The Cultural Wall
“Recently a large global company set up a sophisticated website for employees in international subsidiaries to share knowledge. It had areas for chat, document storage, and messages from the company’s leadership. Everything was clearly segmented so information could be looked up in many different ways. The designers expected people to load many documents onto the site. But even it was interesting, easy to use, and had many features, hardly anyone visited the website. Potential users said that they liked it, but just did not have time for it. The designers felt that they hit the ‘cultural wall’.”
1.1 The Influence of National Culture on Knowledge Management
Today, most organisations are aware that managing their knowledge effectively is the only way to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Drucker, 2001). Companies not securing systematically knowledge for later usage, risk to reinvent solutions and to incur unnecessary expense to relearn the same lessons (Tiwana, 1999). But in an increasingly global business context, companies not only need to understand the importance of knowledge management but also the importance of (national) cultural differences which influence knowledge management processes. Recognising cultural differences is an important step to anticipating potential threats as well as opportunities. [...]
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
1.1 The Influence of National Culture on Knowledge Management
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Scope and Limitations
II. Literature Review
2.1 Cultural Issues
2.1.1 Definition of Culture
2.1.2 Culture Free versus Culture Specific
2.2 Knowledge Management Issues
2.2.1 Definition of Knowledge
2.2.2 Knowledge Management
2.2.3 Knowledge Management Systems
2.2.4 Knowledge Management – Culture Free or Culture Specific?
2.2.4.1 The Cultural Free View
2.2.4.2 The Culture Specific View
2.3 National Culture: Hofstede´s Model of Spain and Germany
2.4 National Culture and Knowledge Management
III. Application: Knowledge Management at XXX
3.1 Knowledge Management at XXX Germany
3.2 Knowledge Management for the Project XY
3.3 Knowledge Management Initiatives at XXX Spain
3.4 Why did Knowledge Management fail at XXX Spain?
3.4.1 Culture Specific Reasons
3.4.2 Culture Free Reasons
3.5 Implications
IV. Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research
V. Bibliography
Objectives & Core Topics
This report aims to investigate the extent to which national culture influences knowledge management processes and how these cultural factors can either facilitate or impede the implementation of organization-wide knowledge initiatives. The study focuses on evaluating the divergence between theoretical frameworks of knowledge management and the practical application within a specific corporate environment.
- The impact of national culture on organizational knowledge management.
- Distinction between culture-free and culture-specific management theories.
- Application of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to Spain and Germany.
- Analysis of failed knowledge management initiatives at a global company.
- Identification of barriers to knowledge sharing in cross-cultural settings.
Excerpt from the Book
3.4.1 Culture Specific Reasons
As shown in chapter 2.3, Spanish and German cultures score differently in the cultural dimensions. Following Hofstede’s theory, in low power countries (Germany) communication is an asset. Information flows naturally in the company. On the contrary, in large power distance countries as Spain, information is related to power, and the general belief is that the more information your share, the less powerful you are. Therefore, if power is to be assured, information flows must be limited. This reinforces one way (either top-down or bottom-up) communication channels between superiors and subordinates. Open and widely spread communication is hampered.
It seems that the interest and experience with KM is greater in Germany than in Spain. This underlines the findings of a recent survey which states that the KM field is still in an embryonic state in Spain (Ordóñez de Pablos, 2003).
It is argued that a strong uncertainty avoidance (Spain) increases with the fear for the risk. Strong uncertainty avoidance hinders the emergence of new ideas and even more the implementation of innovations. The use of a new way of management might be seen as one of these new organisational innovations, and, therefore, will be more common in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance (Germany). Such cultures are expected to have a greater willingness to take risks. In summary, the German culture seems to be more interested in experimenting new ideas, in implementing new forms of managing practices.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Outlines the significance of knowledge management as a competitive advantage and defines the research objectives regarding the influence of national culture.
II. Literature Review: Examines academic debates between culture-free and culture-specific theories and applies Hofstede’s model to compare German and Spanish cultural values.
III. Application: Knowledge Management at XXX: Provides a practical analysis of knowledge management implementations in different business units, investigating causes for project failure in Spain.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research: Synthesizes the findings, highlighting the necessity for culturally sensitive KM approaches, and proposes directions for future research into organizational culture.
V. Bibliography: Lists the academic sources, industrial reports, and literature utilized to support the arguments presented in the study.
Keywords
Knowledge Management, National Culture, Hofstede, Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Spain, Germany, Cultural Dimensions, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Knowledge Management Systems, Competitive Advantage, Cross-Cultural Management, Innovation, Tacit Knowledge.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The report focuses on analyzing how national culture influences the effectiveness of knowledge management (KM) processes within a global organization.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the distinction between culture-free and culture-specific management theories, the role of national culture in shaping KM, and the specific application of these concepts in Spanish and German business units.
What is the main objective of the report?
The objective is to determine how national culture can promote or hinder a company's ability to implement organization-wide knowledge management initiatives.
Which methodology is applied in the study?
The report utilizes a theoretical literature review supported by the application of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model and an analysis of a specific failed KM project in Spain.
What does the main body of the work address?
The main body covers the literature on KM, a comparison of cultural values between Spain and Germany, and a detailed examination of KM initiatives at "XXX" to identify causes of failure and potential improvements.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Knowledge Management, National Culture, Knowledge Sharing, Cultural Dimensions, and Cross-Cultural Management.
Why did the knowledge management project fail at the Spanish branch?
The project failed due to a combination of cultural resistance, lack of management support, language barriers, and a focus on standardization that ignored the local cultural background of employees.
What are the recommendations for future KM implementations in international teams?
The study recommends supporting language learning, fostering active listening, ensuring formal management support through structures and incentives, and establishing teams specifically responsible for coordinating knowledge flow across different cultures.
- Quote paper
- Fatma Torun (Author), 2004, Knowledge management practices from a culture free and culture specific perspektive, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/32960
