the management and the employees. If the bond id strong knowledge sharing and creation will flourish as employees will take pride in contributing their ideas for the betterment of the firm. Furthermore, in a world characterized by diversity in culture, the flow of knowledge may be hampered by intercultural differences negatively affecting organizational performance. One of the most critical priorities of management in global organizations must be to remove these ‘clots’ caused by cross-cultural differences in order to ensure smooth circulation of knowledge throughout the organization (Nissen, 2007). Unfortunately, little has been done to discover the practical means which would help managers in removing these clots. The knowledge-flow theory best explains the dynamic cycle of knowledge in terms of the unique nature of knowledge, its flow, dimensions and finally an analysis of the knowledge flow (Nissen, 2007). Global businesses must come to terms with the challenge of limiting centralization as much as possible. Knowledge management in the current context can only flourish under decentralized and empowered organizational structures. Bureaucracy restricts the organizational capacity to learn and innovate (Kalkan, 2008). A dynamic learning environment can only flourish in the presence of cross-functional teams which are authorized and encouraged to experiment and make mistakes. Tolerance to mistakes is integral to knowledge management. However, considering the complexity of business units that may exist in global corporations, an autonomous and decentralized structure presents a great challenge. The fact that businesses must survive and grow must be factored into the decision for moving forward with such a structure (Kalkan, 2008). It is not absolutely necessary to adopt a centralized structure for the entire global corporation; rather a mix of centralized and decentralized structures may co-exist depending on the knowledge needs of the corporation (Kalkan, 2008). Some firms, such as those pertaining to research, may require a high level of autonomous units as opposed to others. Thus, the type of business is another factor to be considered. To conclude, one of the most significant issues critical to knowledge management in global firms is that pertaining to rapid pace of environmental changes as mentioned above. Cut-throat global competition encourages global firms to make changes to their policies, structures, processes and products on a daily basis all of which contradict the long-term nature of knowledge management. Flexibility must be incorporated into these programs as and when necessary. Overall, a holistic approach to knowledge management is necessary for global firms who wish to maintain a balance between the need for KM initiatives and the investment involved. Thus, internal and external screening of the environment becomes absolutely necessary for global firms who must manage this trade-off. References Alavi, M. & Leidner, D.E., 2005. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), pp.107-36. Drucker, P., 1969. The age of discontinuity: guidelines to our changing society. New York: Harper and Row. Fahey, L., Srivastava, R., Sharon, J.S. & Smith, D.E., 2001. Linking e-business and operating processes: the role of knowledge management. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), pp.889-907. Holden, N., 2001. Knowledge management: raising the spectre of the cross-cultural dimension. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(3), pp.155-63. Kalkan, V.D., 2008. An overall view of knowledge management challenges for global business. Business Process Management , 14(3), pp.390-400. McDermott, R. & O’Dell, C., 2001. Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), pp.76-85. Nissen, M.E., 2007. Knowledge Management and Global Cultures: Elucidation Through an Institutional Knowledge-Flow Perspective. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3), pp.211-25. Pawlowski, J. & Bick, M., 2012. The Global Knowledge Management Framework: Towards a Theory for Knowledge Management in Globally Distributed Settings. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), p.92. Roberts, J., 2009. The global knowledge economy in question. Critical perspectives on international business, 5(4), pp.285-303. Read More