Interview with Dr. Robert Mason, University of Washington
“Working across cultures is always a valuable learning experience”
Dr. Robert Mason is Professor and Associate Dean for Research at the Information School faculty of the University of Washington. His current research interests focus on the philosophy and ethics of technology management and the cultural aspects of knowledge management. Dr. Mason recently completed a research project that examined how knowledge was created and shared during implementation of enterprise systems in a consortium of state universities. tcworld spoke to him about the impact of culture for knowledge sharing.
What do companies have to consider when transfering internal knowledge across borders? First, organizations must be aware of the different legal codes of the different countries. European regulations on privacy, for example, are much stricter than those of many other regions (including North America), and these laws can limit knowledge and technology transfer efforts.
More generally, the cultures of the ‘transmitting’ and the ‘receiving’ cultures may attribute different values to knowledge and to the means by which it is transmitted and received, whether or not these values are embodied in laws. For example, some oriental cultures prefer to build up implicit trust over time before sharing knowledge, while western cultures may depend more on explicit agreements and a ‘quid pro quo’ exchange process for knowledge exchange. Culture influences how individuals perceive the world, receive and send information, and communicate with others.
How does the learning process differ depending on culture? Culture begins to have an effect from infancy. Studies have shown that even pre-verbal children begin to differentiate sounds, paying attention to some and ignoring others. Thus, children grow up directing their attention to different aspects of their environment; they decide early what is salient and what is less important. This affects how they perceive, and give weight to, different relationships in their environment, and this carries over into adulthood. As cross-cultural researcher Edward T. Hall has said, “once people have learned to learn in a given way, it is extremely difficult to learn in any other way...[C]ulture reflects the way one learns.” Recent studies on the plasticity of the brain illustrate that people can learn in different ways, using different parts of their brain than the first time they learned, but it’s just more difficult than learning as they did in their original culture.
How can international organizations address these different learning approaches? Would you recommend different forms of training in different countries? Organizations should begin with a sensitivity to the different learning styles and preferences of people who have different cultural backgrounds. With this sensitivity and awareness, I think organizations will modify their training. However, even the term “training” needs to be examined: We need to focus on “learning,” and this redirects our attention to how employees acquire information and knowledge. Taking this perspective may challenge our conventional notions of “training.”
Are there differences in how knowledge is perceived and handled in different cultures with regards to the hierarchical status of the employee? The influence of hierarchy remains a significant distinction from a cultural perspective. Intercultural communication expert Gerard Hendrik Hofstede demonstrated this in his studies over two decades ago (he called it “power distance”), and it has continued to be discussed as a way to distinguish styles and preferences across cultures. While a high power difference culture (a more hierarchical culture) does not mean that organizations want their employees to learn less or be less knowledgeable, it does affect how employees approach learning and how they prefer to learn. On the other hand, protection of intellectual property has led some firms to limit knowledge sharing. For example, one company I visited in Hong Kong deliberately kept cross training of skills to a minimum and discouraged transfer of employees across different unit boundaries in order to reduce the likelihood of design details being integrated into an overall design that might benefit possible competitors. This was not so much a cultural issue as it was a strategy for managing trade secrets – though it might not be a strategy that would be chosen in a more litigious environment.
To what degree is knowledge sharing desired? The desire to exchange knowledge across boundaries led to the formation of many international joint ventures (particularly between Japanese and US firms) so that technical knowledge and market knowledge could be shared. These ventures had varying degrees of success. I recall asking an executive from one such venture if it had been a success. He hemmed and hawed – he did not give a firm unequivocal answer. ‘Well,’ I asked, ‘was it a financial success?’ ‘No,’ he replied. ‘Did it achieve the technology transfer you expected?’ Again, his answer was, ‘No.’ ‘Then why are you not willing to say that it was a failure?’ ‘Because we learned so much,’ he replied. The conclusion: Even when not a success in conventional terms, the learning that comes from working across cultures (as in an international joint venture) can be valuable. One thing that is changing is the attitude of digital natives – the generation of knowledge workers now entering the workforce. This generation comprises individuals who have grown up in a world where knowledge sharing has been easy, thanks to the technology that enables file sharing and even social networks to develop around shared interests. Older firms that expect their new engineers and designers to remain focused on their own projects are finding that the younger workers show an interest in everything around them and want to be engaged with a wider group of colleagues. This can lead to concerns about the porosity of organizational boundaries – the leakage of proprietary knowledge – even as new knowledge may flow into the firm.
From your experience do international organization take cultural differences into consideration in their approach of knowledge management? They have not done so in the past. In an earlier study of organizational knowledge management systems, I found that it was rare for culture to be addressed. There was a North American bias in how firms approached the development and implementation of knowledge management systems. Lately, however, in discussions with CIOs and CTOs, I have found that these executives are more aware of cultural differences. As outsourcing of tasks such as design (not just manufacturing) becomes more of the norm, executives realize that cultural differences affect both work style and design. Not only do the designers need to be aware of the cultural implications of the design, they also need to understand and respect the styles and approaches of those with whom they work, who may come from a variety of distinctive cultural backgrounds.
Which steps need to be taken in order to achieve a shared knowledge management system in an international organization? I’m not sure this has changed much in the past decade, when I interviewed top executives who had the responsibility for knowledge management in their organizations. The common response was that they had three responsibilities: 1) establishing a culture for sharing knowledge, 2) creating a repository and technical mechanism for sharing, 3) establishing a forum (or forums) in which the non-articulated knowledge could be shared. Today, for a multi-cultural and international organization, I think these principles still hold. First, I think the executives – the ones setting strategy and setting forth the direction of the organization – must acknowledge, even celebrate, the value of the diverse backgrounds and knowledge that can be accessible in an international organization. The diversity of perspectives – the specialized, localized, and usually unarticulated knowledge held by members of the organization who come from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds – can be invaluable to successful design and delivery of products and services in what is increasingly a global economy. Second, this appreciation of the diverse background should be shared throughout the organization. I am less concerned with the actual hardware and software mechanisms that enable sharing. These may be developed as needed.
How important is knowledge management in times of Web 2.0 and worldwide access to knowledge? In my mind, knowledge management is perhaps even more important than ever. However, as I said earlier, it’s not a matter of setting up a comprehensive hardware and software system, it’s more a matter of setting the tone and culture for knowledge sharing. Web 2.0 technologies – and the social networking that accompany these capabilities – mean that the options for enabling knowledge sharing are greater than ever. The challenge for executives in current organizations is to establish an internal organizational culture that encourages the incoming new employees to establish mechanisms themselves that support the sharing of knowledge in ways that promote the realization of the organization’s goals.
Zum Tagungsportal 
