Journal of Knowledge Management

Emerald Article: Knowledge sharing in Chinese service organizations: a multi case cultural perspective Rodney McAdam, Sandra Moffett, Jian Peng

Article information:
To cite this document: Rodney McAdam, Sandra Moffett, Jian Peng, (2012),"Knowledge sharing in Chinese service organizations: a multi case cultural perspective", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 Iss: 1 pp. 129 - 147 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211198981 Downloaded on: 12-11-2012 References: This document contains references to 52 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by INSTITUTO TECNOLOGICO Y DE ESTUDIOS SUPERIO MONTERREY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Knowledge sharing in Chinese service organizations: a multi case cultural perspective

Rodney McAdam, Sandra Moffett and Jian Peng

Abstract Purpose The majority of knowledge management theory and practice literature is based on, and relates to, western and Japanese business environments and related assumptions. A number of generic knowledge management cross sectional studies based on Chinese organizations have taken place; however there is a lack of in-depth critical studies which are culturally grounded and which focus on a particular aspect or domain of knowledge management in Chinese organizations, as opposed to applying western or Japanese knowledge management models and concepts. Hence the paper seeks to make a contribution by carrying out a critical study in knowledge sharing within Chinese organizations that explores the role of culture in relation to the knowledge-sharing process, where the people-based aspects of knowledge sharing are likely to be inuenced by the prevailing culture. The aim of the paper is to explore the role of knowledge sharing at multiple organizational levels within Chinese service-based organizations. Design/methodology/approach Five consulting rms are analyzed within the multi case study, to explore knowledge sharing at multiple levels, where existing literature and preliminary research has shown that consulting organizations in the service sector are more likely to have advanced their understanding of knowledge sharing as a source of innovation and competitiveness. The research methods included interviews (n 40), focus groups (n 10) and observations made during four visits, each of several weeks, to the companies. The ve organizations were Chinese owned and at a similar growth stage and hence the effects of external cultures or organizational specic cultures were secondary to that of the prevailing Chinese culture. Findings The ndings show that cultural interpretations of knowledge sharing practices can help in explaining Chinese conceptions and applications of knowledge sharing at multiple organizational levels. Moreover these cultural inuences suggest that non-Chinese conceptions of knowledge sharing can in some circumstances result in misleading approaches being used in attempting to promote knowledge sharing in a Chinese context and that the strong group culture is a key vehicle for knowledge sharing as opposed to individual idea generation. Research limitations/implications The ndings show the need for further research in comparing Chinese and western organizations in relation to collaboration knowledge sharing where the case organizations have had different levels of exposure to western culture. Much more in-depth case-based research is needed to explore these contextual issues and to develop theoretical propositions. Practical implications The extrapolation of western and Japanese-based knowledge sharing concepts and practices to Chinese contexts without an examination of Chinese culture and its impact on organizational culture may produce sub-optimal results. A more culturally grounded approach, where knowledge sharing practices are indigenously grounded, is suggested. Originality/value There is a paucity of multi-level knowledge sharing studies which seek to both address cultural considerations and systematically inquire into the development of knowledge sharing in Chinese organizations from a cultural perspective. The ndings from this study can help inform western-Chinese business collaboration through improved understanding of the cultural effects on knowledge sharing. Keywords Chinese organizations, Knowledge sharing, Culture, Multi-level, Case analysis, China, Case studies Paper type Research paper

Rodney McAdam is Head of Department at Ulster Business School, University of Ulster, Belfast, UK. Sandra Moffett is a Lecturer at the School of Intelligent Systems, University of Ulster, Belfast, UK. Jian Peng is a Research Fellow at Ulster Business School, University of Ulster, Belfast, UK.

Introduction
There is a need to deepen the inquiry into the emergent and rapid development of knowledge management (KM) in China and Chinese contexts. The extant literature on

DOI 10.1108/13673271211198981

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012, pp. 129-147, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 129

knowledge management (KM) is largely, either developed theoretically, or based on, western and Japanese business environments from the 1990s through to the present (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Lin and Kwok, 2006; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Ichijo and Kohlbacher, 2008). Hence the paper seeks to make a contribution by carrying out a critical study on knowledge sharing within Chinese organizations that explores the role of culture in relation to the knowledge sharing process, where knowledge sharing is likely to be inuenced by the prevailing culture. The seminal work of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) largely based on Japanese bakery examples, developed interest in the tacit and explicit nature of knowledge leading to a more rapid development of the eld with a growing emphasis on knowledge creation and transfer in key cases such as Toyota (Ichijo and Kohlbacher, 2007, 2008). Moreover the western and Japanese approaches to KM have been compared, contrasted and integrated in many ways by Nonaka and Takeuchis approaches being applied in western contexts (Wiig, 2004; McKenzie, 2003). However, the emergence of China as a global business entity (Lesova, 2009; Horowitz and Marsh, 2002) has led to a need for more critical studies on knowledge management in China. While borrowing from the western and Japanese developments, such studies should be grounded with the Chinese environment and underlying cultural assumptions, rather than comparing Chinese knowledge management practices against the received wisdom of western and Japanese ideals, as suggested in the culture based studies of Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) and Hong et al. (2008). Serious obstacles to research in China exist, which challenge social scientists in adapting standard methods to distinctive or non-western milieus. Szulanski (2000) suggests that employees, managers and organizations exist within a societal context, where their attitudes toward cooperation and knowledge sharing are likely to be inuenced by the underlying values of their society (Szulanski, 2000). Consistent with this approach Hofstede denes culture as a collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another (Hofstede, 1980). ller and In seeking to deconstruct the broad KM narrative, Chen and Chen (2006) and Mo Svahn (2004) identify knowledge sharing (KS) as a key construct within the KM discourse, the people aspects and routines of which are likely to be inuenced by the prevailing cultural norms. A number of researchers (e.g. Roy, 2001; Lihua, 2005) have questioned whether researchers, particularly from the West, are able to understand what happens in China because of the cultural, historical and economic differences. Management tools applied elsewhere to knowledge sharing may not be applicable or viable when studying many managerial and other issues in the Chinese context (Lihua, 2005; Newell, 1999; Buckley et al., 2006). Approaches, such as knowledge management, lean thinking and Six Sigma are increasingly globally applied; however, organizational culture has a signicant impact on these management approaches, practices and capabilities, especially when they depend on people and social contributions such as knowledge sharing. As Hofstede (1980) suggests, there is something in all countries called management, but its meaning differs to a larger or smaller extent from one country to another depending on cultural characteristics. These characteristics are especially inuential in people based practices of KM such as tacit and explicit knowledge exchange as shown by Nonaka and Takeuchi in the SECI Japanese examples and where situations involve the privileging of knowledge and equating rank with the need to know (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). For two decades, western and Japanese business practitioners and organizations have witnessed a proliferation of management tools to aid competitiveness, along with the increasing importance of KM. Chinese involvement has been more recent and is mainly based on western and Japanese KM constructs. For example, in a 2002 KM Survey in China (Landray, 2006), KM practice issues were explored and studied, without focusing on the service sector or cultural impacts on KM. Little critical evaluation has taken place or deconstruction into domains such as knowledge sharing, beyond that of cross sectional ller and analysis at senior management level (Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2010; Mo Svahn, 2004).

PAGE 130 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

Knowledge sharing (KS) has become more widely recognized as a key KM construct, especially in service sectors such as consulting (Dalkir, 2005). The importance of effective knowledge sharing and resultant innovation from cross pollination of ideas leading to increased competitiveness in Chinese markets has led to Chinese practitioners and organizations seeking to contextualize or to increase their understanding of KS in a Chinese setting (Lihua, 2005). One of the key issues is to understand to what extent the cultural factors have impacted on KS and resultant innovation activities within organizations in China (Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2010). Western and Japanese management scholars have established models and assessment approaches to examine KS effects in business practices. However, how these models should be applied, if at all, to the Chinese business environment requires in-depth study, as there is now a consensus that management practices differ across cultures (Chow et al., 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). The aim of the paper is to explore approaches to knowledge sharing (KS) at multiple organizational levels within Chinese service based organizations. An essential part of this fullling this aim is to explore the effects of culture on knowledge sharing in this context Five consulting rms are analyzed within the multi case study, at multiple levels, where existing literature and preliminary research has shown that consulting organizations in the service sector are more likely to have advanced their understanding of KS as a source of innovation and competitiveness as shown by the comparative studies of Lu et al. (2010) and Zhang (2008) of KS in consulting environments.

Dening knowledge sharing

Jiacheng et al. (2010) and McKenzie (2003) suggest that knowledge sharing can be conceptualized as an activity through which knowledge in various forms can be transferred or exchanged between different actors in organizations. Often this knowledge resides in ller and Svahn, 2004). The multiple organizational levels as in the current study (Mo propensity towards knowledge sharing is dependant on the value attached to the knowledge consistent with the knowledge based view of the rm (Hong et al., 2008). Nonaka and Takeuchis (1995) study shows that knowledge can have various forms such as explicit or tacit. The sharing of explicit knowledge is viewed as being relatively easier than that of tacit knowledge due to the more tangible or product based nature of the knowledge. Tacit knowledge by nature is difcult to articulate or to be prepared into a specic state for sharing purposes (McKenzie, 2003; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Often more time consuming approaches involving relationships such as apprenticeships and job shadowing are used in attempts to transfer such knowledge. Another feature of knowledge sharing is that of stickiness (Jiacheng et al., 2010) where, for a variety of reasons, the sources of the knowledge may be difcult to engage fully in knowledge sharing. Reasons for this reluctance may include the maintaining power differentials (ONeil and Adya, 2007), condentiality and competition (Zhang, 2008), and culture (Newell, 1999). As shown by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), some cultures are more open to sharing knowledge than others. Hence organizational approaches to knowledge sharing should not assume that an ultimate set of best practice organizational knowledge sharing routines exist (Newell, 1999).

Knowledge sharing in Chinese organizations

The process of intra organizational knowledge sharing in Chinese organizations is still not widely explored (Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2010; Lihua, 2005), with a paucity of critical studies (Lihua, 2005; Peng et al., 2008). However Dahlman and Aubert (2001) suggest that Chinas aspirations in the developing knowledge economy requires in-depth understanding of all aspects of KM in Chinese organizations. Beyond that of broad cross sectional surveys based on western conceptions of KM the World Bank Knowledge Economy Report (Zen, 2007) shows that China has a low but improving KM index compared to the US and the UK (from 3.48 to 4.36 between 1995 and 2008).

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 131

A number of broad cross sectional practitioner based surveys on KM by consulting rms, where consulting rms are seen as existing due to the premise of knowledge sharing, has taken place between 2002 and 2007 (e.g. Landray, 2006, 2007). These ndings indicate that understanding and applications of knowledge sharing is increasing however the approaches are somewhat rudimentary in comparison to western and Japanese organizations that have been practicing KM for many years. The ndings show that knowledge based innovation resulting from effective knowledge sharing is considered to be a key element of KM. Increasingly companies in China are seen as adjusting their vision to be able to build a knowledge based organizational culture, to develop a learning organization approach, and to enhance the capability of knowledge sharing in the organization in Chinese situated studies such as Taminiau et al. (2009), Jiacheng et al. (2010), Martinsons and Davison (2007), and Chow et al. (2000). Overall, the surveys and studies reveal that:
B B

Chinese KM practice is at its infancy and far from mature. Chinese companies are starting to apply knowledge sharing practices from tacit and explicit interpretations of knowledge. The majority of the respondents believe that their own organizations are just beginning to implement knowledge sharing at the very early stages of KM practice. There is a lack of clear identication of knowledge sharing routines and practices with linkages to operational plans. Customer knowledge and relationship management could provide new focal points for knowledge sharing in the future.

All of the surveys were based on a senior management single respondent approach with a lack of multi level or contextual organizational elements. Chow et al. (2000) empirically examined the interactive effects of national culture and contextual factors on employees tendency to share knowledge with co-workers showing that the cultural and contextual factors are not fully addressed in Western and Japanese based generalizations of KM. Chen (1995) observes that management theory developed in the west has to be used carefully, and often needs to be adjusted, if it is to have explanatory power in the Chinese context (Shenkar and Von Glinow, 1994). Knowledge sharing research suggests strong cultural impacts on KM practices, especially in helping to develop innovation from cross pollination of different knowledge sources in organizations (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Lu et al. (2010) examine managerial knowledge sharing at individual, interpersonal and organizational perspectives, which give analysis on different levels of knowledge sharing. Lin and Kwok (2006) and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) argue that Chinese people tend to be highly collectivistic with a strong group ethic in comparison to western and Japanese societies. As a result, valuable knowledge is often shared within a group or team setting rather than through individuals. The strong group culture may help foster knowledge sharing and knowledge based communities of practice for knowledge sharing and dissemination as suggested by Newell (1999). However, much of the existing research is rather descriptive and restricted to single case studies. There is a need to understand the cultural inuences on knowledge sharing practices and to examine if the current theories and developments are appropriate, and to what extent culture has an impact on knowledge sharing in Chinese organizations (Lin and Kwok, 2006). Li and Han (2007) present ndings on KM research activities in mainland China based on a review of 381 research papers published in 17 leading academic journals in China. Data is analyzed and presented from four aspects: research topic, research methods, reference discipline, and unit of analysis. Evidence showed that:
B

Most papers dealt with managerial, process, organizational, and theoretical aspects of knowledge sharing, seldom concerning KM utilization. Most papers use non-empirical research, empirical research is rare. Multiple subjects are referenced, among which management is the most frequently quoted.

B B

PAGE 132 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

Publications are mainly focusing on organizational level. There is a lack of studies on inter-organization level, or individual and group levels.

Hong et al. (2008) and Chow et al. (2000) suggest the need to address cultural issues in knowledge sharing studies within China with a focus on KM processes and practices which are affected by, and grounded in, Chinese culture. These ndings suggest the need to inquire into the development and adoption of knowledge sharing practices as the key products of cultural norms as suggested by Jiacheng et al. (2010) and Hong et al. (2010) in their culturally situated studies.

Constructing a knowledge sharing culture framework

Hofstede (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstedes (2005) model for organizational culture has been widely used in a range of organizational cultures. The model has a number of constructs:
B

Symbols are words, gestures, pictures, or objects that carry a particular meaning within a culture. Heroes are persons, alive or dead, real or imaginary, who possess characteristics highly prized in the culture and how this serves as modes for behavior. Rituals are collective activities that are technically superuous but are socially essential within a culture, they are therefore carried out for their own sake. Values form the sense of broad, non-specic feelings that are often unconscious and rarely discussable, that cannot be observed as such but are manifested in behavior.

Hofstede (1980) suggest these constructs can be compared to the concentric rings or skins of an onion from shallow, supercial symbols to deeper rituals. Symbols, heroes, and rituals can be subsumed under the term practices, because they are visible to an observer although their cultural meaning lies in the way they are perceived by insiders. This construction is taken as the basis of the knowledge sharing framework shown in Figure 1. The value of this model to this paper is that it provides a framework to observe the effects of culture in organizational practices and routines such as knowledge transfer. The concentric rings of the diagram show that KM in a given culture setting emerges from deeply help sub Figure 1 KM culture model: links to KM practices

National or country Culture: - High group centred - Low individualism

Artefacts

KM based visual organisational structures and processes KM based: Values Rituals Heroes KM strategies, goals Symbols Reflecting values At all levels

Espoused values

KM based unconscious, taken for granted beliefs

Basic understanding and assumptions

Sources: Adapted from Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), Shein (1996, 1999) and Yamashita (2001)

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 133

conscious taken for granted beliefs in a cognate manner. As the rings spread out they embrace KM structure, process and practice which is still inuenced by the core beliefs (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). In seeking to expand Hofstedes work and framework, Yamashita (2001) in analysing Scheins (1996) three level culture level model (artifacts, espoused values and unconscious taken for granted beliefs), suggests that a fourth level should be considered. According to Yamashita (2001), culture is embedded most deeply in the people of each nation, and therefore, national culture should be added as a fourth level of Scheins model of organizational culture. Therefore, although individuals have unique character traits they also are a product of their surroundings and heritage, e.g. their culture. Therefore individual, group and organizational KM practices and routines, such as knowledge sharing will be inuenced by the prevailing culture (Zhu, 2009; Peng et al., 2008). Yamashita (2001) notes organizational culture fulls the part of adapting to, and surviving in, the external environment or national culture and that of integrating internal processes to secure such adaptation and survival. Yamashitas (2001) model has been echoed by others. For example, according to Mobley et al. (2005), each society is underpinned and dened by a distinctive culture and culture provides guidance to behaviors of groups and individuals in a society, in apparent and sometimes unnoticeable ways which affect organizations situated in such a culture. Based on the principles of Hofstede, Schein and Yamashita Figure 1 has been developed as a framework to guide inquiry into how organizational culture may affect knowledge sharing practices. This approach will guard against making assumptions inconsistent with Chinese culture as suggested by Zhu (2009) in his study of knowledge transfer into China. The circles integrate Scheins culture level model (artifact, espoused values and unconscious taken for granted) and Yamashitas (2001) fourth level of nation culture level. The arrows are developed mainly from Hofstedes model on organizational culture factors, namely, value, rituals, heroes and symbols; but with an emphasis on KM relevant factors in this regard. The model infers that Hofstedes four constructs can occur at any of Yamashita (2001) and Scheins (1996, 1999) four levels as shown in Figure 1 and that KM practices, consistent with Hofstedes (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstedes (2005) four constructs can be identied with each of these four levels of organizational culture. Overall this combined approach is consistent with Scheins (1996, 1999) view that culture is a pattern of basic assumptions that have evolved, been discovered or developed by a given group view that as it learns to cope with problems of external adaptation and internal sharing and integration. Scheins (1999) holistic perspective of organizational culture resonates with the knowledge sharing and organizational culture and Hofstede and Hofstedes (2005) model gives a practical approach for this paper to observe culture effects on knowledge sharing at organizational levels. In addition to the constructs of Figure 1 Hofstede (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) has developed the concept of cultural dimensions that have been studied and veried in a range of countries including the Middle Eastern context. These dimensions can affect social behavior in employees as they seek to implement knowledge sharing routines and practices (often grounded and developed in western and Japanese contexts). Four of these dimensions show unique traits for China in comparison to other countries. Hofstedes (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstedes (2005) studies on these dimensions in the Chinese context identify four cultural dimensions: 1. High power-distance. Predominance of a caste or tribal system that limits upward mobility; inequalities in power and wealth; leaders have ultimate power and are relatively unquestioned; expectation that leaders will separate themselves from the group. 2. High uncertainty avoidance. Low acceptance of uncertainty at any level; strict rules, laws, policies and regulations; change averse; risk averse. 3. High masculinity. Reliance on traditional power structures; assertive; competitive; lack of caring and inclusivity.

PAGE 134 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

4. Low individualism. Collectivist society; loyalty to the ruling group or family overriding individual preferences. By comparing existing approaches to knowledge sharing in relation to Chinese culture along these dimensions according to their cultural dimension scores (Hofstede, 1980), some tentative conclusions may be drawn in relation to the effect of these dimensions on knowledge sharing as shown in Table I. It is suggested that both Figure 1 and Table I give a basis for structuring the study of Chinese cultural norms on inter organizational knowledge sharing at different organizational levels. Two inter-related research questions arise from the literature are and the concepts of Figure 1 and Table I: RQ1. What are the knowledge sharing practices that are inuenced by culture within the Chinese case organizations, at organizational, group, and individual levels of analysis? How does culture inuence knowledge sharing, especially with respect to value, rituals, heroes, and symbols as reected in KM practices, and for the four layers shown in Figure 1, in the case organizations at organizational, group, and individual levels of analysis?

RQ2.

Research methodology
Perren and Ram (2004) suggest the need for inductive theory building methodologies such as case research in contingency studies to build explanations and engage in a sense making process. This view is supported by Yin (2009) who suggests the what and how

Table I Cultural of inuence on knowledge sharing

Cultural dimension ratings for China in comparison to western countries Hofstede (1980, 1997) Higher power-distance

Characteristic Predominance of ruling class Lack of upward mobility Power restricted to ruling class Leaders are not subject to critique Leaders remain separate from employees Low acceptance of uncertainty at any level Strict rules, laws, policies and regulations Change averse Risk averse Reliance on traditional power structures Assertive Competitive Exclusive Collectivist society Loyalty to the ruling group overriding individual preferences

Resonance with multi level knowledge sharing Clearly dened ownership of knowledge sources Directed top down approach giving structured approaches Commitment from senior management Uniformity of approach and lack of inconsistency Clearly dened goals and objectives Clearly dened procedures Use of established methods and routines Uniform approaches Clear goals Strong business focus

Incongruence with multi level knowledge sharing Lack of empowered involvement One size ts all approach Inappropriate reward and recognition

Higher uncertainty avoidance

Lack of learning and experimentation Lack of knowledge based critique, creativity and innovation Lack of debate and knowledge from lower levels Lack of inclusivity of diverse knowledge Lack of sensitivity to individuals needs Lack of creativity and individual input Lack of recognition of individual contributions Limited empowerment Little learning and experimentation at lower levels

Higher masculinity

Lower individualism

Top down driven Commitment to see it through Consistency of approach Emphasis on knowledge sharing through relationships

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 135

style of the research questions are suited to this type of interpretative research philosophy to enable in-depth and iterative and cumulative theory building inquiry. The chosen research methodology was that of multiple Case studies which is suited to the interpretive research approach (Yin, 2009). The research was carried out in three phases as shown in Table II. The two KM centers had developed a frequently quoted China KM trend forecast and were considered to be the expert in understanding the latest development of KM meta trends in China and provided KM consulting services to clients from governmental organizations to commercial companies. The case selection criteria involved consulting based organizations which were more likely to have been in the vanguard of KM and knowledge sharing and to have systematically linked knowledge sharing and practices to give competitive advantage as suggested by Taminiau et al. (2009); Ambos and Schlegelmilch (2009), and Zhang (2008). Given the emergent nature of KM in Chinese organizations selection of cases from other sectors may not have yielded a sufcient body of KS routines and practices for the study. Furthermore, selecting consulting organizations from a single region was more likely to minimize the effect of inter-regional differences which can be signicant within China (Horowitz and Marsh, 2002; Wei, 2000; Cannon, 1990). The cases were all chosen as being Chinese owned to minimize the inuence of outside culture and to ensure that the cultural inuences were that of the prevailing Chinese culture. Phases 1 of the research also showed that the suitable consulting organizations were mainly in the SME size category. SMEs are more likely to be effective at knowledge sharing due to their size and relatively informal structure. To minimize lifecycle effects and to focus on developing organizations it was decided that the case organizations should all be at a common lifecycle stage as determined by Churchill and Lewiss (1983) model, namely stage four, representing growth and maturity. The cases selected are shown in Table III. An adapted version of Radnor and Boadens (2004) method for analyzing qualitative multiple case research data was used in the study. Firstly, using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software, topics and categories were constructed from the interview transcripts using NVIVO software for each of the interviews within the Cases. The ndings were then coded within tables and areas of commonality or disagreement noted, and subsequently interpreted using the literature. Repeat interviews were used to add more depth to the ndings, resolve anomalies, and add new ndings in a cyclical manner. Focus group data was used to check Table II Paper key activities: timeframe
Research phase Phase 1 Key activities in China Interviews with experts in knowledge sharing including leaders of two Chinese knowledge management centers and the managing directors of six Chinese business consulting rms Pilot study in China Main study in China Review with interviewees for the ndings in China Approach and methods Elite interviews (i.e. with recognized experts); focus groups

Phase 2 Phase 3

Case study; interviews; focus groups; observations Conrmatory interviews and focus groups; observations

Table III Case organizations

Case Pilot 1 2 3 4 Employees 121 120 167 80 80 Service sector Training and consulting services Media services Project management consulting services Materials consulting services Hi-tech marketing consulting services Interviews 8 8 8 8 8 Focus groups 2 2 2 2 2

PAGE 136 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

existing ideas, add more depth to the ndings, resolve anomalies, and add new ndings (each focus group consisted of the 2 members of the management team (titles varied from case to case , e.g. HR manager, operations manager, nance manager selected at random), two team leaders (or group leaders- selected at random) and two employees (selected at random from any discipline), The researcher facilitated the focus groups in discussing knowledge transfer across organizational levels in a semi structured format as suggested by Yin (2009).

Results
The results have been presented in tabular form due to the qualitative nature of the study (Tables IV and V). This tabular presentation of the data reects the approach of Yin (2009) where Table IV is based on the analysis and synthesis of the data sources for each case (i.e. interviews, focus group, documentation and observation) at each of the three levels of analysis (individual, group, and organization). The ndings in Table IV mainly address RQ1. There is a need for evidence tables, such as Table IV, to be further analyzed or abstracted in relation to the guiding framework or theory of the study (Yin, 2009). Hence the ndings of Table IV were interpreted in relation to the framework and constructs of Figure 1 and Table I to produce Table V which is mainly focused on addressing RQ2. The results in Table IV and 5 are consistent with Perren and Rams (2004) inductive approach where the ndings and constructs are compared in an iterative manner.

Discussion
The discussion section is based on the three levels of analysis i.e. corporate, group/team, and individual levels. Knowledge sharing at corporate/organizational level The linkage between knowledge sharing, innovation, and improved organizational performance, although being a key theme in the literature, had mixed responses within the case ndings. The leaders and senior management of Cases 1 and 2 had positive perceptions of the role of knowledge sharing in aiding innovation and protability. The managing director of case 1 stated:
Leaders in this organization [. . .] take part in outside activities to convert knowledge and have positive comments and thinking towards new ideas.

This linkage was helped by the project or process nature of these two cases in contrast with the more hierarchical structure of cases 3 and 4. In case 1 the senior team allocated resources down to group/team level to encourage knowledge sharing, including time and systems. They also claimed to encourage the use of feedback on the effectiveness of KS and the use of KS performance measures at lower levels. However there was little evidence of these claims at group or individual levels, possibly reecting the high power distance aspect of Chinese culture in that involvement was not nurtured or valued to the same degree at lower levels (Jiacheng et al., 2010). The KM terminology mainly came from the leader who had previously been trained in KM within western organizations and hence acted as a hero gure or key inuencer instead of large scale participation (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Table V). He was considered by his subordinates to be a well-experienced and educated leader in relation to KS. He took the lead of knowledge sharing, but did not label much of this activity using KM terminology to avoid conict with Chinese culture and terminology. The leader was also able to articulate the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge and recognized the implications for KS and the need for a more formal KS system within the organization. The leadership from case 2 although supportive of KM and KS were less informed and had not embodied the link between KS and innovation and performance. However the leader of case 2 recognized the informal and social nature of KS in teams but expressed concern about undermining the status of existing processes at group level, reecting the high power distance (top down approach), low individualism (little freedom to share), and high

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 137

Table IV Multi level knowledge sharing case ndings

Case 1 Individual level Some understanding of the link between KS, innovation and performance Rhetoric of individual KS contributions communicated from top level ks seen as part of a team process No KS incentives Little grasp of KM terminology Group/team level Corporate/organizational level Support for innovation from KS (resources allocated to project teams/group level) Feedback on the effectiveness of KS to group managers (no measures) Recognition of KS through involvement Leader trained in west-accepted KM and KS terminology, understanding of tacit and explicit knowledge, stated the need for a more formal KS system, KS technology needs improved Reliance on heroes for KS rather than participation Support for innovation without recognition of the link to formal KS Feedback and the effectiveness of KS were not considered Recognition of KS through informal meetings at group level although wary of undermining existing processes The leader and the senior management team had an awareness of KM terms but had difculty separating tacit and explicit knowledge Reliance on heroes for KS rather than participation

ks, innovation and performance systematically linked in new service project teams Difculties in dening different types of knowledge within the teams Some rudimentary KS performance measures ks built into the team processes through status based relationships Rituals such as banquets to award teams KS elements implicit, proxy fro involvement ks, innovation and performance linked Some understanding of the link in new service project teams but lack of between KS, and innovation explicit KS approaches Lack of understanding of the importance of innovation in relation to Difculties in dening KS and different types of knowledge within the teams performance Lack of KS performance measures Individuals roles in KS not ks occur within the team processes communicated from the top down through status based relationships ks seen as part of a team process rather than formally planned No KS incentives Use of business improvement tools Little grasp of KM terminology such as brainstorming without the KS label Rituals such as the Spring Festival and the Chinese New Year had informal group elements for KS Hero-technical manager with western KS experience Post project reviews limited to formal systems reviews Little understanding of the link between ks limited by hierarchical structure and limited KM appreciation at the top level KS, and innovation Lack of explicit KS approaches. Lack of understanding of the Limited recognition of the need for terminology of KS and KM KS-reliance on established procedures Individuals roles in KS not Knowledge is power and status communicated from the top down mentality. difculties in dening No KS performance measures or different types of knowledge incentives Lack of acceptance of the value of ks seen as part of a team or group different employee backgrounds for KS process No evident KS performance measures Little opportunity to apply knowledge Implicit KS occur within the team outside the established systems processes through status based No evidence of heroes relationships Rituals such as the Spring Festival and the Chinese New Year had limited KS opportunities Hero-computer manager with western KS experience-tended to be systems orientated Post project reviews limited to formal systems reviews Outdoor training used to break down silos but not supported afterwards

Perceived some aspects of KS to be subversive Support for innovation without recognition of the link to formal KS (internal or external) Feedback and the effectiveness of KS were not considered Lack of recognition of cultural effects on KS Informal approaches seen as poor formal approaches No obvious heroes with the leader and the senior management having only general awareness of KM terms Difculty separating tacit and explicit knowledge

(Continued)

PAGE 138 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

Table IV
Case 4 Individual level Little understanding of KS other than social interaction with employees Reward and recognition only at team or group level Lack of understanding of the terminology of KS and KM Need for individuals roles in KS not communicated from the top down No KS performance measures Little opportunity to experiment or apply knowledge outside the established rules and systems No evidence of heroes Group/team level No KS pressure or recognition from the top level ks and knowledge as an asset seen as not tting with the accounting procedures Lack of knowledge of explicit KS approaches to KS Knowledge seen as privileged and relation to power and status within groups and teams ks seen as necessary within multifunction design teams No formal KS performance measures Implicit KS occur within the team processes through status based relationships Rituals such as the Spring Festival and the Chinese New Year had limited KS opportunities Reward and recognition limited to sales teams in terms of turnover and prot Corporate/organizational level The leader and senior management team considered some aspects of KS to be detrimental to effective organization and management Traditional hierarchical structure and management style focused mainly on nancial performance measures KS and prot not seen as commensurate in some circumstances (e.g. unwarranted use of resources and training) Support for innovation without recognition of the link to formal KS Informal KS approaches seen as needing formalization and rigor No obvious heroes with the leader and the senior management having limited

uncertainty avoidance (little opportunity to share outside the formalized processes (Tables IV and V). This approach also caused difculties for free forming communities of practice to share knowledge at lower levels. Cases 3 and 4 were more hierarchical in structure, especially at the corporate level. The high power distance was reected in the leadership of both cases 3 and 4 in that some elements of KS were considered to be subversive to the power structure within the organizations (reecting low individualism), rather than being positively associated with innovation and improved performance (Tables IV and V). The lack of importance placed on KS, and understanding of different types of knowledge, was transmitted down through the lower levels due to the high power distance culture (Taminiau et al., 2009; Ambos and Schlegelmilch, 2009). In relation to the literature Hong et al. (2008) shows that propensity towards knowledge sharing is dependant on the value attached to the knowledge. However these ndings also show that at Corporate level both the value of the knowledge and the culture context affect the degree of KS i.e. the high power distance construct limits KS in a downwards direction from corporate levels in the case organizations. The high power distance factor also limits the recognition that knowledge resides and multiplies in multiple organizational levels ller and through multiple interactions as shown by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Mo Svahn (2004). Knowledge sharing at group or team levels Throughout the study, and consistent with the ndings of Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), a higher group or collectivist ethos was detected in all of the organizations, regardless of structure. Thus, this level was a key focus in knowledge sharing. Supporting technology was needed to facilitate the knowledge process in the cases, and to facilitate people with different backgrounds working together in knowledge based processes, as McKenzie (2003) noted in relation to developing tacit knowledge in business consulting rms. Cases 1 and 2 which had the most advanced approaches to KS recognized difculties in trying to convert knowledge into innovation. However the managers were able to give examples of how tacit knowledge had been used in innovation process teams (mainly individuals

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 139

Table V Knowledge sharing analysis based on Figure 1 and Table 1 and 4

Value Literature Hofstedes (1998, 2003) model, Davenport and Prusaks (1998) KS model (2003, 1998) gave the importance of culture on KS with different layers. Wiig (2004) suggested KS must be in harmony with culture and with the joint values of the enterprise, employees, and external stakeholders. Hofstede, based his fth dimension on Confucius, identied that people from long-term oriented cultures tend to give high importance to values such as persistence towards slow results, thrift, savings and having a sense of shame. Values were the basic beliefs that dene employees successes in an organization. Scholl (2003): culture variables: Scholl (2003) described what types of behavior does culture control? with variables such as innovation versus stability, strategic versus operational focus: The degree to which the members of the management team focus on the long term bigger picture versus attention to detail, outcome versus process orientation. Schein (1996): values were more easily studied than basic assumptions KM culture model has been proven to be valid and able to generate meaningful and robust results from KS studies. Findings also suggested that even if there was no formally established organizational culture statement or system regarding KM, the way of doing things as an organization or a group, was in fact shaping the organizational culture. The reason why certain KS related activities were taken supported Scheins (1996, 1999) theory that culture was aimed at problem solving or survival, although customer needs and development of the organizational. Case 4 showed a strong outcome overcomes process culture. Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4 all suggested stability overtakes innovation at certain levels for different reasons. Case 3 and 4 also show short-term focus overcomes longer term planning (Scholl 2003). Case 1 gave results of strong Chinese style thinking in KS with harmonious management as a culture which could be seen in Wiig (2004) Hofstedes (1998, 2003) model. A hero is an exemplary person who reects the image, attitudes, or values of the organization and serves as a role model to other employees. A hero is sometimes the founder of the organization or an everyday worker who had a tremendous impact on the organization. Yamashita (2001) explained how leader was the key for an organizational culture Innovation and sharing heroes were likely to be the leader of the company or group leader of a project, according to the results. New employees eager to obtain knowledge are more willing to share with others in order to gain. These ndings support the above literature review Hofstedes (1998, 2003) model, Davenport and Prusak (1998). Rituals are routines or ceremonies that the company uses to recognize high-performing employees. Awards banquets, company gatherings, and quarterly meetings can acknowledge distinguished employees for outstanding service in relation to KS tenets. The honorees are meant to exemplify and inspire all employees of the company during the rest of the year All cases had the Chinese New Year as the most important occasion as KS events. Informal meetings and outdoor activities were also considered. Case 1 had regular group brainstorming sessions to develop new knowledge from all employees in group settings. Case 3 was able to identify that KS celebrations were usually run based on the successful completion of certain projects in lessons learned formats. Case 2 had a formally established annual Best Employee ceremony based on knowledge sharing criteria. Outdoor training was seen as a good way to share knowledge and break walls between groups and departments in case 2, and case 3 Hofstedes (1998) model, Davenport and Prusak (1998), Yamashita (2001) Case 1 has formally stated terms on KS such as 3S, 3C and a system supposed to be able to reward good employees yet not everyone is aware of that in case 1. Case 2, 3, 4 did not show a clearly dened system to encourage KS activities. However, ndings support the view that KS sharing need to be voluntary, instead of forced Confucian dynamism (long-term orientation vs short term orientation) (Hofstede, 1994): Long term orientation cultures value virtues oriented toward future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. Short term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular respect for tradition, preservation of face and fullling social obligations The negligence on KS as a system at strategic level, particularly on innovation was found due partly because of the short term prot focus, as in case 3 and case 4 and the risk avoidance of practices even if the leader himself advocated innovation. However case 1 sent one employee to the UK to learn art and design from a long term plan, which was also considered as one part of the harmonious culture

Findings

Hero

Literature

Findings

Ritual

Literature

Findings

Symbol

Literature Findings

Confucian dynamism

Literature

Findings

PAGE 140 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

expertise in scientic training used within a new service development team case 1; an individuals electronics expertise within an events planning team case 2). This tacit exchange was summarized by an HR manager from case 2:
This is day to day practices. We do not have a system to do this, which I believe can facilitate a better environment to stimulate innovation.

This nding was consistent with previous research (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Lihua, 2005) in that tacit knowledge is not easy to transfer and often occurs informally. Group or project groups were more likely to have tacit knowledge converted into explicit activities and routines (Newell, 1999). However the individuals who supplied the tacit knowledge received no formal recognition as there was a group or collectivist culture and lower individualism (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Table V). Due to functional barriers the HR manager from case 1 believed the ability to convert tacit knowledge into innovation varied from department to department. For example, the design department was more likely to have this conversion while the nance department might be less likely to need conversion of tacit knowledge to innovation, since they were following rigorous accounting rules (case 4 nance manager) and thus reected the higher uncertainty avoidance cultural dimension (Tables I and IV). The case 1 marketing manager suggested that people from all departments were involved in innovative thinking and contributing tacit knowledge, as well as explicit knowledge, to innovation efforts; however there was little evidence that this approach was actively encouraged and incentivised at an individual level, reecting the low individualism culture (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Past research has suggested that producing explicit knowledge from tacit sources involves the use of documents, repositories and processes, which enhance the ow of tacit knowledge through establishing a shared culture, and improve human interaction and socialization, as well as human resource management. This view is supported from the ndings in rhetoric, with the views from interviewees that appropriate documents and journals are there for everyone to read (case 1 project manager), and informal meetings and conversations are useful (case 2 general manager). However, there was little evidence of formal support mechanisms for this approach. In cases 3 and 4 the lack of emphasis on understanding of some of the KM and KS principles led to lack of tacit knowledge recognition and use, lack of KS records of project based lessons learned, delays in analyzing feedback from customers, poor communication between people and projects in different sections that were working on similar projects, inappropriate technology to support processes, and poor KM processes. These problems led to frustration in the sales and marketing managers within cases 3 and 4 who suffered from incomplete or poorly thought through new service offerings (e.g. in case 4 the marketing manager had not received the latest technological information to inform clients; in case 3 developments in materials handling and packaging had not been sent through to the marketing manager in a timely manner). The group or team levels in cases 3 and 4 were critical of the senior managements lack of leadership in stressing the importance of KM and KS; these frustrations which reected the higher power distance which overarched the ller and Svahn, 2004; Hofstede and Hofstede, group or collectivist culture dimension (Mo 2005). This lack of leadership was reected in inadequate incorporation of KS within teams and processes, even though a number of interviewees at this level recognized the importance of KS, consistent with the OECD (2002) results. Davenport and Prusak (1998) found that in relation to western organizations there was a focus on institutional solutions to the problems of knowledge creation, sharing, and application in the early years of KM. However, the Chinese case organizations, especially cases 1 and 2) were more focused on knowledge sharing at group level consistent with Hofstede and Hofstedes (2005) Chinese culture analysis. There was some evidence of heroes (Table V) at the group level. One Interviewee who was a technical manager in case 2 had become a recognized and inuential voice due to having had several years of experience of KS from working in the UK, Holland and other European countries. From his cross-culture view, he believed that this company was very young, as were all of the cases, and still trying to gure out more in depth approaches to KS that addressed ingrained Chinese cultural issues.

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 141

A key issue for KS at this level was relationships. In all of the cases the relatively rigid and formalized processes were enabled by relationships between team members that were built on trust and status and which were long established. The study found that there were many examples of implicit KS through these relationships at group level (consistent with low individualism Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Table IV). A case 2 interviewee (client manager) stated:
You have to be aware of who you are managing as your Chinese subordinates are more likely to share their thoughts with you and follow your steps if you were considered as one of them. Western companies are more about systems and rules. Chinese are more about personal links.

A case 3 HR manager stated that these relationships enabled: learning by sharing. However, he further stated that the relationships for KS were not orchestrated and there were no dened KS roles:
There are no special people to manage knowledge sharing relationships in this company [. . .] I would be interested to know what kind of person would take a role like CKO.

Group level process which included KS was more developed in cases 1 and 2. Case 2 had a requirement to ask employees to upload project reports on nished cases, which according to some of the interviewees was not very useful for KS as they were limited to being cold facts or could not give a full picture of the project. The case 2 HR manager argued that:
Project experience sharing sessions were not very helpful because usually the seminar speakers were not the leaders, which mean the presentations could not give the most useful knowledge to others.

These ndings reect the higher uncertainty avoidance and low individualism culture dimensions (Table I) where open criticism from employees leading to change was not readily accepted (Chow et al., 2000). There were a number of celebrations or rituals (Figure 1; Table V; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) that related to KM. For example, in case 1, the annual banquet was the key ceremonial event involving customers where formal and informal knowledge sharing occurred. Case 2, case 3 and case 4 all showed the importance of the Chinese new year and spring festival gathering which the most important session for ceremonial purpose in the organizations. On these occasions there were informal opportunities to share knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, more in a reective manner with each other in extended group situations than in other formal occasions where the exchanges related more to explicit knowledge (Ambos and Schlegelmilch, 2009). Further, in terms of rituals, case 1 had a formally established annual ceremony, with award criteria based on knowledge sharing and use. Outdoor training was seen as a good way to break down walls between groups and departments in case 1 and to facilitate ongoing knowledge sharing. Overall the Chinese New Year was the most important ritual to celebrate. Commenting on these rituals an interviewee from case 2 (nance manager) argued:
How we do things here might be different from abroad. In this way, we have more so called Chinese Characteristics. But we are still a very modern company.

The research results support Scheins (1996, 1999) research suggesting that culture was what a group learns over a period of time as the group solves its problems of survival, and is consistent with Hodfstede and Hofstede (2005) nding that Chinese culture has a much stronger group ethos with supporting rituals in comparison to western organizations. The ndings are consistent with those of Hutchinson and Quintas (2008) who identied the many layers and elements of culture, value and tacit shared assumptions and manifestations of culture which were proved to be useful in the KM culture framework (Figure 1; Table I) development and application in the research process. The literature in relation to KS at group level shows the need to understand tacit and explicit knowledge and the processes whereby they interact (e.g. Nonaka and Takeuchis (1995), SECI classication is widely used throughout the literature). However in the cases the lack of maturity in KM and KS led to a lack of differentiation in these types of knowledge and hence

PAGE 142 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

in devising effectual methods to share such knowledge both within and across groups and teams. McKenzie (2003) suggests that transferring such knowledge requires more experiential approaches, such as apprenticeships and job shadowing which were not fully utilized within the cases in attempts to transfer this knowledge, especially in tacit form. Jiacheng et al. (2010) suggest that sources of the knowledge may be difcult to engage fully in knowledge sharing (i.e. stickinesss). Group level stickiness in KS was exacerbated by both the effect of high power distance culture and the need to maintain power differentials as found by ONeil and Adya (2007), and a lack of structure and systems for knowledge sharing, i.e. it was not strategically integrated within the case organizations. As shown by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), some cultures are more open to sharing knowledge than others, however there some evidence from the cases that globalization and individual leaders with experience of KM in other cultures were having some effect. The ndings reects Zhus (2009) and Newalls (1999) conclusion that an ultimate set of best practice organizational knowledge sharing routines cannot exist independent of situated culture (Newell, 1999). Knowledge sharing at individual level Cases 1 and 2 showed evidence of individual employees at lower levels having an understanding of KM and KS to some degree. However there was lack of individual empowerment to contribute to KS or to effect change to add to KS other than through the group or team level, reecting the lower individualism, higher masculinity and higher power distance cultural dimensions (Table I). This limiting of individual contributions to KS was ultimately reected in frustrations at group level with insufcient innovation from project teams. However the cultural emphasis on relationships offered some channel for individual inuence but even this effect was moderated by status within such relationships. Possibly these relationships, when imbued with a KS ethos, may become a rich conduit for producing knowledge based innovation in addition to existing formalized processes in the case organizations, consistent with Hofstede and Hofstedes (2005) nding in regard to the role of relationships in sharing knowledge. In relation to the literature on individual contributions to KS there is an underlying premise, as shown by Davenport and Prusak (1998), that an individual experience will be unique and hence their knowledge repository will differ to some degree in relation to others. Therefore Hong et al. (2010) suggest that individual knowledge can contribute to other individuals or groups and interact to generate new knowledge in a social constructionist manner. However the strong group culture and low individualism in China (Hofstede and Hofstede, 1995; Table I; Table V) was found to limit this effect and produce a more homogenous way of producing knowledge in a group rather than at individual level (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). These ndings are consistent with the studies of Lu et al. (2010), Lin and Kwok (2006), Zhu (2009) and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) who suggest that the high collectivistic and strong group ethic can limit the individual contribution.

Conclusions
Based on the KM-culture framework of Figure 1, the cultural dimensions (Table I), and the case ndings (Tables IV and V) it is concluded in relation to RQ1 and RQ2, consistent with Chow et al. (2000) and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), that knowledge sharing in the case organizations is inuenced by the prevailing Chinese culture at three main levels; namely corporate, group, and individual. The effect at individual level is indirect in that the Hofstede dimensions cannot be applied at individual level; however the cultural effects at group/team levels, in terms of high degrees of collectivism and power distance had an effect on how an individuals contributions to knowledge were perceived. In relation to RQ1 the KS routines and practices are identied as shown in Table IV and in relation to RQ2 the links to Figure 1 and Table I are shown.

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 143

It is concluded that at corporate level the higher power distance dimension resulted in a formalized top down approach in cases 1 and 2 where there was a more established approach to KM. In case 1 the leaders western experience of KS gave him a hero status (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) in helping to disseminate KS practice. However in cases 3 and 4, where the leaders had less understanding of KS the higher power distance was found to result in a lack of downward impetus to establish KS approaches. This nding presents a key challenge to implementing KM in Chinese organizations where there is a lack of exposure to other cultures. As shown by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), a lack of consideration of a wider range of knowledge types, and to recognize that knowledge and its construction can occur at multiple organizational levels, can result in rhetoric of KM which will displace effective KS. From the group/team level ndings it is concluded that prevailing collective culture made this level central to attempts to increase KS, consistent with Horowitz and Marsh (2002). From the case 1 and 2 ndings it is concluded that relationships were key in overcoming the lack of KS in infrastructure and processes. These relationships offered an opportunity for KS at an informal level but were moderated by status within the relationships (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). It is also concluded that rituals such as the Chinese New Year and Harvest Festival events had opportunities for informal KS. However in cases 3 and 4, where KS was less recognized, the group or collectivist culture tended to be wary of free forming communities of practice and to stie individual efforts (lower individualism Table IV) to promote KS and where there was little downward pressure for change on the group level. It is concluded that at group/team levels there is an opportunity for the collectivist or group cultural ethic to act as platforms for KS using free forming techniques such as communities of practice and learning networks (Newell, 1999). However cognisance must be taken of the positive moderating effect of the importance of relationships within these groupings as suggested by Peng et al. (2008) and the possible debilitating effect of status or power differentials (ONeil and Adya, 2007). In relation to the individual level, and noting that Hofstedes (1980) work in not applied at individual level, there was an indirect effect due to the effect of culture at group/team levels. It is concluded that there was a lack of empowerment and involvement in KS due to the strong group culture, higher power distance, lower individualism and higher masculine cultural norms tending to auger against experimentation and risk taking by employees. Individual efforts to instill change tended to be looked on with suspicion at group levels. However in case 1 some individuals tried to channel their individual efforts through the established relationships within the groups/teams within the case organizations. The lack of upward impetus from creative individuals can result in the team/group levels stagnating and not having sufcient porosity for new ideas.

Recommendations
Further research Further research could develop and rene the theoretical approach to KS in relation to Chinese cultural developments. Such studies could probe the impact of globalization on these issues by using a wider range of case organizations. These studies could focus on the group/team level of analysis to obtain the most benet from the studies. There is an opportunity to develop a set of situated KM models, tools and techniques in the Chinese context. Implications for practice From a practical perspective it is suggested, consistent with Zhus (2009) Chinese cross border studies, that organizations from other countries seeking to collaborate with Chinese organizations must consider the likely effects on Chinese cultural norms to avoid unnecessary tensions and misalignments. For example failure to recognize the emphasis on group culture and high power distance may limit KS methods, tools and techniques that have worked effectively elsewhere (Zhu, 2009). Due recognition should be given to the

PAGE 144 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

importance of relationships and status in seeking to establish KS structure, practices, and routines. Relationship building within key groups is likely to achieve more rapid progress in KS than applying more mechanistic approaches, as indicated by Horowitz and Marsh (2002).

References
Ambos, T. and Schlegelmilch, B. (2009), Managing knowledge in international consulting rms, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 491-509. Buckley, P.J., Clegg, J. and Tan, H. (2006), Cultural awareness in knowledge transfer to China the role of guanxi and mianzi, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41, pp. 275-88. Cannon, T. (1990), Regions: spatial inequality and regional policy, in Cannon, T. and Jenkins, A. (Eds), The Geography of Contemporary China: The Impact of Deng Xiaopings Decade, Routledge, London, pp. 28-60. Chen, M. (1995), Asian Management Systems: Chinese, Japanese and Korean Styles of Business, Routledge, London. Chen, M. and Chen, A.P. (2006), Knowledge management performance evaluation: a decade review from 1995 to 2004, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 17-38. Chow, C.W., Deng, F.J. and Ho, J.L. (2000), The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: a comparative study in the United States and the Peoples Republic of China, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 65-95. Churchill, N. and Lewis, V. (1983), The ve stages of small business growth, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 3, pp. 30-50. Dahlman, C.J. and Aubert, J.E. (2001), China and the knowledge economy: seizing the 21st century, WBI Development Studies, available at: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/137742/ChinaKE. pdf Dalkir, K. (2005), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA. Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Hong, J., Heikkinsen, J. and Blomqvist, K. (2010), Culture and knowledge co-creation in R&D collaboration between MNCs and Chinese universities, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 62-75. Hong, J., Kianto, A. and Kvlaheiko, K. (2008), Moving cultures and the creation of new knowledge and dynamic capabilities in emerging markets, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 196-202. Horowitz, S. and Marsh, C. (2002), Explaining regional economic policies in China: interest groups, institutions, and identities, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 115-32. Hutchinson, V. and Quintas, P. (2008), Do SMEs do knowledge management? Or simply manage what they know?, International Journal of Small Business, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 131-54. Ichijo, K. and Kohlbacher, F. (2008), Tapping into tacit knowledge in emerging markets the Toyota way, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 173-87. Ichijo, K. and Kohlbacher, F. (2007), The Toyota way of global knowledge creation: the learn local, act global strategy, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, pp. 116-64. Jiacheng, W., Lu, L. and Francesca, C. (2010), A cognitive model of intra-organisational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross culture, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 220-39.

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 145

Landray, S. (2006), China KM Survey Report 2005: Present, Future and Challenges, CKO, 14 December, available at: http://cko.icxo.com/htmlnews/2005/12/14/738528_0.html Landray, S. (2007), Trends of China KM 2006 Survey, available at: http://cio.it168.com/e/2007-06-01/ 200706011109687.html Lesova, P. (2009), Analysts hike forecasts for Chinas economic growth, Goldman sees 8.3% growth in China this year, Morgan Stanley expects 7%, available at: www.marketwatch.com/news/story/analystshike-forecasts-chinas Li, H. and Han, W.H. (2007), A meta-analysis of knowledge management in research in China, Journal of the China Society for Scientic and Technical Information, Vol. 6, pp. 23-6. Lihua, R. (2005), Technology and Knowledge Transfer in China, Ashgate, Aldershot. Lin, L. and Kwok, L. (2006), Challenges to KM at Hewlett Packard China, Knowledge Management Review, March/April. Lu, I., Su, T. and Huang, I. (2010), Consulting knowledge and organisations absorptive capacity: a communication chain perspective, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 2007-19. McKenzie, K.M. (2003), Leveraging organisational tacit knowledge: delivering knowledge based consulting solutions through interpersonal knowledge exchange, The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Vol. 3, pp. 141-55. Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Senoo, D. (2010), Shaping knowledge management: organization and national culture, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 214-27. Martinsons, M.G. and Davison, R.M. (2007), Strategic decision making and support systems: comparing American, Japanese and Chinese management, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 284-300. Mobley, W.H., Wang, L. and Fang, K. (2005), Organizational culture: measuring and developing it in your organization, Harvard Business Review China, March, pp. 28-39. ller, K. and Svahn, S. (2004), Crossing East-West boundaries: knowledge sharing in intercultural Mo business networks, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 219-28. Newell, S. (1999), The transfer of management knowledge to China: building learning communities rather than translating Western textbooks?, Education Training, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 286-94. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. OECD (2002), OECD Knowledge Management Project, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Brussels. ONeil, B.S. and Adya, M. (2007), Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 411-36. Peng, J., Lihua, R. and Lawrence, A. (2008), Knowledge management from China perspective: theory and practice, International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 142-56. Perren, L. and Ram, M. (2004), Case-study method in small business and entrepreneurial research: mapping boundaries and perspectives, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 83-100. Radnor, Z. and Boaden, R. (2004), Developing an understanding of Corporate Anorexia, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 424-40. Roy, A. (2001), Chinese puzzles and paradoxes conducting business research in China, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 203-10. Schein, E.H. (1996), Culture: the missing concept in organization studies, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 229-40. Schein, E.H. (1999), The Corporate Culture: A Survival Guide, Jossey-Bass Books, San Francisco, CA. nig, C., Meyer, B. and Heisig, P. (2004), The future of knowledge management an Scholl, W., Ko international Delphi study, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8, pp. 19-35.

PAGE 146 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012

Shenkar, O. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1994), Uncovering paradox in organizational theory and methods: using the case of China to illustrate cultural contingency, Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 56-71. Szulanski, G. (2000), The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 9-27. Taminiau, Y., Smit, W. and de Lange, A. (2009), Innovation in management consulting rms through informal knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 42-56. Wei, Y. (2000), Regional Development in China: States, Globalization and Inequality, Routledge, London. Wiig, K. (2004), People-Focused Knowledge Management: How Effective is your Organisation, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York, NY. Yamashita, Y. (2001), Healthy Culture and Unhealthy Culture, Ashgate, Aldershot and Burlington, VT. Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage, London. Zen, D. (2007), China and the knowledge economy: challenges and opportunities, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 4223, World Bank, Washington, DC. Zhang, S.J. (2008), Research on knowledge transfer and knowledge integration mode of knowledge consulting service, Doctor in Management thesis for Jilin University, Changchun, China, October 20, available at: CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), http://search.cnki.net/ Zhu, Z. (2009), Transferring management knowledge into China: a conceptual model and case study, Human Systems Management, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 19-34.

About the authors

Rodney McAdam is Professor in Innovation Management at the Ulster Business School, University of Ulster. He has published extensively in the area of knowledge management and innovation management. His research focuses on knowledge management and innovation implementation within large organizations and SMEs and he has published a large number of papers in international peer reviewed journals in this area. Rodney is a regular conference speaker at international conferences on SME issues and supervises a number of PhD students in this area. Before joining the university he worked in the aerospace industry. Rodney McAdam is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: r.mcadam@ ulster.ac.uk Sandra Moffett is a Lecturer of Computer Science with the University of Ulsters School of Computing and Intelligent Systems, Magee Campus. She is a core member of the Business and Management Research Institute. Her expertise on knowledge management contributes to her being one of the UKs leading authors in this eld. She has received a number of research awards and citations for her work. External funding has enabled Dr Moffett to undertake extensive quantitative/qualitative research to benchmark KM implementation within UK companies. Jian Peng obtained her PhD in Knowledge Management at the University of Ulster. She obtained her MBA from Cardiff University and her MA in Contemporary Chinese Society from Sichuan University. She has many years of work experience in China, UK and Canada in marketing and business management consulting. Dr Pengs research focuses on technology and knowledge management, international business management, in particular, China and international business environment. She is a member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, UK and a member of the China Association for Management of Technology in the UK.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 16 NO. 1 2012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 147