Intercultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCS: Fabrizio Maimone

FABRIZIO MAIMONE
INTERCULTURAL
KNOWLEDGE
SHARING IN MNCS
A Glocal and Inclusive
Approach in the Digital Age
Intercultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCs
Fabrizio Maimone
Intercultural
Knowledge Sharing
in MNCs
A Glocal and Inclusive Approach in
the Digital Age
Fabrizio Maimone
Università LUMSA
Rome, Italy
ISBN 978-3-319-57296-3 ISBN 978-3-319-57297-0 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57297-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017950574
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Prasit Photo / Moment /Getty Images
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
Some years ago, when I worked in Germany, I was invited by a company

prominent in the medical equipment sector to give an in-house seminar
on inter-cultural communication. This seminar formed part of a week’s
training session for the company’s representatives, who had gathered
from all over the world. I proposed to the company that I would like to
survey these participants—none were German—concerning their experi-
ence of inter-cultural knowledge sharing. As it happened, the Frankfurt
based firm proudly styled itself as the knowledge company and gladly
accepted my proposal.
I duly surveyed the twenty or so seminar participants and presented
my survey findings, which subsequently caused some perturbation in the
company’s senior management. I had established unequivocally that the
perception among the recipients was that they were regarded as compli-
ant receivers of company knowledge, which was being authoritatively
delivered from psychically distant Frankfurt. The point is, of course, that
the grand appellation of the knowledge company had two distinct con-
notations: one for the corporate HQ, which saw its knowledge as solid,
reliable, irrefutable, and explicit knowledge pouring from its omniscient
self and another for its multi-cultural foreign representatives, who viewed
that knowledge as the emanations of a non-listening, arrogant source.
First, the company had not realized this state of affairs, and I gather
from an acquaintance of mine who worked for the company that the HR
v
vi Foreword
director had reported to senior colleagues: ‘We must learn from what
Professor Holden has found out.’ Second, the company had not appreci-
ated that receivers’ reaction to knowledge content and the perceived
manner of delivery changes the nature of the knowledge. By that, I mean
that the seemingly formal content had, as a result of negative reactions,
subliminally acquired tacit elements of which the company was unaware.
Furthermore, this negative tacit knowledge was being shared and elabo-
rated inter-culturally at the seminar I was running. The company image
was mocked.
This incident, by no means isolated of its kind, highlights a major
issue: that of mismatching explicit knowledge, whereby its value, rele-
vance and utility end up being inadvertently undermined and, in worst
case scenarios, even distorted at culturally and linguistically contrasting
receiving ends. But the same thing can happen in-house. I recall discuss-
ing this very matter with Mercedes-Benz executives, who were facing the
challenge of transferring their automotive expertise to two contrasting
operating environments: the USA and China. It startled me to learn in
that conversation that analogous problems occurred in knowledge trans-
fer even among the company’s plants in Germany! Geographically sepa-
rated groups of highly qualified engineers, all speaking German and
imbued with the same company culture, drew different inferences from
identical knowledge. The important thing in this case is that MercedesBenz
discovered the sticking-point. Often, firms don’t.
It is missing the point to say that firms are not sufficiently conversant with
the working environments of their various receivers worldwide—which is,
in any case, a completely unrealizable ideal. At the heart of the problem lies
a management failure to anticipate how inter-cultural knowledge transfer
and sharing can subject knowledge not only to the formal misunderstanding
of the content, but also to various misinterpretations of its purpose and sig-
nificance. Where such misunderstandings occur—and millions of lesser and
greater magnitude occur every single day—the result can entail delays in
project implementation and budget over-runs as well as diversions of man-
agement time and effort.
And all too often the people at the receiving end are blamed for incom-
petence, whilst those same people accuse companies of miscommunica-
tion. At that point people start to invoke the well-worn national
Foreword
vii
stereotypes. When that happens on a large scale, as in the case of the

Daimler-Chrysler debacle, and no doubt in many other failed or failing
cross-border mergers, inter-cultural relations are put under severe strain
and may even be beyond repair.
A senior technical manager of a Japanese MNC once made a very
apposite comment in this regard. He told me: ‘Even though we work
hard, if we do not have an antenna that can sense a signal, we cannot pick
it up.’ In short, inter-cultural knowledge transfer and sharing are often
haphazard, ill conceived, and even counterproductive—despite the best
efforts of all concerned. For those who turn to the world of management
and education for enlightenment, there is as yet no unified approach to
the topic. At best there are isolated voices. Therefore, Fabrizio Maimone’s
book is timely indeed. In his own well-chosen words, the book ‘is aimed
at providing theoretical support and empirical support to a person cen-
tred and humanistic approach to inter-cultural knowledge sharing that
puts the human and relational dimension of inter-cultural encounter and
the inclusive perspective at the centre of the debate.’ This is a sentiment I
most powerfully endorse.
It may well be the case that it is becoming, or has even become, unfash-
ionable to preach the mantra of globalization. Even so, world business will
ever remain an international activity with corporate knowledge flowing
across—and being bafflingly ensnared in—convoluted arrays of languages
and cultures. I have likened this process to inter-lingual translation, in
which the originators’ meaning and intentions are dissolved in ambiguity
and subjected to various kinds of cultural interference at all manner of
interfaces. Professor Maimone is persuaded by that line of argument too
and carries it forward in this book
Whether they like the translation analogy or not, firms need not just
insight, but discernment into how to make intercultural knowledge work
proceed more efficiently and less counter-productively. Professor
Maimone’s book will reward those who are seeking clarity as an essential
prelude to the necessary breadth of mind.
Nigel Holden
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Palgrave Macmillan’s support and, particu-

larly, I wish to thank Liz Barlow, the head of Business and Management,
who suggested the idea of writing a research book on intercultural knowl-
edge sharing and supervised the first phase of the editorial process.
My gratitude also goes to the following:
All those who contributed indirectly to the writing of this book, through
their examples, inspiration and generous knowledge exchange;
All my colleagues and friends who encouraged me to face this challenge;
The anonymous reviewers who provided very insightful comments on
the original book proposal;
Lucy Kidwell, who handled the editorial revision of the book (also for her
patience and comprehension);
Mrs Victoria Bailes, who helped me to cope with the ‘mission impossible’
of improving the quality of my English writing, giving me precious
suggestions and invaluable help;
Professor Matthew Fforde, for his precious suggestions and invaluable
encouragement;
Professor Alessia Sammarra, Professor Silvia Profili and Professor Laura
Innocenti, who organized the ‘Human Resources Management’ track
at the 2015 EURAM Conference in Warsaw, Poland (the paper that
ix
x Acknowledgements
provided the early concept for this book was presented and discussed
there in 2015);
Dr. Sara Mormino and Dr. Maria Rosaria Nava, who co-authored the
preliminary work, which was presented in Warsaw;
Dr. Maria Rosaria Nava, for her precious support in the editing of this
book;
Professor Pierfranco Malizia, who sparked my passion for organizational
and inter-cultural research and offered immeasurable guidance;
Prof Yih-Teen Lee, for sharing with me insightful findings from his latest
research on multi-cultural identities;
Professor Gabriele Grabrielli for the trust and the support he gave me;
My very glocal friends, Marta and Carl Sinclair, whose ‘inter-cultural’
friendship has been an invaluable opportunity for my professional and
personal growth;
Professor Francesco Sofo, who welcomed me down-under and persuaded
me to believe in glocal and multicultural learning;
The International Association of Cross-Cultural Competence and
Management (IACCM) board members, and particularly former
President Professor Marie-Thérèse Claes and former Vice-President
Professor Gerhard Fink, for the trust they placed in me;
Professor Chiara Cannavale, the current president of the IACCM, who
encouraged me to keep on researching and lecturing, overcoming all
the difficulties and obstacles that a ‘freelance scholar’ faces every day in
order to pursue research goals and cultivate a passion for knowledge;
Professors Brendan McSweeney and Yoachan Altman, vice-presidents of
the IACCM, and also AICCM General Secretary Miss Barbara
Covarrubias, for their support;
The editorial management and the editors of the European Journal of
Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, who reinforced my faith
in intercultural knowledge sharing; in particular, former Associate
Editor Nigel Holden, who traced the path for intercultural knowledge
sharing research;
Professor Gerhard Fink and Professor Slawomir Magala, for sharing with
me, on different occasions, invaluable suggestions and ideas that were
of great inspiration to my research;
Acknowledgements
xi
The members of the Humanistic Management Network and the

International Humanistic Management Association, particularly
Professor Michael Pirson, who introduced me to the humanistic man-
agement world;
My beloved Maria, Enzo and Carmela, for the support they have given
me during this year that has been dedicated to writing this book.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Culture, Glocalization, Complexity 17
3 Organizational Knowledge and Inter-cultural Management 37
4 Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCs: Toward a

Complex and Dynamic Model 63
5 Toward an Integrated and Inclusive Approach to

Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing 103
6 An Integrated Approach to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing

Among and Beyond Cultural Barriers, Using Social Media 157
Index 191
xiii
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 The multi-level model of MNE culture 23

Fig. 2.2 The relationship between universal values and personal
attitudes (Source: adapted from Schwartz, 2012) 26
Fig. 2.3 Cultural values orientation model (Source: adapted from
Schwartz 2006) 27
Fig. 3.1 Knowledge spaces 53
Fig. 3.2 Knowledge networks 54
Fig. 4.1 SECI model (Source: adapted from Nonaka & Konno, 1998) 68
Fig. 4.2 The spiral of knowledge (Source: adapted from
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) 72
Fig. 4.3 The golden triangle of knowledge management
(Source: adapted from Holden & Glisby, 2010a) 79
Fig. 4.4 The role of weak ties in the creation of small worlds
(Source: adapted from Metcalfe, 2005) 87
Fig. 4.5 Knowledge sharing following culture-embedded networks 90
Fig. 5.1 The circular relation between inter-cultural knowledge
sharing and general knowledge sharing processes 111
Fig. 5.2 The location of inter-cultural knowledge sharing within
general knowledge sharing processes 111
Fig. 5.3 The ten pillars of the strategy 115
xv
xvi List of Figures
Fig. 6.1 Mapping of Web 2.0 tools for different phases of

knowledge combination (Source: adapted from
Chatti, 2007) 162
Fig. 6.2 The pattern of activities to implement an inter-cultural
knowledge sharing project 178
List of Tables
Table 2.1 The relationship between universal values and personal

attitudes (Source: adapted from Schwartz, 2012) 25
Table 3.1 Personal elaboration from Spender (1996) 49
Table 6.1 Difference between High-Context and Low-Context
E-Communication165
xvii
1
Introduction
1.1 The Rise of the Knowledge Age

We live in an era of great transformation. International political scenarios
are changing very rapidly and, even as this book is being written, they
appear uncertain and unpredictable.
This epochal change includes technological innovation. Manufacturing
is turning into the so-called 4.0 industry (see Lee, Bagheri, & Kao, 2015),
a digitalized, automated and integrated productive platform that brings
great opportunities and even greater risks with regard to unemployment.
Moreover, it is possible to assume that so-called exponential technologies
(see Cochrane, 2014), which supposedly generate exponential changes,
will transform our lives.
Many people are technology dependent and their lives are continu-
ously connected by smart-devices and social media. This phenomenon
does not only affect millennials, but also digital migrants, those born in
the analogic age, who have had to adapt to the digital era. Technology is
everywhere, and sophisticated technological devices are even embedded
in many common products. For example, the cars we drive every day are
full of technological apparatus including a body computer, Electronic
© The Author(s) 2018 1

F. Maimone, Intercultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCs,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57297-0_1
2 F. Maimone
Braking System (EBS), parking sensors, and the like. Every time we use a
credit card to buy a flight ticket or to order pizza on the Internet, we are
utilizing a digital platform and enacting an electronic procedure.
These transformations are very often the outcome of ‘glocal’ pro-
cesses. They are the result of the interconnection between local, trans-
local and global phenomena, and have a global impact. It is true also
for knowledge. The most famous smart-phone model is produced by
one of the most heterodox US high-tech companies, led (until he
passed away) by the charismatic entrepreneur and inventor Steve Jobs.
Jobs, a US Citizen of Syrian origin who spent his youth in California
during the rise of counter-culture, was proud to ‘think different’ and
suggested that the students of a famous Californian university should
‘stay foolish’. The iPhone is a concentrate of glocal knowledge. It is
designed in California, puts together hardware components and soft-
ware produced all over the world, and is assembled in China – and in
all likelihood, will be assembled in India in the near future. Moreover,
it is probable few people know that Steve Jobs’s passion for technology
design and human-friendly interfaces was inspired by Italian design
and by the heritage of a visionary and extraordinary Italian entrepre-
neur, Adriano Olivetti, in particular (Molella, 2012). The special rela-
tion between the design philosophy of Steve Jobs (and consequently of
Apple) and Italian design (with a particular regard to the Olivetti heri-
tage) was recalled by the director of the Lemelson Center for the Study
of Invention and Innovation at the National Museum of American
History, in a post (Ib.) that was published in the blog of the prestigious
American museum. According to Molella (Ib.), Steve Jobs had the
opportunity to attend the International Design Conference in Aspen
in 1981 and to meet the Italian protagonists of culture and design,
including the designer Mario Bellini, filmmaker Bernardo Bertolucci
and carmaker Sergio Pininfarina. Moreover, when Jobs returned to
Apple in 1997, he sought out the car designer Giorgetto Giugiaro and
architect/designer Ettore Sottsass (both of them had collaborated
directly with Adriano Olivetti). Thus the iPhone design also has a bit
of an Italian touch.
The glocalization of knowledge obviously concerns management too.
For example, The Art of War, the military strategy book written by the
Introduction 3
ancient Chinese General Sun Tzu (1963), was one of the most popular
books on strategy of the last decades, at least among Western managers
and consultants (see Mintzberg & Lampel, 1999). Furthermore, the
Toyota production system (Ohno, 1988) greatly influenced the world
industrial sector and considerably transformed not only manufacturing
but also the service sector. And the same theoretical model proposed by
Nonaka and colleagues, one of the pillars of knowledge management phi-
losophy, may be considered a ‘made in Japan theory’ (see Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995).
Our everyday life is definitely glocal as well. When we go to the fitness
club to take our Pilates class, we are enjoying a discipline that was devel-
oped by a German fitness practitioner of Greek origin, Joseph Hubertus
Pilates, blending together exercises from yoga, an Indian discipline, Asian
martial arts, Western ballet, and so on. The most famous kung fu master,
Bruce Lee, was trained in the wing chun style (a heterodox style created
by a woman) in Hong Kong and then founded his own martial art, jeet
kune do, in the USA. Jeet kune do is an innovative blend of traditional
kung fu, boxing and modern martial arts and is very different from the
ancient wu shu discipline, popularly known as kung fu in the West. Even
pizza, the famous dish made in Naples, is served all over the world in
many different versions, adapted to local traditions and tastes, some of
which would be inconceivable for an Italian consumer. Business, and
more generally, life, are becoming, every day, more glocal, along with
knowledge.
Knowledge is the fuel that fosters economic growth. According to the
Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz (1999, p. 3), economic develop-
ment should be seen as ‘less like the construction business and more like
education in the broad and comprehensive sense that covers knowledge,
institutions, and culture’.- As a matter of fact, the emerging economies
that have had a better performance in terms of GDP growth were also the
nations that invested more in education. Therefore, the positive relation-
ship between human capital and economic development is recognized by
economic research.
Knowledge is also the fuel that fosters the growth of contemporary
MNCs (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1990; Holden & Glisby, 2010), which need
to conciliate a global, holistic strategy with a local touch, and hence be
4 F. Maimone
able to create and exploit glocal knowledge. It must also be considered

that knowledge and innovation are the two faces of the same coin. In fact,
innovation is based both on knowledge exploitation and exploration
(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). Moreover, innovation may be considered
a form of knowledge creation (Maimone & Sinclair, 2010; Popadiuk &
Choo, 2006) and/or conversion (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Therefore,
in order to foster disruptive and incremental innovation, MNCs need
knowledge.
It could be said that the boundary between the old and new econ-
omy (e.g. brick and mortar and click and mortar industries) is becom-
ing increasingly weaker and more permeable every day. In fact,
contemporary manufacturing uses technology on a large scale: com-
puter numerical control machines, sensors and robots play a central
role in the production processes of contemporary industrial plants.
Moreover, the relentless development of machine learning technolo-
gies that are leading to the advent of the so-called industry 4.0, is fos-
tering the progressive automation of large-scale production (see
Manyika et al., 2017). On the other hand, 3D printing technologies
are likely to facilitate the development of a new model of production
system: networked manufacturing. These innovations, along with digi-
tal transformation, which is changing the way organizations are
designed, managed and advance the ascent of virtual and semi-virtual
enterprises, are reshaping the production systems and promoting the
shift toward a more knowledge-intensive factory. Whereas Fordist
organizations used to concentrate skilled workers in management
ranks (as Ford himself used to say, blue-collar workers were not paid to
think), the new digital industry needs more skilled and trained work-
ers, technicians more than blue collars.
Lastly, the digital revolution is transforming our lives, business models
and, as already mentioned, the way organizations are designed and man-
aged and people work. Human beings still need material goods, but digi-
tal consumption is playing a bigger role every day and it is no coincidence
that many of the first Fortune 500 companies are involved in the digital
business.
It is worth remembering that the term ‘knowledge’ is used not only to
indicate the outcome of high-tech and scientific activities. The Stradivari
Introduction 5
violin is arguably one of the best known examples of the fruits of tacit
knowledge. Born in Cremona (a little town in the North of Italy) in
1644, Antonio Stradivari crafted a series of violins that produced a very
special and inimitable sound. The lutes made in Cremona, which were
played by Niccolò Paganini among others, were the result of a mix of
scientific and technical knowledge, artisan mastery and a particular form
of art. Even now, in the twenty-first century, it is practically impossible to
reproduce a Stradivari violin, even though researchers from all over the
world have tried to discover the magic recipe invented by the Italian mas-
ter. The secret of the precious violins, created by the lute maker from
Cremona, has been kept so well that even in the digital age no one is able
to reproduce a violin with the same quality and magical sound as
Stradivari did.
Thus, even though the common opinion tends to identify knowledge
with scientific and technological innovation, there are different types of
knowledge that pervade every aspect of our lives. Knowledge is a mixture
of tradition and innovation, personal and codified knowledge, scientific/
technical and humanistic thought, science and art.
Even if technological innovation is scientifically driven, in order to
effectively and sustainably use the outcome of innovation, a new kind of
humanistic awareness is needed. This is also because technology, contrary
to the positivistic thinking that still pervades Western society (which has
also influenced the viewpoint of non-Western business), does not always
lead to progress. Nuclear physics produced a new idea of the physical
world and gave way to the development of radiological diagnostics and
nuclear medicine. Nevertheless, at the same time, it brought about the
tragic events of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the
Chernobyl accident. The Internet changed our lives and laid down the
premises for a more connected and knowledgeable world, but at the same
time allowed the creation of the digital Far West of the dark Internet and
facilitated the rise of social problems like the diffusion of cyber bullying
and the emergence of the so-called post-truth era.
Moreover, it is argued that it is necessary to develop a sort of meta-
knowledge, a deeper awareness of the implications and limitations of
each field of knowledge and the ability to conciliate technological
progress with sustainable social and environmental change. This
6 F. Maimone
requires a shift toward a complex and long-term approach to global

problems and to the development of a new awareness of the inter-
connection of different fields of knowledge and an ecological view of
change.
Therefore, there is also the need for a cultural change to accompany
technological and economic innovation. Such a change was claimed by,
among others, the Nobel Prize winner Stiglitz (1999) and advocates (Ib.,
p. 3) ‘the appreciation of the centrality of knowledge and education in
general and the science and technology in particular’.-.
The development of a knowledge economy is not only a matter of
technology and methodology, but implies a cultural shift too that may
lead to a new centrality of educational systems and to an improved recog-
nition and reward of the value of knowledge.
Knowledge should be considered also as a source of competitive advan-
tage not only for MNCs (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003).
1.2 The Glocal Dimension of Knowledge

This book adopts a glocal (global plus local) perspective (Robertson,
1992).
Globalization has been defined as the ‘… intensification of worldwide
social relations … in such a way that local happenings are shaped by
events occurring many miles away and vice versa’ (Giddens, 1990,
p. 120). Even though globalization is reshaping our world, it cannot be
denied that the local is still very much alive and kicking and that it influ-
ences our political, economic and social life. The paradox of this epoch is
that even if the world is more interconnected, the impact of local and
identity issues seems to be greater than in the past, as a consequence of
the economic crisis and the negative consequences of globalization that
facilitated the inclusion of many people in the production system but
also fostered the growth of inequalities and the progressive loss of income,
status and economic stability in the middle class (Sachs, 2011).
Robertson (1992) defined the paradoxical effects of globalization in
socio-cultural terms, proposing the well-known theory of glocaliza-
tion. According to the British sociologist (Ib.), universal (global) and
Introduction 7
particular (local) phenomena should be considered as the two faces of

the same coin: ‘globalization is not characterized by global cultural
uniformity, but rather by the construction of diverse cultural practices,
institutions and identities’ (Giulianotti & Robertson, 2004, p. 172).
Consequently, the forces of globalization have the potential to enhance
the level of inter-connection among different economies, but at the
same time these processes may enable a sort of local reaction, based on
the re-affirmation of local identities (see Giddens, 1990; Robertson,
1995) and the so-called clash of localities (Ib.), as recent political events
have shown.
The same considerations may be made about knowledge. On the one
hand, the need to find a solution to the big global problems (inequality,
starvation, pollution, global warming, mortal pathologies, global and
local conflicts, etc.) implies a new approach to problem solving and there-
fore a new generation of global leaders ((McArthur & Sachs, 2009), that
have global and multidisciplinary knowledge. McArthur and Sachs (Ib.
p. 1) claimed: ‘The problems are complex and interconnected, spilling
across academic disciplines and often across national borders. Solutions
will require theoretical knowledge and practical problem-solving skills,
including the capacity to build and lead teams drawn from a variety of
disciplines.’- On the other hand, diversity is a trigger for knowledge cre-
ation and innovation (Florida, Mellander, & Stolarick, 2008). Therefore,
the knowledge economy is nurtured by multiple perspectives, diversity
and open dialogue. Consequently, intercultural knowledge sharing may
play a critical role in the development of the knowledge economy.
The history of the Argentinean tango (The Economist, 2001) provides a
good example of glocal knowledge. The tango is supposed to be the result
of the incredible melting pot of people and nationalities that made up the
population of Buenos Aires at the beginning of the twentieth century,
when the urbanization process attracted the gauchos from the pampas
and immigrants from Italy, Spain, France and Germany. The gauchos
provided guitars and their Creole music, which was mainly of Spanish
origin. The new immigrants shared their ability to read and write music,
played many musical instruments and brought Italian opera traditions.
The result was one of the most popular artistic expressions in the world:
the tango.
8 F. Maimone
Therefore, it could be argued that, in order to foster global knowledge,

it is necessary to give a value to the local dimension, at the same time
facilitating the creation of bridges among people and countries, the inter-
exchange of knowledge between territories and communities and a global
synthesis of local knowledge that might lead to some kind of global
wisdom.
According to the perspective adopted in this book, local and global
knowledge may be considered the ying and yang of knowledge. Situated
(and therefore local) knowledge and global knowledge are arguably two
complementary elements of the same reality. They are interrelated, even
though this relationship may also be problematic, paradoxical and con-
flictual, as is typical for a complex phenomenon.
There is also a cross-cultural dimension of knowledge processes. As
Holden and Glisby (2010) point out, knowledge sharing is not only a
matter of inter-exchange, but also of translation (Holden, 2002), and is
not only related to the linguistic realm, but refers to the transition from
one cognitive and cultural system to another. The cognitive —and one
could say metaphysic dimension of knowledge—is at the center of the
work by Nonaka and his colleagues (see Nonaka & Konno, 1998).
According to this Japanese scholar, knowledge is embedded in the so-
called ba, a Japanese word that may be translated by the term ‘knowledge
space’. The theory of ba was inspired by the works of the Japanese phi-
losophers Nishida and Shimizu (Ib.). Ba (Ib., p. 40)‘…can be thought of
as a shared space for emerging relationships. This space may be physical
(e.g. office, dispersed business space), virtual (e.g. email, teleconference),
mental (e.g. shared experiences, ideas, ideals) or any combination of
them’-. Ba is the place where knowledge creation on individual and col-
lective levels occurs and it represents a platform that allows the emer-
gence of a transcendental perspective, integrating the information needed.
Ba (Ib.) is also the space that facilitates the recognition of self in
everything.
The perspective adopted in this book goes beyond the cognitive
approach that anchors knowledge to meaning and (especially in the
Western and Anglo-Saxon world) to the linguistic and meta-linguistic
dimension. Knowledge is also related to intuition (Sinclair, 2011, 2017)
and emotions (Bechara, Damasio, & Damasio, 2000), symbols and
Introduction 9
culture (Holden, 2002). In other words, there is also an unconscious and

semi-conscious reality, as is assumed by the very concept of personal
knowledge (Polanyi, 2015). Moreover, it is argued that to solve global
problems, it is necessary to create a bridge among different types of
knowledge that is not only aimed at facilitating knowledge conversion,
but also at promoting knowledge contamination, hybridization and the
creation of new knowledge through the dialectic interaction of multiple
perspectives, cultures and, obviously, knowledge.
1.3 T
he Critical Role of Intercultural
Knowledge Sharing for MNCs
In this complex scenario, MNCs play a critical role. On the one hand,
they must adapt to foreignness (Matusitz, 2010). This means that they
should be able to ‘generate diversity in response to local conditions’
(Ib., p. 225; see also Ulrich & Smallwood, 2006). Sheth (2006) sug-
gested that MNCs will be able to conciliate anekanta, a Buddhist ‘phil-
osophical viewpoint that assumes that multiple perspectives of a single
observation or phenomenon can be true’ (Ib. p. 219), and the Gestalt,
in which the overall picture is more significant than the sum of the
single parts. So MNCs should learn to become more glocal (Robertson,
1995).
Moreover, according to Sarala and Vara (2010, p. 1366): -‘An impor-
tant part of the competitive advantage of multinational enterprises
(MNEs) is their ability to make use of knowledge residing in geographi-
cally dispersed units (Doz, Santos, & Williamson, 2001; Grant, 1996;
Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000).’-
On the other hand, MNCs, and more generally, transnational organi-
zations could play a crucial role in facilitating knowledge transfer and
exchange inside and outside local communities and on a global scale.
Glocal organizations can foster the creation, dissemination and sharing
of intercultural knowledge, facilitating the creation of bridges across
political, cultural, social and organizational boundaries.
10 F. Maimone
1.4 The Role of Social Networks

Tregaskis, Edwards, Edwards, Ferner, and Marginson (2010) affirmed
that MNCs are ‘complex organizational networks where knowledge of
strategic value is geographically dispersed’. Therefore, MNCs can obtain
a competitive advantage using this knowledge on a global scale for local
responsiveness, global integration and global learning (Bartlett &
Ghoshal, 1989; Tregaskis et al., 2010). In other words, MNCs may use
knowledge of strategic value and complex organizational networks to
become more glocal. Cultural differences influence knowledge-sharing
processes (Rai, 2011) but at the same time may enhance the quality of
knowledge creation (Maimone & Sinclair, 2010).
Under certain conditions, organizational networks may facilitate inter-
cultural exchange, but at the same time promote the creation of homo-
phile networks based (not only) on national identities.
For this reason MNCs should be able to implement an inclusive and
integrated approach to knowledge sharing that allows the complete enact-
ment of the circle of knowledge conversion (Nonaka, 1999) within and
across organizational boundaries, facilitates knowledge translation, fos-
ters knowledge hybridization and enables the particular kind of knowl-
edge creation that may emerge from the interaction between different
types of knowledge.
Therefore, according to the perspective adopted in this book, knowl-
edge sharing is a dynamic, active and, at least partially, a transformative
process. This process is critical for the success of MNCs and also for their
capacity to conciliate profitability and social and environmental sustain-
ability. From this perspective, sustainability is not only a matter of values
and principles but also a matter of awareness and knowledge. Furthermore,
knowledge is not enough and should be associated with a strong ethical
stance (see Pirson & Lawrence, 2010) and an economic perspective that
puts the person at the center (see Bruni & Zamagni, 2004). Finally, it is
claimed that values and knowledge may create a positive cycle toward
corporate social and environmental sustainability.
One could agree with Pierfranco Malizia, when he claimed that
(Malizia, 2017, p. 12) ‘knowledge therefore, could be considered the
strategic resource of the new millennium, but to produce wealth it must
Introduction 11
be made widely accessible and usable. It is argued that post-bureaucratic

organizations should learn to conciliate performance and knowledge
development, short-term business goals and long-term growth, and adopt
democratic and participatory knowledge management strategies and
practices’.
1.5 The Role and Value of Diversity

MNCs need a high degree of diversity to cope with the complexity of the
external environment. According Ashby’s (1964) Law of Requisite
Variety, contemporary organizations need to increase the level of internal
variety to cope with the complexity of the environment. As Schneider
and Barsoux (1997, p. 228) suggested: ‘Given the complexity of the cur-
rent business environment, there is a need for organizations to match that
variety internally, to have what is known as “requisite variety.”’
However, it is necessary to agree on the meaning of the concept of
cultural diversity. The perspective that has prevailed in the disciplines of
diversity management and intercultural management, under the influ-
ence of the North American tradition of diversity studies and Hofstede’s
heritage (1991), is the etic approach, which considers cultural differ-
ences as objective categories. According to Tatli and Özbilgin (2012,
p. 180):-‘Etic approaches are underpinned by an assumption that
salient diversity categories are fixed and, as such, salience can transcend
time and place.’-
Instead, this book focuses on the emic perspective of analysis, without
underestimating the contribution that the etic approach can make to the
understanding of cultural phenomena and, especially, of cultural diver-
sity. The term ‘emic’ (Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999) denotes an
approach that fosters socio-cultural analysis and considers cultural diver-
sity as a dynamic process, which is both subjective and inter-subjective
and is interrelated with the most general socio-organizational contexts.
The choice of an emic perspective does not refute cultural mapping
(e.g. the elaboration of taxonomies that are aimed at mapping out cul-
tural differences), but assumes they should be used as heuristic tools and
not be treated like revealed truths.
12 F. Maimone
For these reasons, it is critical to find out a new approach to knowledge

sharing that may bridge global and local phenomena, facilitate inclusion
and put the person at the centre of the process. In other words, there is
room for a glocal and inclusive approach in the digital age.
1.6 Aims of This Book

This book provides an integrated view of the evolution of the research on
intercultural knowledge sharing that takes into account the consequences
of glocalization, technological innovation and the evolution of organiza-
tional strategies and structures. Moreover, this book is aimed at providing
theoretical and empirical support to a person-centred approach to inter-
cultural knowledge sharing that puts the human and relational dimen-
sion of intercultural encounter at the centre of the debate.
Intercultural knowledge sharing is aimed at providing the reader with
a systematic view of the state of the art of, and future perspectives on,
research on intercultural knowledge sharing in MNCs, focussing on the
role of social (digital) media.
The text is conceived to meet the emerging needs of scholars, manag-
ers, practitioners and students interested in (a) theoretical and empirical
research on intercultural knowledge sharing, from a multidisciplinary
and multi-paradigmatic perspective, (b) having an updated view of the
best approaches and practices of intercultural management, (c) learning
the opportunities presented by, and limitations of, the use of digital
media to facilitate intercultural knowledge sharing (not only) in the busi-
ness context.
The book also sets out to give an account of the evolution of digital
media and to delineate its role: the pros and cons of the use of social
media to facilitate intercultural exchange (not only) in MNCs.
Furthermore, it will assist the reader in understanding the dynamics
and limits of digital intercultural exchange, going beyond the naive view
of open knowledge and the techno-optimist illusion that the use of digi-
tal media could in itself guarantee the free flow of information and
knowledge, within and across organizational boundaries.
Introduction 13
Lastly, the book aims to provide some suggestions to improve the qual-
ity of intercultural knowledge sharing in MNCs, providing case studies
and practical examples.
Even though this book is focussed on MNCs, many of the theories,
models and practices proposed in intercultural knowledge sharing in
MNCs could provide insights and suggestions to readers interested in
knowledge sharing in transnational and global organizations of every sort
(international organizations, governmental and public organizations,
NGOs, etc.).
The main target audiences of this book are scholars in management,
organization studies, economics, sociology, organizational psychology,
and communication sciences, as well as PhD and post-graduate univer-
sity students, managers and practitioners.
References
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions
and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation.
Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
Ashby, W. R. (1964). Principles of the self-organizing system. In H. von Foerster
& G. W. Zopf Jr. (Eds.), Principles of self-organization: Transactions of the
University of Illinois symposium (pp. 255–278). London: Pergamon Press.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational
corporation. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, decision making
and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 295–307.
Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2004). Economia civile. Efficienza, equità, felicità
pubblica, il Mulino.
Cochrane, P. (2014). Exponential technology and the singularity: The techno-
logical singularity (Ubiquity symposium). Ubiquity, 2014 (November), 1.
Doz, Y. L., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. (2001). From global to metanational.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Florida, R., Mellander, C., & Stolarick, K. (2008). Inside the black box of
regional development—Human capital, the creative class and tolerance.
Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 615–649.
14 F. Maimone
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1990). The multinational corporation as an

interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4),
603–626.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Giulianotti, R., & Robertson, R. (2004). The globalization of football: A study
in the glocalization of the ‘serious life’. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(4),
545–568.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(Special Issue), 109–122.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multina-
tional corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473–496.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management per-
spective. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Holden, N., & Glisby, M. (2010). Creating knowledge advantage: The tacit
dimensions of international competition and cooperation. Frederiksberg:
Copenhagen Business School Press DK.
Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H. A. (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture
for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3,
18–23.
Maimone, F., & Sinclair, M. (2010). Affective climate, organizational
creativity and knowledge creation: Case study of an automotive company. In
W. J. Zerbe, C. Härtel, & N. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Research on emotions in orga-
nizations (Vol. 6, pp. 309–332). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Malizia, P. (2017). Watercolour: Toward a socio-cultural and post-modern
approach to the study of post-bureaucratic organizations. In P. Malizia, C.
Cannavale, & F. Maimone (Eds.), Evolution of the post-bureaucratic organiza-
tion (pp. 321–341). Hershey: IGI Global.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., Bughin, J., George, K., Willmott, P.,
et al. (2017). Harnessing automation for a future that works, Report
McKinsey Global Institute. Retrived January 20, 2017, from http://www.
mckinsey.com/global-themes/digital-disruption/harnessing-automation-
for-a-future-that-works?cid=other-eml-nsl-mgi-mck-oth-1702
Matusitz, J. (2010). Disneyland Paris: A case analysis demonstrating how glocal-
ization works. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18(3), 223–237.
McArthur, J. W., & Sachs, J. (2009). Needed: A new generation of problem
solvers. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(40), 1–4.
Introduction 15
Mintzberg, H., & Lampel, J. (1999). Reflecting on the strategy process. Sloan
Management Review, 40(3), 21.
Molella, A. (2012, January 24). The Italian soul of Steve Jobs. Retrived December
12, 2016, from http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2012/01/the-italian-soul-
of-steve-jobs.html
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside
and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice
judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781–796.
Nonaka, I. (1999). The dynamics of knowledge creation. The Knowledge
Advantage, 14, 64–87.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation
for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited:
Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–10.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. CRC
Press.
Pirson, M. A., & Lawrence, P. R. (2010). Humanism in business–Towards a
paradigm shift? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 553–565.
Polanyi, M. (2015). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popadiuk, S., & Choo, C. W. (2006). Innovation and knowledge creation: How
are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management,
26(4), 302–312.
Rai, R. K. (2011). Knowledge management and organizational culture: A theo-
retical integrative framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(5),
779–801.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London:
Sage.
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-
heterogeneity. Global Modernities, 2, 25–45.
Sachs, J. D. (2011). The price of civilization: Reawakening American virtue and
prosperity. New York: Random House.
Sarala, R. M., & Vaara, E. (2010). Cultural differences, convergence, and cross-
vergence as explanations of knowledge transfer in international acquisitions.
Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1365–1390.
16 F. Maimone
Schneider, S. C., & Barsoux, J.-L. (1997). Managing across cultures. London:
Prentice Hall.
Sheth, J. N. (2006). Clash of cultures or fusion of cultures?: Implications for
international business. Journal of International Management, 12(2), 218–221.
Sinclair, M. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of intuition research. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Sinclair, M. (2017). Intuitive knowledge generation in post-bureaucratic orga-
nizations. In P. Malizia, C. Cannavale, & F. Maimone (Eds.), Evolution of the
post-bureaucratic organization (pp. 383–400). Hershey: IGI Global.
Stiglitz, J. (1999). Public policy for a knowledge economy. Remarks at the
Department for Trade and Industry and Center for Economic Policy Research,
27, 1–28.
Sun Tzu. (1963). The art of war (S. B. Griffith, Trans.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2012). An emic approach to intersectional study of
diversity at work: A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 14(2), 180–200.
The Economist. (2001, December 20). The history of the tango. A sense of
where you were. Retrieved January 7, 2017, from http://www.economist.
com/node/893086
Tregaskis, O., Edwards, T., Edwards, P., Ferner, A., & Marginson, P. (2010).
Transnational learning structures in multinational firms: Organizational con-
text and national embeddedness. Human Relations, 63(4), 471–499.
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, W. N. (2006). How leaders build value: Using people,
organization, and other intangibles to get bottom-line results. New York: Wiley.
2
Culture, Glocalization, Complexity
2.1 Organization as Culture(s)

This volume is focussed on inter-cultural knowledge sharing. Therefore,
the model proposed stresses the importance of culture as a key concept to
unlock the complex dynamics of glocal knowing processes in MNCs and
other kind of glocal organizations.
The concept of culture is one of the most used (and in some cases even
abused) terms in modern management. Several theories have been for-
mulated to explain the nature and role of culture in organizations (see
Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2012).
Schein, for example (1990, p. 111), defined organizational culture as ‘(a)
a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a
given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation
and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and therefore (e) is to be taught to new members as the (f ) correct way
to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems’.
Moreover, according to Hofstede and Hofstede (2005, p. 3) culture
was defined as ‘the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes
the members of a group or category of people from others’.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57297-0_2
18 F. Maimone
Schwartz (1992) proposed an analytical model based on universal val-

ues. According to the author: (Ib., p. 4): ‘Values (1) are concepts or
beliefs, (2) pertain to desirable end states or behaviors, (3) transcend spe-
cific situations, (4) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events,
and (5) are ordered by relative importance.’
Alvesson (2012) finally defined organizational culture as (Ib., p. 3) ‘a
shared and learned world of experiences, meanings, values and under-
standings which inform people and which are expressed, reproduced and
communicated partly in symbolic form’.
As is stated below, culture has been categorized by applying different
theoretical perspectives: structuralist (Lévi-Strauss, 1966; Malinowski,
1944), symbolic (Alvesson & Berg, 1992), idealistic (Schein, 1990;
Hofstede, 1991), corporate cultural (see Denison, 1990), interpretative
(Geertz, 1973), post-modern and critical (Martin, 1992), holistic
(Malizia, 1998), complexity (see Chao & Moon, 2005; Kernick, 2004;
Maimone & Mormino, 2012).
Consistent with the aims of this book, a general definition is adopted
that does not claim to propose a solution to the fruitful debate on the
nature of culture, but is aimed at providing a useful conceptual tool for
the understanding of the complex dynamic of inter-cultural knowledge
sharing. According to this perspective, culture may be defined as set of
basic assumptions, values, beliefs, languages (verbal, visual and body),
ideologies, models of thought, decision and action, symbols, myths,
legends, rituals, affective and behavioural patterns, know-how, social
practices and artefacts (material and digital) that are shared by a social
group, socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1991) and
transmitted.
Like every other kind of organization, MNCs may be considered as
social systems and therefore their organizational culture is expected to be
interrelated with the more general socio-cultural environment in which
the organization is located and operates (Malizia, 1998).
As argued in the following paragraphs, organizational culture may be
considered a complex phenomenon that is the outcome of the complex
interplay between micro, meso and macro dynamics and is to be found at
the crossroads between global and local processes.
Culture, Glocalization, Complexity 19
2.2 T
he MNCs as Complex Organizational
and Cultural Systems
The rise of the internal rate of variety is one of the conditions that con-
tribute to enhance the level of MNC complexity. Therefore, contempo-
rary MNCs are expected to manifest the main characteristics of complex
non-linear systems (Cilliers, 2000; Mitleton-Kelly, 2003; Stacey, 1996;
Thiétart & Forgues, 1995; Tsoukas, 1998). According to this theory,
complex systems are characterized by interdependence, non-linearity,
path dependence, self-organizing processes, continuous change, para-
doxes and ambiguity (Contractor, 1999; Mitleton-Kelly, 2003; Thiétart
& Forgues, 1995).
Complex systems are also characterized by so-called auto-poiesis: they
are able to self-organize, creating order from disorder (Kauffman, 1993)
and generating higher-order patterns of interaction through the interplay
between micro and macro levels of the system and the enactment of cir-
cular processes (see Witherington, 2011).
It can be affirmed, moreover (Capra, 2002), that complex systems can-
not be described using the reductionist model, because it is not possible
to describe chaotic systems simply by isolating a reduced set of variables,
as generally happens in classical scientific models. It is also because the
emergence of higher-level orders from low-level patterns of interaction
may follow unexpected paths that cannot be explained using direct cau-
sality (Witherington, 2011).
System dynamics may be the result of both micro and macro processes
and the interplay between them (Ib.). Therefore, ‘descriptions at multiple
scales’ (Anderson, 1999, p. 221) are necessary to identify how emergent
properties are produced (Bar-Yam, 1997). Thus micro-level analysis and
holism should be seen as complementary strategies in analyzing such sys-
tems (Fontana & Ballati, 1999).
The complex systems theory may help scholars shed light on organiza-
tional culture and resolve the apparent paradox represented by the out-
comes of a number of pieces of field research conducted by Van Maanen
and Barley (1982), Barley and Kunda (1992, 2004), and Martin (1993),
among others. In fact, researchers found that the organizations studied
20 F. Maimone
showed fragmented and conflictual cultural landscapes, which contra-

dicts the supposed structural coherence of organizational culture.
Complex theory affirms that integration and differentiation may occur
in the same organizational system, so organizational members may share
some common attitudes, values and behaviors, but at the same time, they
may show very different traits making up the sub-cultures, and counter-
cultures, or they may generate a fragmented picture, where people may
find it very difficult to perceive and/or interpret a common cultural
ground.
Therefore, it is assumed that organizational culture is not a monolithic
system, nor a mere puzzle of inconsistent traits, but some kind of multi-
dimensional universe, where isomorphism and dis-isomorphism, stabil-
ity and change may co-exist, according to the scale, space and time of
analysis. Thus, multiple organizational identities and cultures may be
observable in the same organizational universe.
Even though many theories presume that culture is an integrated and
consistent set, in structural and functional terms (see Schein, 2010),
it is assumed that an organization may show a plurality of cultural
traits (see Martin, 1993) that may facilitate the emergence of several
cultural subsystems and/or lead to a conflict between different cultural
identities.
Maimone and Mormino (2012) assumed that the apparent paradox
of the differentiated and partially conflicting cultural landscapes of
global organizations could be explained by adopting the complex the-
ory perspective. As argued above, this perspective assumes that complex
organizations are characterized by the contemporaneous presence of
integrative and dis-integrative processes, that could produce an articu-
lated and ‘complex’ cultural world. The same authors (Ib.) formulated
the hypothesis—which is also implicitly assumed by the multi-level
model proposed by Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, and Gibson (2005)
and described above—that organizational culture is a multi-level phe-
nomenon. It also assumes that a differentiated and apparently conflict-
ing cultural landscape may be composed of a sort of ‘kernel culture’, a
common set of cultural traits, permitting the organization to maintain
its own identity, to show (at least) a certain level of equifinality and to
function as an inter-connected set, in spite of the elevated level of
differentiation and hybridism typical of complex organizations in

response to the high level of variety and complexity present in the exter-
nal environment.
2.3 T
oward a Multi-level Model
of Organizational Cultures
Another important question emerging from theory and empirical
research concerns the possibility of defining the boundaries of organi-
zational culture. Do the perimeters of culture and organization per-
fectly overlap? Is it possible to map different cultural sub-systems (at
national, corporate and local level), inside and outside organizational
boundaries?
Many authors (see Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Minkov & Hofstede,
2010) have adopted the mapping approach, assuming that it is possible
to classify cultural groups on the basis of their territorial distribution and
association with a community that is spatially located and generally cor-
responds to a national entity. These models will be described in the next
paragraph.
Gupta and Ferguson (1992), among others, criticized the basic prin-
ciples of cultural mapping, tackling the assumption of the isomorphism
of space, place, and culture. The authors (Ib. P. 7) argued against the ‘fic-
tion of cultures as discrete, object-like phenomena occupying discrete
spaces’. The criticism against the conception of culture as a homogeneous
and spatial phenomenon is based on four critical points:
(a) The condition of the border inhabitants who experience multi-

linguism and multi-culturalism: As the authors (Ib.) noted, ‘What is
“the culture” of farm workers who spend half a year in Mexico and
half a year in the United States?’
(b) The cultural differences observable within a specific geographical
perimeter: For example, in spite of the presence of the label ‘Italian
culture’, it is possible to find many differences between the inhabit-
ants of the South of Italy, in Sicily, for example, and the people living
in the Northern Region of Italy, such as Trentino—Alto Adige.
22 F. Maimone
(c) The question of post-colonialism: Post-colonial countries like Brazil

or the Caribbean Islands are seen to present hybrid cultures and lan-
guages (creolization) and, therefore, it is very difficult to classify and
analyze these cultures as coherent and monolithic systems;
(d) The problem of social change and cultural transformation: This can
occur in interconnected spaces, since the cultural encounter may fos-
ter cultural contamination and creation.
More generally speaking, it is possible to assume that cultural change

does not necessarily respect the unity of time and space. The diffusion of
lifestyle communities, like vegans or the Japanese Otaku,1 are a typical
example of social change that involves specific groups or clusters of soci-
ety. Moreover, social change may be generationally bounded, as happened
in the late 1960s with the youth movements, or nowadays with the so-
called millennial generation. To understand cultural processes at the
organizational level, it is necessary to also take into account the complex
dynamics that entail cultural change.
Therefore, it is argued that cultural mapping may facilitate the under-
standing of cultural phenomena if models are used as heuristic tools and
are not considered as some kind of instructional handbook, as (unfortu-
nately) many scholars seem to present them.
Leung et al. (2005, p. 362) proposed a multi-level approach that views
culture ‘as a multi-level construct, that consists of various levels nested
within each other, from the most macro-level of a global culture, through
national cultures, organizational cultures, group cultures, and cultural
values that are represented in the self at the individual level’.
A further improvement to the model that takes into account the
multiplicity and complexity of contemporary society is proposed. The
model presumes that each organizational member may have multiple
identities (Alvesson, 2010; Hillman, Nicholson & Shropshire, 2008;
Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Stryker & Serpe, 1982); organizational
sub-cultures that may refer to sub-unit identities (Albert & Whetten,
1985) and, more generally, to the articulations of organizational cul-
tures (Hofstede, 1998; Jermier, Slocum, Fry, & Gaines, 1991). National
cultures refer to the theoretical perspective previously illustrated. The
model is described in the below figure (see Fig. 2.1).
Global culture
National cultures
Organizational cultures
Organizational subcultures
Team values and

idenitity
Individual
values and self
identities
Fig. 2.1 The multi-level model of MNE culture
It is important to underline that this paper focuses on the analysis of

cultural dynamics (Hatch, 1993). The theory of cultural dynamics recog-
nizes that culture changes, or can be changed, and the dynamic view
recognizes both stability and change as outcomes of the same processes.
The dynamic approach to culture leads to a more complex, process-based
understanding of organizational culture.
2.4 T
he Role of National Identities
and Cultural Differences
In this paragraph a brief review of the main managerial theories of cul-
tural differences will be given. All the theories presented associate national
identities with some differences, in terms of people’s values, norms,
24 F. Maimone
assumptions, mental and operational schemata, attitudes and behaviors.

Cultural differences are a source of individual and collective diversity that
impacts individual and organizational interactions and they are particu-
larly relevant for the understanding of inter-cultural knowledge sharing
dynamics.
Hofstede (1980) is the father of the most cited cross-cultural manage-
ment theory focused on values and including six dimensions of cultural
values (Hofstede, 1980, Hofstede & Bond, 1988).
The six bipolar dimensions model proposed by Hofstede (2011, p. 8),
may be summarized as follows:
1 . Power distance: measures the different attitudes to power inequality;

2. Uncertainty avoidance: is related to the attitude of society toward
uncertainty and unknown future;
3. Individualism versus collectivism: concerns the level of integration of
the individuals in their primary group;
4. Masculinity versus femininity: is related to the attribution of emo-
tional and social roles between women and men;
5. Long-term versus short-term orientation: is related to society’s orien-
tation toward the future and the focus of people’s efforts toward the
past/present or the future;
6. Indulgence versus restraint: measures society’s orientation toward
gratification versus control of basic human desires related to enjoy-
ing life.
According to Hofstede (1993, p. 89), ‘Cultural differences on nations

can be, to some extent, described … The position of a country on these
dimensions allows us to make some predictions on the way their society
operates, including their management process and the kind of theories
applicable to their management.’
Schwartz (1999) proposed a theory based on universal values. The
researcher (Ib.) defined values as desirable, trans-situational goals, vary-
ing in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives and
vary according to the type of motivational goal they express. Pursuing
each value can have psychological, practical and social consequences.
The theory elaborated by Schwartz (1992, 2006) is characterized by six

key concepts (Schwartz, 2012, pp. 3–4):
1 . Values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect.

2. Values refer to desirable goals that motivate action.
3. Values transcend specific actions and situations.
4. Values serve as standards or criteria.
5. Values are ordered by importance relative to one another.
6. The relative importance of multiple values guides action.
The values identified by Schwartz (Ib.) are: power, achievement, hedo-

nism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition,
conformity, security.
Moreover, the same author (1992) argued that social values may be
classified in three categories (see Table 2.1).
Moreover, the model is described in Fig. 2.2. Figure 2.2 is an adapta-
tion from Schwartz (2012, p. 13), and explains how sets of values may
assume specific configurations that re-assume certain attitudes (at indi-
vidual, group and societal levels) toward self and the collective, conserva-
tionism and change (see also Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004). The below
figure describes the relationship between universal values and personal
attitudes, according to the Schwartz’s model.
According to Schwartz (Ib., p. 3): ‘Although the nature of values and
their structure maybe universal, individuals and groups differ substan-
tially in the relative importance they attribute to the values. That is, indi-
viduals and groups have different value “priorities” or “hierarchies”’-.
These differences, which are conceived in a relativistic and less determin-
istic fashion with respect to Hofstede’s model, may explain some cultural
differences among nations and social groups.
Table 2.1 The relationship between universal values and personal attitudes
(Source: adapted from Schwartz, 2012)
Value types that serve primarily power, achievement, hedonism,
individual interests stimulation, self-direction
Value types that serve primarily benevolence, tradition, conformity,
collective interests
Boundary values types (that may be universalism and security
included in both previous types)
26
Values that are associated with Values that are associated with
anxiety for the future, prevention of goal achievement and self-growth
personal loss and self-protection
F. Maimone
Personal focus Openess to

Self-
change
enhancement
Hedonism
Achievement
Stimulation
Power
Self-direction
Conservation Self-
Security Transcendence
Conformity Universalism
Tradition Benevolence
Socialfocus
Fig. 2.2 The relationship between universal values and personal attitudes (Source: adapted from Schwartz, 2012)
Egalitarianism Harmony
Unity with
Social Jusce
nature
Equality
World at peace
Embeddedness
Intellectual Autonomy
Broadmindedness Social Order, Obedience
Respect for Tradion
Curiosity
Hierarchy
Affecve Autonomy
Authority
Pleasure
Humble
Mastery
Ambion
Daring
Fig. 2.3 Cultural values orientation model (Source: adapted from Schwartz 2006)
Schwartz (2006), moreover, proposed the theory of cultural values ori-

entation and proposed a model that aggregates three bipolar dimensions
of culture, which represent alternative resolutions to three fundamental
problems that every society has to face: embeddedness versus autonomy,
hierarchy versus egalitarianism and mastery versus harmony. The below
figure descibes this model (see Fig. 2.3).
According to Schwartz (2006, p. 142): ‘The structure reflects the cul-
tural orientations that are compatible (adjacent in the circle) or incom-
patible (distant around the circle).’
The latest model illustrated in this paragraph was proposed by the
Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research
Program (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House, 2013). It is an international
program aimed at examining the interrelationships between societal cul-
ture, organizational culture and practices, and organizational leadership,
predicting the impact of cultural variables on leadership practices. Project
GLOBE defines culture (Javidan & House, 2001, p. 293) as ‘shared
motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of sig-
nificant events that result from common experiences of members of col-
lectives and are transmitted across age generations’.
28 F. Maimone
The GLOBE Project researchers conceptualized a model composed of

the following nine dimensions (Javidan & Dastmalchian, 2009, pp. 45–46):
1. Performance orientation: the extent to which an organization or soci-

ety encourages and rewards performance and excellence;
2. Assertiveness orientation: the degree of assertiveness, orientation to
confrontation and aggressiveness among individuals in organizations
or societies;
3. Future orientation: the level of orientation of individuals in organiza-
tions and society toward the future;
4. Humane orientation: the degree to which organizations and society
reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring
and kind to others;
5. Collectivism I: Institutional collectivism (i.e. the degree to which
organizations and societies encourage and reward the collective distri-
bution of resources and collective action);
6. Collectivism II: In-group collectivism (i.e. the degree to which indi-
viduals integrate and individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesive-
ness in their organizations or families);
7. Gender egalitarianism: the degree to which an organization or a soci-
ety promotes gender role equality and disincentivizes gender
discrimination;
8. Power distance: the extent to which the members of an organization
or society accept and explicitly manifest power and status differences;
9. Uncertainty avoidance: the degree to which the members of an orga-
nization or society are worried by uncertainty and try to avoid it by
establishing social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices.
The dimensions (Ib.) were built up by gathering information from

previous studies and the intellectual debt of the GLOBE model to
Hofstede’s theory is quite evident.
GLOBE considers cultures in terms of their cultural practices (the
ways things are) and their cultural values (the way things should be) and
measures them separately, using different criteria.
The conceptual and operational distinction between cultural values
and cultural practices is a tricky question, since the measurement of this
gap implies a direct association between values and practices, which is far
from being proved by cross-cultural management research. Instead, sta-
tistical analysis shows that the correlation between values and practices is
in many cases negative (see Maseland & Van Hoorn, 2009). The choice
of measuring values and practices separately was harshly criticized by
Hofstede (2006), who questioned the theoretical, methodological and
statistical validity of part of the model.
2.5 Toward an Emic Approach

According to Barinaga (2007, p. 324), the discourses on national cul-
tures can be viewed as rhetorical strategies that make it possible to
‘define geographically limited identities, assigning particular characters,
attitudes, values and interests to those coming from a specific region. As
such, they contribute to a sense of a natural, objective, unavoidable
boundary that separates group members. In short, references to
“national culture” were made to enhance one’s worth in the midst of
confusion.’
McSweeney (2009a, 2009b, 2013) also argued against the structural-
functionalist approach proposed by Hofstede (1980). According to
McSweeney (2002, p. 91), Hofstede treats national culture ‘as implicit;
core; systematically causal; territorially unique; and shared’. McSweeney
(2009a, 2009b), moreover, questioned the core assumptions of structural-
functionalism: national culture as a homogeneous, stable, pure and
uncontaminated reality, and furthermore, he (Ib.) affirmed that Hofstede’s
model underestimates the relevance of the processes of cultural hybridiza-
tion and the role played by non-cultural factors, criticizing the assumed
equivalence between culture, nation and territory.
Barinaga (2007) sustained the discursive approach to the study of cul-
tural differences, adopting the social constructionist perspective. The
author (Ib. p.) argued that in ‘treating national culture as some sort of
natural predetermined template, such research places too little emphasis
on the discursive processes that go on in social life and thus fails to
consider the freedom actors have in defining national identity (Ailon-
Souday & Kunda, 2003)’.
30 F. Maimone
Finally, the interpretative theorists argued against the functionalistic

perspective, criticizing the concept of unified culture. According to
Alvesson and Deetz (2000, p. 34), the interpretive research questioned
‘the logic of displaying a consensual unified culture’, focusing instead on
‘fragmentation, tensions, and processes of conflict suppression’.
The reification of cultural differences, according to many scholars, is
likely to crystallize and reproduce stereotypes, underestimate the com-
plexity of cultural phenomena and provide a theoretical justification for
cultural separatism, which can, unfortunately, be found even in the
workplace.
As mentioned in the Introduction, this book adopts the emic perspec-
tive of analysis, which is focused on socio-cultural dynamics (Nishii &
Özbilgin, 2007; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). The term ‘emic’ (Morris, Leung,
Ames, & Lickel, 1999) considers cultural diversity as a dynamic process,
which is both subjective and inter-subjective, and relates to the most gen-
eral socio-organizational context.
Moreover, it is assumed that inter-cultural encounters can be explained
either in terms of cultural divergence (cultural differences) or in terms of
cultural interaction (conflict, integration and hybridization) and change.
As opposed to the cross-cultural models described in the previous
paragraph, the theoretical perspective proposed in this book assumes that
organizational members may exhibit multiple identities.
Identity is strictly related to social interactions (Albert & Whetten,
1985). Stelzl and Seligman (2009) presented the results of a field research
showing that the students of an international business school, all having
the same nationality, exhibited multiple identities and different values.
These findings are consistent with the result of two pieces of field research
that were conducted in two trans-national organizations (Maimone,
2005, 2007).
If our identity is considered as a process and not as a state (Alvesson &
Wilmott, 2002), it is possible to assume that there could be different foci
of organizational identifications (Foreman & Whetten, 2002) and that
workers may show multiple identities that can coexist sometimes har-
monically and sometimes in conflict (Alvesson & Wilmott, 2002).
Even though the theoretical models based on cultural dimensions can be
questioned, as reported below, it is assumed that cultural maps may be
useful to better understand how cultural differences impact on inter-cultural

exchange and how inter-cultural knowledge sharing is managed. Nonetheless,
it is important to note that social and organizational reality is more complex
and diversified than can be explained by cultural differences models.
Notes
1. Otaku (おたく/オタク?) is a Japanese term meaning people with obses-
sive interests, commonly anime and manga fandom.
References
Ailon-Souday, G., & Kunda, G. (2003). The local selves of global workers: The
social construction of national identity in the face of organizational globaliza-
tion. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1073–1096.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings
& B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Alvesson, M. (2010). Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, surfers and others:
Images of self-identities in organization studies. Human Relations, 63(2),
193–217.
Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding organizational culture. Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Berg, P. O. (1992). Corporate culture and organizational symbol-
ism: An overview (Vol. 34). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational con-
trol: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies,
39(5), 619–644.
Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.). (2012). The
handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Barinaga, E. (2007). ‘Cultural diversity’ at work: ‘National culture’ as a dis-
course organizing an international project group. Human Relations, 60(2),
315–340.
32 F. Maimone
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and
normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 37, 363–399.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (2004). Gurus, hired guns, and warm bodies: Itinerant
experts in a knowledge economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems (Vol. 213). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise
in the sociology of knowledge (No. 10). Penguin UK.
Capra, F. (2002). Complexity and life. Emergence, 4(1–2), 15–33.
Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The cultural mosaic: A meta theory for under-
standing the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1128.
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2013). Culture and
leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies.
Abington, UK: Routledge.
Cilliers, P. (2000). What can we learn from a theory of complexity? Emergence,
2(1), 23–33.
Contractor, N. S. (1999). Self-organizing systems research in the social sciences:
Reconciling the metaphors and the models. Management Communication
Quarterly, 13(1), 154–166.
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. John
Wiley & Sons.
Fontana, W., & Ballati, S. (1999). Complexity. Complexity, 4(3), 14–16.
Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-
identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the
politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6–23.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of
Management Review, 18(4), 657–693.
Hillman, A. J., Nicholson, G., & Shropshire, C. (2008). Directors’ multiple
identities, identification, and board monitoring and resource provision.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: National differences in thinking and
organizing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Academy
of Management Executive, 7(1), 81–94.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying organizational subcultures: An empirical

approach. Journal of Management Studies, 35(1), 1–12.
Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus
respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882–896.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in con-
text. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cul-
tural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A
critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.
Javidan, M., & Dastmalchian, A. (2009). Managerial implications of the
GLOBE project: A study of 62 societies. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 47(1), 41–58.
Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager:
Lessons from project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289–305.
Jermier, J. M., Slocum, J. W., Jr., Fry, L. W., & Gaines, J. (1991). Organizational
subcultures in a soft bureaucracy: Resistance behind the myth and facade of
an official culture. Organization Science, 2(2), 170–194.
Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in
evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kernick, D. (2004). Organisational culture and complexity. In D. Kernick
(Ed.), Complexity and healthcare organisation: A view from the street. Oxford:
Radcliffe Medical Press Limited.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005).
Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications
for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357–378.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Maimone, F. (2005). Organizzazione cosmopolita. Relazioni organizzative e
comunicazione nei contesti multiculturali. Un approccio sociologico. Roma:
Aracne.
Maimone, F. (2007). Dalla rete al silos. Modelli e strumenti per comunicare e
gestire la conoscenza nelle organizzazioni flessibili. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Maimone, F., & Mormino, S. (2012). Organizational cultures. Toward a com-
plex approach for the understanding of cultures in postmodern organiza-
tions. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management,
11, 179–192.
34 F. Maimone
Malinowski, B. (1944). A scientific theory of culture. Chapel Hill, NC: University

of North Carolina Press.
Malizia, P. (1998). La costruzione sociale dell’organizzazione: natura e struttura
delle organizzazioni complesse. Milan: Guerini.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations, three perspectives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Maseland, R., & Van Hoorn, A. (2009). Explaining the negative correlation
between values and practices: A note on the Hofstede–GLOBE debate.
Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3), 527–532.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and
their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human Relations,
55(1), 89–118.
McSweeney, B. (2009a). Incoherent culture. European Journal of Cross-Cultural
Competence and Management, 1(1), 22–27.
McSweeney, B. (2009b). Dynamic diversity: Variety and variation within coun-
tries. Organization Studies, 30(9), 933–957.
McSweeney, B. (2013). Fashion founded on a flaw: The ecological mono-
deterministic fallacy of Hofstede, GLOBE, and followers. International
Marketing Review, 30(5), 483–504.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence
from the World Values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1),
3–14.
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on
organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations. Oxford:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside
and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice
judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781–796.
Nishii, L. H., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2007). Global diversity management: Towards
a conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 18(11), 1883–1894.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture (Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 109). American
Psychological Association.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley
& Sons.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for
work. Applied Psychology, 48(1), 23–47.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and
applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2), 137–182.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values.
Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11.
Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human
values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality,
38(3), 230–255.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Stelzl, M., & Seligman, C. (2009). Multiplicity across cultures: Multiple
national identities and multiple value systems. Organization Studies, 30(9),
959–973.
Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience, and role
behavior: Theory and research example. In Personality, roles, and social behav-
ior (pp. 199–218). New York: Springer.
Reviews, 14(2), 180–200.
Thietart, R. A., & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos theory and organization.
Tsoukas, H. (1998). Introduction: Chaos, complexity and organization theory.
Organization, 5(3), 291–313.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1982). Occupational communities: Culture and
control in organizations (No. Tr-Onr-10). Cambridge, MA: Alfred P Sloan
School of Management.
Witherington, D. C. (2011). Taking emergence seriously: The centrality of cir-
cular causality for dynamic systems approaches to development. Human
Development, 54(2), 66–92.
3
Organizational Knowledge and Inter-
cultural Management
3.1 Organizational Knowledge,

Beyond the Myths
3.1.1 What Is Knowledge?
Paradoxically, the question What is knowledge? is one of the most diffi-

cult to answer (not only) in organizational knowledge research.
First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between knowledge and infor-
mation. Information is generally conceived as data that has a specific
meaning with respect to prior knowledge (see Vance, 1997). This defini-
tion is derived from the scientific and engineering disciplines. Nevertheless,
it is arguably reductive, since it seems to be tailor-made for the forma
mentis of engineers and technicians and limits, a priori, the range of ele-
ments that could be included in the category of information.
Information comes from the Latin word informatio, which means
‘idea’, ‘representation’. Therefore, even in its etymology, the term ‘infor-
mation’ is associated with a wider concept than that of mere data.
Consequently, it is argued that information may be conceived in more
general terms as a set of symbolic, textual, visual, physical or material/
digital (artefactual) elements that are meaningful within a specific context

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57297-0_3
38 F. Maimone
and/or knowledge frame. It is to be argued whether the concept of infor-

mation may be extended to the class of semi-conscious and non-conscious
signals that are not perceived consciously by human beings, such as, for
example, a few body signals associated with emotional states. In spite of
the amount of research produced in the latest decades, the question that
still has to be asked is whether that kind of signal/message that human
beings are able to process, without full awareness, may also be considered
information. Unconscious information is, for example, the basis of the
so-called B system (the alternative cognitive system that is responsible for
meta-cognition and intuition in humans and is involved in managerial
improvisation; see Sinclair, 2011). This question goes far beyond the field
of knowledge management.
One of the main differences between human intelligence and artificial
intelligence is that the latter needs to establish a priori what information
should be processed to be converted into knowledge, while human beings
can learn even when they are not totally aware of the learning process and
may also process inputs that are out of their sphere of consciousness. This
question is also relevant in establishing what knowledge actually is, as will
be shown.
In spite of the great focus that mainstream knowledge management
literature places on technology and engineering (see Fahey & Prusak,
1998), the reflection on the real nature of knowledge is largely related
to the evolution of human thought. In fact, the word ‘philosophy’
comes from the ancient Greek word Φιλοσοφια, transliterated into
Latin as philosophia, meaning ‘love of wisdom’.1 Therefore, when man-
agement theory ‘rediscovered’ knowledge, it went back to the classics of
human thought and particularly to the enormous heritage of Greek
philosophy.
According to Nisbett, Peng, Choi, and Norenzayan (2001, p. 292),
‘An aspect of Greek civilization that had a great effect on posterity was
their sense of curiosity about the world and the presumption that it could
be understood by the discovery of rules … The Greeks speculated about
the nature of the objects and events around them and created causal
models of them. The construction of these models was done by
categorizing objects and events and generating rules about them for the
purpose of systematic description, prediction, and explanation.’
Organizational Knowledge and Inter-cultural Management 39
The rise of managerial studies in the knowledge era is relatively recent.

According to Nonaka, Von Krogh, and Voelpel (2006, p. 1181): ‘Towards
the end of the 1980s, a growing group of scholars began to doubt the
usefulness of many of the mainstream theory’s assumptions about cogni-
tion and knowledge that ranged from the work of Fredrick Taylor to that
of Herbert Simon.’ The concept of knowledge, before the ‘organizational
knowledge renaissance’, was focused on the intellectual sphere of univer-
sal ‘justified true belief ’ The inclusion of tacit knowledge in the theory of
knowledge creation (Ib.) also allowed researchers to take into account
perception, physical skills and experience (Nonaka, 1991, 1994).
According to Davenport and Prusak (1998, p. 4),‘Knowledge is a fluid
mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert
insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new
experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of
knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in docu-
ments or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, prac-
tices, and norms.’
Moreover (Nonaka et al., 2006, p. 1183): ‘Knowledge is embodied,
particular, history-dependent and oriented towards problem definitions
at the outset. For an individual, the justification of beliefs is natural, often
automatic and instant …Due to “embodied necessity”, two individuals
will never share exactly the same values, beliefs, observations and
viewpoints.’
Knowledge is both explicit and implicit. Implicit knowledge refers to
semi-conscious or unconscious knowledge. As we know, many daily
actions are regulated by automated systems and therefore they refer to
non-conscious knowledge. Sport is the typical realm of automatic knowl-
edge. As every good practitioner of the martial arts knows, the best sports
performance is due to a flow of action that is directly enacted and not
thought out before the enactment. As the son of the samurai used to say
to the US soldier protagonist of the movie The last Samurai, during the
training session in Japanese fencing (with katana), ‘no mind’ (i.e. don’t
think about your move in advance; simply empty your mind and do it
without thinking). Typically, the training of a sport practitioner implies
the internalizing of explicit knowledge in implicit and automatic behav-
iours. This kind of knowledge is enacted in many automatic or
40 F. Maimone
semi-automatic behaviours, such as driving a car, using a computer, and

the like. Implicit knowledge may be transmitted by imitation, as the psy-
chologist Bandura has demonstrated, and it is also a social and relational
phenomenon. The classic example of the transmission of tacit knowledge
is the relationship between the master and the apprentice. It is probable
that when Nonaka and colleagues (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) re-
discovered the concept of tacit knowledge, they had in mind the well-
known relationship between sensei (master) and sempai (trainees) that is
at the basis of the Japanese traditional way of transmitting knowledge.
Implicit or semi-conscious knowledge is also important in artisanship.
The typical organization of the guild apprenticeship is based on a legiti-
mated and socially constructed body of knowledge and practice that is
socialized by the institutionalized process of internship. Leonardo da
Vinci, perhaps the most famous figure in the Italian Renaissance, was an
apprentice at the studio of Verrocchio, a Florentine painter and sculptor.
The Apprentice is the title of a famous reality show that gave huge popu-
larity to the North American tycoon who was the protagonist of the show
and who is now … involved in practising his own particular leadership
style in another, and let’s say, definitely more important set.
Tacit knowledge has also been defined as personal knowledge (Polanyi,
1966), since it is embodied in the mind, heart and soul of individuals and
groups and, for this reason, is very difficult to communicate and transmit
to others. Therefore, many authors have argued that personal (tacit)
knowledge is transmitted through experience.
Sense-giving theory, moreover, focuses its analysis on the active role of
human beings in learning tacit knowledge. This term was coined by
Polanyi (Ib.), who affirmed we have to make a distinction between sense
giving and sense reading, even though they both refer to the process of
tacit knowing: ‘Both the way we endow our own utterances with mean-
ing and our attribution of meaning to the utterances of others are acts of
tacit knowing. They represent sense-giving and sense reading within the
structure of tacit knowing’ (p. 181). The concept of sense giving is strictly
related to the notion of tacit power, which is the power to actively shape
or integrate new experience in order to discover new knowledge. As
Polanyi pointed out (Ib. p. 6): ‘I am looking at Gestalt (a perceived organ-
ised whole that is more than the sum of its parts) … as the outcome of an
active shaping of experience performed in the pursuit of knowledge. This

shaping or integrating I hold to be the great and indisputable tacit power
by which all knowledge is discovered and, once discovered, is held to be
true.’
The question of whether and how tacit personal knowledge may be
shared and reproduced will be addressed in the next chapter.
Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, refers to codified knowledge
that is contained in texts—namely, a set of messages that are encoded
using specific (verbal, mathematical, audio and visual) codes and that
may be decoded (interpreted), using the right code and knowing the spe-
cific context in which the knowledge was produced. The theory of inter-
pretation (Eco, 2011) suggests that the interpretation of a text (verbal,
visual, audio, video, multimedia, etc.) is the outcome of the seman-
tic negotiation between the author of the text and the receiver of the
message. This interpretation may be more or less close to the meaning
given by the author and in some cases the decoding of the message may
be very different from the intention of the author and in others be alter-
native to the original meaning (aberrant decoding). For this reason (Ib.),
the author needs the cooperation of the receiver.
The outcome of the interpretation process is always some kind of
translation, from one contextual, cultural, cognitive and linguistic system
to another. Any message, and therefore even (codified) explicit knowl-
edge, is polysemic to a certain extent. In any case, explicit knowledge is,
by definition, more easily communicated to others.
Moreover, it is possible to assume that there are two different approaches
to organizational knowledge (Von Krogh, 1998), which emerge from two
distinct theoretical perspectives. The first one is the cognitive perspective.
The second one is related to the so-called constructionist approach.
The Cognitive Perspective
The cognitive perspective considers knowledge as a form of representa-

tion or reality (Ib.), and therefore it is seen as a set of objects and events
which, according to this theoretical approach, it is the task of the brain to
represent as accurately as possible, and allow a rational or quasi-rational
42 F. Maimone
judgement. For instance, the definition proposed by Bell (1999, pp. lxi–
lxiv) and cited by Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001, p. 976) affirmed:
‘Knowledge is the judgement of the significance of events and items,
which comes from a particular context and/or theory.’ Moreover (Ib.)
judgement is associated with the ability of an individual to draw distinc-
tions and with the individual collocation within (Ib. p.) ‘a collectively
generated and sustained domain of action—a “form of life” (Wittgenstein,
1958), a “practice” (MacIntyre, 1985), a “horizon of meaning” (Gadamer,
1989) or a “consensual domain” (Maturana & Varela, 1988)—in which
particular criteria of evaluation hold.’
The cognitive perspective helps us to understand how knowledge is
used and what (at least) one of the scopes of the process of knowing is.
On the other hand, when organizational knowledge scholars wrote their
works, the progress in the neurosciences and the complexity of science
were far from the organizational knowledge framework. More than thirty
years after the beginning of the new wave of organizational knowledge, it
is possible to complete this framework, as well as a few other elements.
As we know, judgement is basic to the decision-making process. The
belief that the decision-making process is completely rational was ques-
tioned by Simon (1982) who, arguing the epistemological premises of
the so-called rational choice, introduced the concept of bounded ratio-
nality. According to March and Simon (1958, p. 590), ‘Ideas of limited
rationality emphasize the extent to which individuals and groups simplify
a decision problem because of the difficulties of anticipating or consider-
ing all alternatives and all information.’ Moreover, the concept of contex-
tualized rationality (Ib.) ‘emphasizes the extent to which choice behaviour
is embedded in a complex of other claims on the attention of actors and
other structures of social and cognitive relations’.
The seminal work by March and Simon (Ib.) anticipated the rise of
new heterodox theories, that questioned the prevailing role of rationality
in decision-making processes. These (alternative) perspectives found
resounding confirmation in the progress of the neurosciences.
According to Sanfey, Loewenstein, McClure, and Cohen (2006,
p. 111), ‘Human behaviour is not the product of a single process, but
rather reflects the interaction of different specialized subsystems. Although
most of the time these systems interact synergistically to determine
behaviour, at times they compete, producing different dispositions

towards the same information.’-.
The contribution of psychology and the neurosciences to decision-
making theory led to the recognition of two parallel decision systems
(Ib.): (a) system 1, which includes automatic and non-conscious pro-
cesses, and (b) system 2, which includes controlled rational processes,
based on judgement and rational choice.
Intuition is a typical example of a decision-making process that is
enacted at an unconscious/semi-conscious level. According to Sinclair
and Ashkanasy (2005), intuition is ‘a non-sequential information pro-
cessing mode, which comprises both cognitive and affective elements and
results in direct knowing without any use of conscious reasoning’.
Intuition (Ib.) therefore is a non-sequential (holistic) process that is
linked to a non-conscious scanning of internal (memory) and external
(environment) resources, in some kind of non-linear process that is simi-
lar to the solving of a puzzle. Generally, the actor of the intuition process
is not aware of the direction and/solution of the puzzle until the insight
manifests itself. The solution of the puzzle is very often associated with a
specific physiological/affective state. As a result, in this process, the choice
of the right (or true) knowledge takes place in a very unconscious way
and very often the choice of the knowledge is the result of a fuzzy selec-
tion process that proceeds through trial and error and associative pro-
cesses. In this respect, the holistic approach to decision making (Ib.) is
based on the Jungian concept of ‘big picture’ (see Greathead, 2008). For
example, expert intuition (Sinclair & Ashkanasy, 2005, p. 10) ‘is mostly
nonverbal (i.e., the process has become so internalized that it does not
require any deliberate thinking but, upon deeper probing, it could be
verbalized), and thus linked to tacit knowledge’. It is evident that the clas-
sic cognitive model is not able to explain unconscious processes that
influence intuition and consequently the knowing process that is enacted
in intuition.
Moreover, the evolution of the system theory made it possible to
understand that cognition is not simply a representation of an external
reality. The well-known paradox of ‘observing systems’ proposed by Von
Foester (1984) and then applied to the realm of social systems by
Luhmann (1995) may help us to reflect on the complexity of semi-closed
44 F. Maimone
systems and to understand how cognition may be paradoxical: a system

cannot observe itself at the same time as it is observing the environment.
Therefore, the observing process is partial and, in certain respects, arbi-
trary. According to the constructivist perspective (Ib.), cognition is an
auto-poietic process: cognitive systems perceive and elaborate informa-
tion through their internal processes and routine and interpret the inputs
coming from the external environment through their cognitive schemes.
Therefore, knowledge is never the reality but a representation of it; ‘the
map is not the territory’ (Korzybski, 1948, p. 58). Thus, with certain
limits, cognitive systems ‘construct’ reality, even though the need to find
an equilibrium between the self and the environment implies the need to
enact ‘structural coupling’ (Maturana & Varela, 1980)—for example,
‘the dynamics of congruent structural changes that take place spontane-
ously between systems in recurrent (in fact recursive) interactions, as well
as the coherent structural dynamics that result … In this process the
structure of the living system and the structure of the medium change
together congruently as a matter of course, and the general result is that
the history of interactions between two or more structure determined
systems becomes a history of spontaneous recursive structural changes in
which all the participant systems change together congruently until they
separate or disintegrate’ (Maturana, 2002, p. 11).
The constructivist perspective may lead to a radical view of knowledge.
For example, sense making, which should be basic to the cognitive pro-
cess related to knowledge creation and sharing, may be considered as
some kind of ex-post process. According to Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld
(2005, p. 409): “Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective devel-
opment of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing … a
process that is ongoing, instrumental, subtle, swift, social, and easily
taken for granted.’ Therefore, people make sense of their organizational
life ex-post and then ‘enact this sense back into the world to make this
world more orderly’ (Ib.). The sense making theory assumes the subjec-
tive and very specific nature of the process of organizational signification
that occurs mainly after the situation and the event have happened.
Therefore, sense making may be considered a kind of creative and subjec-
tive process, very far from being objective.
The Social Dimension of Knowledge
According to Von Krogh (1998), the other perspective is related to social

learning and social construction.
The social dimension of knowledge has been highlighted by Vygotsky
(1978), a Russian psychologist and philosopher, who affirmed that learn-
ing is basically a social process: the way people learn is influenced by the
socio-cultural environment in which they live and therefore it is also a
product of the cultural milieu in which learners are immersed (Ib.). Social
constructivism emphasizes the role played by the social environment and
culture in shaping learning processes.
Moreover, according to social constructivism, knowledge is grounded
in the relationship between the knower and the known. For this theoreti-
cal stance, knowledge is generated through social intercourse, and
through this interaction we gradually accumulate advances in our levels
of knowing. Vygotsky (Ib.) emphasized the influence of cultural and
social contexts in learning. According to this view, human beings con-
struct meanings actively and continuously in a social context (Young,
1997). Meanings emerge from the patterns of social experiences that
occur over time in a contextual, situated, and continually changing syn-
thesis. Social constructivism, moreover, is focused on social symbolic
interaction and meaning negotiation.
The social theory of learning is a further articulation of the social per-
spective. It emphasizes the socio-relational dimension of learning (Siebert,
Mills, & Tuff, 2009). The focus of the analysis is shifted from the subjec-
tive process to inter-subjective (social) dynamics (Coffield, 2002).
According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning takes place in com-
munities that share common practices and are characterized by a shared
identity and meanings. Moreover Gherardi (2010, p. 504) assumed
the centrality of social practice in learning processes, pointing out: ‘A
focus on social practice emphasizes the relational thinking based on
interdependencies between subject and object, person and world, net-
works and society.’
Finally, it is possible to argue that knowledge is also socially and cultur-
ally bounded. Nisbett et al. (2001, p. 292) proposed a set of propositions
46 F. Maimone
that explain how knowledge is influenced by cultures and, more gener-

ally, societies:
1. Social organization directs attention to some aspects of the field at

the expense of others.
2. What is attended to influences metaphysics, that is, beliefs about the
nature of the world and about causality.
3. Metaphysics guides tacit epistemology, that is, beliefs about what it is
important to know and how knowledge can be obtained.
4. Epistemology dictates the development and application of some cog-
nitive processes at the expense of others.
5. Social organization and social practices can directly affect the plausi-
bility of metaphysical assumptions, such as whether causality should
be regarded as residing in the field versus the object.
6. Social organization and social practices can influence directly the
development and use of cognitive processes such as dialectical ver-
sus logical ones.
Therefore, as will be argued in the following paragraphs, knowledge

and culture are closely related. Moreover, when knowledge is legitimated
and crystallized and becomes part of the collective memory of a society,
it becomes part of the culture.
3.1.2 Organizational Knowledge
As shown in the premise, the question What is organizational knowledge?

is not that easy to answer and is far from having reached a final definition.
The mainstream literature of knowledge management assumes that knowl-
edge is a set of meanings that are legitimated, (i.e. are considered true by
individuals), through their interaction with the environment. In other
words, according to this theoretical perspective, knowing is a dialectical/
dialogical and dynamic process (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 2004).
Nonaka and von Krogh (2009) assumed that knowledge is:
(a) justified true belief: individuals test the truthfulness of their beliefs
through the interaction with their environment;
(b) related to skilful action (e.g. performing behaviour) or related to the

definition of a situation that allows skilful action;
(c) explicit and tacit along a continuum.
According to Takeuchi and Nonaka (2004, p. 5): ‘Knowledge is not

either explicit or tacit. Knowledge is both explicit and tacit. Knowledge
is inherently paradoxical, since it is made up of what appears to be two
opposites.’
Moreover, Nonaka (1994, p. 17) claimed: ‘Organizational knowledge
creation, therefore, should be understood in terms of a process that “orga-
nizationally” amplifies the knowledge created by individuals, and crystal-
lizes it as a part of the knowledge network of organization.’
The theoretical perspective proposed by Nonaka (1994), therefore,
assumes that knowledge creation is strongly related to the individual
sphere and deeply connected to the search for meaning. This search takes
place within a context and is historically and socially embedded.
Moreover, according to Nonaka and Toyama (2003, p. 3), ‘Knowledge
is not just a part of the reality. It is a reality viewed from a certain angle.
The same reality can be viewed differently depending on from which
angle (context) one sees it.’ Therefore, knowledge is context dependent
and is, according to the Japanese authors (Ib.), situated (i.e. ‘collocated in
a specifying historical and social context’). Moreover (Ib.), it is possible to
argue: ‘In knowledge creation, one cannot be free from one’s own con-
text. Social, cultural, and historical contexts are important for individuals
(Vygotsky, 1986) because such contexts give the basis for one to interpret
information to create meanings.’
The theoretical perspective proposed by Nonaka and colleagues was
hugely valuable in unlocking the psychological and social dynamics of
knowledge creation and sharing. But, at the same time, it seems to limit
the sphere of analysis to meaningful knowledge. The controversial point
of this model is that (at least in the Western world) not all types of knowl-
edge are associated with the sphere of awareness. For, example, the ability
to drive a car may play an important role in the life of a worker, as in the
job of a taxi or bus driver, but as everyone who drives a car knows, this
kind of knowledge is mainly tacit, automatic and personal, even though,
of course, to drive a car, it is necessary to also possess a set of explicit
48 F. Maimone
(codified) pieces of knowledge and also a set of meanings (that are related
to the responsibility of conducting a means of transportation that may
cause physical damage to people and things).
This book was written using a laptop. To use a laptop, it is necessary to
possess a set of fundamental notions of theoretical knowledge, but the
main actions associated with the day-by-day use of the personal com-
puter are part of the automatic behaviour that all human beings enact
every day. That is also true for group behaviour: When a medical team
performs surgery, or a fire brigade enters a burning building, or a special
force commando infiltrates enemy lines, they all are enacting (collective)
implicit behaviours that are the result of repeated training, experiential
learning, and team building processes that facilitate the construction of
social practices and take on the name of organizational practices in the
organizational context (Gherardi, 2010). Obviously, identity, beliefs and
meanings are also crucial for special categories of workers, but it is likely
that some of most important knowledge shared by them is out of the
sphere of awareness.
Even though the model proposed by Nonaka and colleagues (Nonaka,
1994) is arguably one of the most important contributions to the devel-
opment of the field of knowledge management and organizational learn-
ing, it is possible to assume that the theoretical premises of the same
model explain only a part of the process. Japanese people invented very
sophisticated and meaningful rituals to serve tea in an appropriate way
(the well-known tea ceremony), but it is likely that somewhere outside
the Japanese cultural milieu, people are sometimes less aware of the main
meanings and knowledge that are used on a daily basis to carry out rou-
tine activities.
The variety and diversity of organizational knowledge has been anal-
ysed by Blackler (1995). The author (Ib.) proposed five images of
knowledge, re-elaborating the taxonomy elaborated by Collins (1993)
that summarizes the different theoretical perspectives on organizational
knowledge:
(a) Embrained knowledge is related to conceptual skills and cognitive

abilities and it is typically a kind of abstract knowledge that is associ-
ated with ‘know that’ (Ryles, 1949) and ‘know why’ (James, 1950).
(b) Embodied knowledge is supposed to be action oriented; it is only par-

tially conscious, and refers to ‘knowledge how’ (Ryles, 1949). It is
related to the sensory, physical, relational dimensions and may also
imply the tacit dimension of the relation between people and
technology.
(c) Encultured knowledge is related to shared understanding and mean-
ings and therefore is strongly interrelated with culture. This kind of
knowledge is reproduced by socialization processes related to lan-
guage, symbols, rituals and myths and is very often transmitted by
story telling.
(d) Embedded knowledge is integrated in systemic routines (Granovetter,
1985) and is dependent on formal and informal roles, procedures
and processes. It is therefore also interrelated with emerging routines
that are the outcome of organizational auto-poiesis (self-organising
processes).
(e) Encoded knowledge is codified knowledge communicated by texts
(books, documents, databases, video, e-learning tools, internet pages,
etc.).
Spender (1996) proposed a taxonomy that distinguishes among the

four different types of knowledge: explicit versus implicit, individual ver-
sus social. According to the classification given by the author (Ib.), it is
possible to draw up the following knowledge matrix (see Table 3.1):
According to the author (Ib.), the matrix shows the dynamic dialogue
among the different categories of knowledge. The boundaries among cat-
egories are weak and porous, since it is not that easy to classify knowledge
into strict categories.
Another type of knowledge is wisdom. Wisdom is considered a higher
level of knowledge and is a kind of meta-knowledge. According to Bierly,
Table 3.1 Personal elaboration from Spender (1996)

Individual Social
Explicit Conscious (individual codified Objectified (shared codified
knowledge) knowledge)
Implicit Automatic (individual tacit Collective (social values, belief,
knowledge) paradigms, practices)
50 F. Maimone
Kessler, and Christensen (2000, p. 601), wisdom may be defined as ‘the

faculty of making the best use of knowledge, experience, and understand-
ing by exercising good judgement’.
Wisdom (Ib.) corresponds to the third level of learning described by
Bateson (1972). Moreover, it is possible to argue (Ib., p. 609):
‘Organization does not become wise unless individuals’ wisdom is articu-
lated and transferred to others.’ Individual wisdom becomes organiza-
tional wisdom when this kind of meta-knowledge is shared and becomes
part of the shared belief and decisional paradigms and also an element of
the organizational culture.
Nonaka (Nonaka, Toyama, & Hirata, 2008), moreover, used the
Aristotelian concept of phronesis (practical wisdom), to explain the role of
experience in strategic decisions. Phronesis is not only a matter of prag-
matic choices but also involves value judgments on the needs and expec-
tations of workers and customers and therefore it is not only a utilitarian
attitude. This kind of knowledge plays an important role in managerial
decisions and is part of so-called personal knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) that
is difficult to communicate and share. At the same time this kind of
knowledge is fundamental for making wise decisions, since it entails the
capacity to find the best option, within a certain frame of references and
value system.
Finally, as Cilliers (2000, p. 9) argued, ‘The dialectical relationship
between knowledge and the system within which it is constituted has to
be acknowledged. The two do not exist independently, thus making it
impossible to first sort out the system (or context), and then identify the
knowledge within the system. This codetermination also means that
knowledge and the system within which it is constituted are in continual
transformation.’
3.2 T
he Role of Knowledge Spaces
and Networks
Nonaka (Nonaka & Konno, 1998) founded their theory of knowledge
creation on the concept of ba, a Japanese word that may be translated
to the English term ‘space’. The concept of ba derived from the theory
of a Japanese philosopher, Nishida (1970) and was further developed

by Shimizu (1995). Nonaka and Toyama (2003, p. 6) defined ba as ‘a
shared context in motion, in which knowledge is shared, created,
andutilized … In other words, ba is a phenomenological time and
space where knowledge, as “a stream of meaning” emerges’ (Bohm,
2006). Ba (Nonaka & Konno, 1998) is not only a physical space, since
it may emerge from different forms of interaction: meetings, email
exchange, virtual interactions, and so on. Ba is mainly ‘an existential
place’ where individuals ‘share their contexts and create new meanings
through interactions’ (Ib., p. 7). Therefore, it is a way of organizing
that is not based on hierarchy or networks, but on the meaning itself
(Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). Ba exists at many levels and therefore dif-
ferent ba may be connected to form a great ba, called basho (Nonaka
& Konno, 1998).
Many criticisms have been formulated of the theory of knowledge cre-
ation, based also on cross-cultural issues. Glisby and Holden (2003),
among others, argued that, in spite of the presumed universality of the
theory of knowledge creation, it is fundamentally based on Japanese val-
ues and managerial practices (see also Hong, 2012). The criticisms
advanced by Glisby and Holden will be illustrated in the following para-
graph. Therefore, even the concept of ba may be criticized insofar as it is
based on the pillar of shared meaning. Lave and Wenger (1998), for
example, based their theory of community of practices on social prac-
tices, but the same authors considered the dominium of the community
(i.e. shared topics), shared identity and sense of belonging as key ele-
ments of the so-called community of practices (Wenger, Dermott, &
Snyder, 2002). Nevertheless, the so-called organizational practices (see
Gherardi, 2000, 2001, 2010; Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003) are
based on social processes that take place mainly on tacit ground and are
not always focused on shared conscious meanings.
The necessity to go beyond the boundaries of the SECI model is also
related to the topic of this book—that is, inter-cultural knowledge shar-
ing. The process of inter-cultural knowledge sharing may work only if an
open model is applied that can facilitate the knowledge exchange, beyond
cultural and linguistic barriers. This means the creation of a knowledge
space that can conciliate diversity and synergy.
52 F. Maimone
Is it possible to find a theoretical perspective that can unify different

theoretical perspectives and provide a conceptual foundation for the
development of inter-cultural knowledge sharing? The answer might be
yes. The common ground in the direction of a unified theory on knowl-
edge, topos, could be the so-called theory of organizational space.
The concept of organizational space was inspired by the theory of
social space, elaborated by the French sociologist Henri Lefebvre (1991).
Organizational space (Yeung, 2005) may be considered as a specific
kind of social space, embedded in the organizational system. It is pro-
duced by ongoing relations, within and between organizations.
According to Yeung (2005, p. 219): ‘Organizational space can be
defined as a kind of spatial configuration or area constituted by ongoing
relations within and between organizations. In an organization space,
there are no fixed locations manifesting themselves in physically measur-
able forms. Instead, locations and distances in an organizational space
are relational and thus discursively constructed through actor-specific
strategies and practice.’ Organizational spaces are produced by social
interaction and are therefore not strictly physical spaces but mainly the
result of the interplay among (physical and virtual) spatial, psychologi-
cal and social dynamics and therefore characterized by a specific set of
values, culture, experiences, emotions, climate, practices, behaviors, and
relationships (Maimone, 2007). It is argued that the individual and
social factors affecting knowledge spaces may have a strong influence on
the organizational processes of knowledge creation and sharing.
Organizational spaces may, at least partially, sometimes overlap, some-
times conflicting with each other, which contributes to the creation of
emerging patterns of behaviors and semi-stable relational structures.
Its configuration is intrinsically dynamic, since it co-evolves together
with the web of intra- and inter-organizational relationships. This could
be interpreted as an emerging phenomenon, typical of complex organiza-
tional systems (Maimone & Sinclair, 2010).
Therefore, organizational space is a socio–relational reality that goes
beyond the material dimension of the architecture of physical spaces and
office layout (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004).
One organization may produce several organizational spaces that may
create a complex texture that forms a sort of parallel universe, partially
Knowledge
Space
Knowledge Knowledge
Space Space
Organizaon
Fig. 3.1 Knowledge spaces
overlapping with the formal organizational structure (see Maimone,

2007), as it is described in the below figure (see Fig. 3.1).
If we adopt the concept of organizational space, then we can consider
knowledge space as an organizational space when new knowledge is cre-
ated and shared. Knowledge space might not correspond to a specific
social entity (group, networks, etc.) but is the emerging product of social
dynamics. Knowledge space is a typical emergent phenomenon that char-
acterizes complex organizational systems (see Maimone, 2007; Maimone
& Sinclair, 2014). Knowledge space may also be seen metaphorically as a
kind of ‘strange attractor’ (Rogers Medina, Rivera, & Wiley, 2005).
According to Anderson (1999, p. 217): ‘An attractor is a limited area in a
system’s state space that it never departs. Chaotic systems revolve around
“strange attractors”, fractal objects that constrain the system to a small
area of its state space.’ Strange attractors represent a centre of gravity for
social interactions, in certain times and spaces, and can therefore produce
temporary, variable and not always perfectly delimitated social entities
and dynamics, enacting recursive processes that may lead to the produc-
tion of (new) emerging knowledge.
Knowledge space may be also a network space. Social networks, at the
physical or digital level, are becoming more pervasive every day and char-
acterize our working and social life, inside and outside the boundaries of
contemporary organizations. The below figure describes this phenome-
non (see Fig. 3.2).
The understanding of complex dynamics that facilitate the creation
and sharing of knowledge in the network society (Castells, 2011) is
54 F. Maimone
fundamental to unlocking the mechanisms of knowledge exchange, and

not only in the organizational context.
3.3 T
he Relationship Between Organizational
Knowledge and Inter-cultural
Management
As was pointed out above, knowledge and culture are strictly interrelated.
To understand the role that cultural diversity can play in organizations, we
must refer to a theorem of cybernetics, the principle of requisite variety
(Ashby, 1964), which has already been described in this book’s Introduction.
This theorem postulates that the internal diversity rate of a system must be
at least equal to the level of environmental variety in which the system
operates. Therefore, the greater the variance of the environment in which
the company operates, in terms of geography, market, technology, and also
culture, the higher the rate of internal diversity will be.
Therefore, MNCs can obtain a competitive advantage by using this
knowledge on a global scale for local management, global integration and
global learning (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Tregaskis, Edwards, Edwards,
Ferner, & Marginson, 2010). In other words, MNCs may use the knowl-
edge of strategic value and complex organizational networks to become
more glocal.
Fig. 3.2 Knowledge networks

It is obvious that cultural differences influence knowledge sharing pro-

cesses (Rai, 2011) but, at the same time, they may enhance the quality of
knowledge creation (Maimone & Sinclair, 2010).
As far as concerns knowledge transfer, it is possible to affirm that the
process is more effective when the knowledge provider and recipient
share similar cultural systems (Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston, & Triandis,
2002). Moreover, it is very difficult to transfer knowledge effectively in
the case that the actors involved in this process do not speak the same
language.
Nisbett et al. (2001) argued that the different cultural values and tradi-
tions of the West and East facilitated the development of different types
of knowledge. According to the authors (Ib.), the Greeks’ belief in the
individual capacity to analyse and face situations, their passion and atti-
tudes to logical thinking and the construction of explanatory models and
rules influenced the Western approach to knowledge, considerably ori-
ented toward individual analytical thinking. On the other hand, Far
Eastern thought, greatly influenced by Confucianism, favoured the
development of pragmatic, empiric, experiential and holistic knowledge
and the search for group harmony, discouraging any open confrontation
and conflicts of ideas and perspectives. The same authors point out that
during the Greek Age, Chinese people were more advanced in terms of
technology, while the rise of philosophy, arithmetic and geometry in the
Greek schools led to a flourishing of abstract and universal thought. Even
though globalization also has a strong influence on cognitive attitudes, it
is argued that these differences are still to be found in the contemporary
knowledge process and demonstrate that culture and knowledge are
strictly interrelated.
More generally, it is possible to argue that individualistic and collective
cultures support different thinking styles and knowledge sharing processes
(Bhagat et al., 2002; see also Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001): individualistic
people tend to perceive themselves as independent of the social context
and information disconnected from the context. On the other hand, col-
lective people tend to perceive themselves as inter-dependent with their
close social context and look for cues from their social environment.
Moreover (Ib.), individualistic people tend to privilege rational knowl-
edge, respecting collective knowledge, and they tend to be more focused
56 F. Maimone
on information related to the self (personality, attitudes, feelings, etc.),

while collective people are seen as paying more attention to information
concerning history, culture, reciprocal obligation, in-group/out-group
norms, and the like. Furthermore (Ib.), collective people are more focused
on historical and contextual information than individualistic informa-
tion, and attribute less relevance to written/codified knowledge.
Individualistic people, on the other hand, tend to pay more attention to
written/codified knowledge. Finally (Ib.), there is a significant difference
between vertical and horizontal cultures in terms of the process of knowl-
edge transfer and sharing. In vertical (hierarchical) cultures, status matters
and therefore also knowledge exchange is influenced by roles and hierar-
chies. Even language may vary, with respect to different hierarchical posi-
tions. On the other hand, in horizontal cultures, equality is considered a
value, and people exchange knowledge without giving too much impor-
tance to roles and status.
Another interesting difference that impacts knowledge sharing is the
distinction between universalist and particularistic cultures (Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2001; Michailova & Hutchings, 2006; Trompenaars, 1994).
Universalistic cultures privilege universal standards and norms and tend
to value ideas, information and knowledge in an objective and non-
personal way. Particularistic cultures tend to focus on familiar and per-
sonal ties and evaluate ideas, information and knowledge on the basis of
the personal relationship and/or the status of the interlocutor. For this
reason, as seemingly happens in collective societies, the personal confron-
tation of ideas and opinions is not considered appropriate, since the
discussion of ideas and knowledge in a personalized approach is perceived
as a personal dispute and therefore the questioning of one’s view may
bring about the loss of face of the interlocutor. Many studies have shown
that particularistic and collectivistic attitudes may be correlated to knowl-
edge sharing practices (Ib.).
As was pointed out in the first chapter of this book, cultural differences
should not be considered as a type of objective characteristic but only as
general trends that may differ significantly within the same cultural
groups and interplay with individual traits, organizational cultures and
other diversity-related elements. Moreover, if the emic perspective is
adopted (see Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012), the so-called cultural difference
should be interpreted from a dynamic and complex perspective that con-

siders the inter-play between cultural, social, economic and political
factors.
Assumed differences in knowledge creation and sharing among cul-
tures should be seen not as obstacles but as real opportunities to enhance
the level and quality of knowledge (not only) in MNCs.
Holden and Tansley (2007) put forward four propositions that under-
line the key issues of inter-cultural knowledge sharing:
• Culture should be seen as a resource.

• Culture as a knowledge resource is (Ib., p. 317–318) ‘globally scat-
tered, but awkwardly local’ (Holden, 2002).
• The way knowledge is transferred, whether conscious or unconscious,
planned or unplanned, depends on the knowledge-sharing style.
• The way knowledge is transferred from a cultural source is part of the
knowledge that is received.
These propositions also represent a good starting point from which to

enhance understanding of the dynamics and mechanisms of inter-cultural
knowledge sharing processes in MNCs and beyond, which will be the
subject of the next chapter.
Notes
1. Oxford dictionary online: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
philosophy
References
Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science.
58 F. Maimone
corporation. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Bell, D. (1999). The axial age of technology foreword: 1999. In D. Bell (Ed.),
The coming of the post industrial society (Special Anniversary ed., pp. ix–lxxxv).
New York: Basic Books.
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002).
Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge:
An integrative framework. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2),
204–221.
Bierly, P. E., III, Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational
learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 13(6), 595–618.
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An over-
view and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046.
Bohm, D. (2006). Unfolding meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy,
society, and culture (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
Cilliers, P. (2000). Knowledge, complexity, and understanding. Emergence, A
Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and Management, 2(4), 7–13.
Coffield, F. (2002). A new strategy for learning and skills: Beyond 101 initiatives.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Department of Education, University of Newcastle.
Collins, H. M. (1993). The structure of knowledge. Social Research, 60(1),
95–16.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations
manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Eco, U. (2011). Lector in fabula: la cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narra-
tivi. Giunti.
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge manage-
ment. California Management Review, 40(3), 265–276.
Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method (2nd ed.). London: Sheed & Ward.
Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in orga-
nizations. Organanization, 7(2), 329–349.
Gherardi, S. (2001). From organizational learning to practice-based knowing.
Human Relations, 54(1), 131–139.
Gherardi, S. (2010). Telemedicine: A practice-based approach to technology.
Glisby, M., & Holden, N. (2003). Contextual constraints in knowledge man-

agement theory: The cultural embeddedness of Nonaka’s knowledge-creating
company. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(1), 29–36.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Greathead, D. (2008). MBTI personality type and student code comprehension
skill. Proc. 20th Work. Psychol, 13.
Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing val-
ues, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Holden, N. J. (2002). Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management per-
spective. Harlow: Financial Times and Prentice-Hall.
Holden, N. J., & Tansley, C. (2007). Culturally distinctive manifestations in
international knowledge management: A historical perspective. International
Journal of Advanced Media and Communication, 1(4), 313–327.
Hong, J. F. (2012). Glocalizing Nonaka’s knowledge creation model: Issues and
challenges. Management Learning, 43(2), 199–215.
James, W. 1950. The principles of psychology. 2 vols. New York: Henry Holt and
Co. Reprint.
Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. R. (2004). Bringing space back in: Organizing the
generative building. Organization Studies, 25(7), 1095–1114.
Korzybski, A. (1948). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian sys-
tems and general semantics (3rd ed.). Lakeville, CT: The Internal Non-
Aristotelian Library.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-
tion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and
identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (Vol. 142). Oxford: Blackwell.
Luhmann, N. (1995). The paradoxy of observing systems. Cultural Critique, 31,
37–55.
Macintyre, A. (1985). After virtue (2nd ed.). London: Duckworth.
gestire la conoscenza nelle organizzazioni flessibili. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Maimone, F., & Sinclair, M. (2010). Affective climate, organizational creativity
and knowledge creation: Case study of an automotive company. In W. J.
Zerbe, C. Härtel, & N. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Research on emotions in organiza-
tions (Vol. 6, pp. 309–332). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
60 F. Maimone
Maimone, F., & Sinclair, M. (2014). Dancing in the dark: Creativity, knowledge
creation and (emergent) organizational change. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 27(2), 344–361.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Maturana, H. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history
of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics & Human
Knowing, 9(3–4), 5–34.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht:
D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1988). The tree of knowledge. Boston: New Science.
Michailova, S., & Hutchings, K. (2006). National cultural influences on knowl-
edge sharing: A comparison of China and Russia. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(3), 383–405.
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Knowing in organizations: A
practice-based approach. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and sys-
tems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review,
108(2), 291.
Nishida, K. (1970). Fundamental problems of philosophy. Tokyo: Sophia University.
Nonaka, I. (1991, November–December). The knowledge creating company.
Harvard Business Review, 69–104.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How
Japanese companies creates the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited:
Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–10.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Hirata, T. (2008). Managing flow: A process theory of
the knowledge-based firm. Springer.
Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective—Tacit knowledge and knowl-
edge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge
creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.
Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge
creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization
Studies, 27(8), 1179–1208.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City: Doubleday.

Rai, R. K. (2011). Knowledge management and organizational culture: A theo-
retical integrative framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(5),
779–801.
Rogers, E. M., Medina, U. E., Rivera, M. A., & Wiley, C. J. (2005). Complex
adaptive systems and the diffusion of innovations. The Innovation Journal:
The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 10(3), 1–26.
Ryles, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2006).
Neuroeconomics: Cross-currents in research on decision-making. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 108–116.
Shimizu, H. (1995). Ba-principle: New logic for the real-time emergence of
information. Holonics, 5(1), 67–79.
Siebert, S., Mills, V., & Tuff, C. (2009). Pedagogy of work-based learning: The
role of the learning group. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(6), 443–454.
Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded eco-
nomic reason (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sinclair, M. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of intuition research. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Sinclair, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Intuition: Myth or a decision-making
tool? Management Learning, 36(3), 353–370.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: Three
concepts in search of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
9(1), 63–78.
Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (2004). Knowledge creation and dialectics. In
H. Takeuchi & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Hitotsubashi on knowledge management.
Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
Reviews, 14(2), 180–200.
Tregaskis, O., Edwards, T., Edwards, P., Ferner, A., & Marginson, P. (2010).
Transnational learning structures in multinational firms: Organizational con-
text and national embeddedness. Human Relations, 63(4), 471–499.
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in
global business. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?
Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973–993.
62 F. Maimone
Vance, D. M. (1997). Information, knowledge and wisdom: The epistemic hier-
archy and computer-based information system. Proceedings of the 1997
America’s Conference on Information Systems, August 1997.
Von Foester, H. (1984). Observing systems. Intersystems Publications.
Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management
Review, 40(3), 133–153.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological pro-
cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the pro-
cess of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yeung, H. W.-C. (2005). Organizational space: A new frontier in international
business strategy? Critical Perspectives on International Business,1, 219–240.
Young, G. (1997). Adult development, therapy, and culture: A postmodern synthe-
sis. New York: Plenum Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities
of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
4
Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing
in MNCs: Toward a Complex
and Dynamic Model
4.1 M
erchants, Sailors, Missionaries,
Samurais and Nerds: The Never-ending
History of Inter-cultural Knowledge
Sharing
Trans-national knowledge sharing is not a specific product of the con-
temporary era. Il milione, the novel written by Rustichello da Pisa on
behalf of the Venetian merchant Marco Polo, was not only a travel story,
but also a romanticized testimony to the establishment of centuries-old
commerce between Europe and China via the Silk Road. This connection
was established and maintained through the contribution of merchants
and missionaries, like the Jesuit Matteo Ricci (see De Caro & Spadaro,
2016), who in 1600 succeeded in winning the trust of mandarins and
intellectuals of the Ming Court. He settled down in Peking and con-
structed long, fruitful relations with the functionaries of the Chinese
Empire. The fruits of this exchange are still present in our everyday life.
For example, the compass and paper (also used to produce the printed
version of this book) were invented by the Chinese and (reportedly)
introduced into Africa and Europe by the Arabs.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57297-0_4
64 F. Maimone
The French historian Fernand Braudel (1992) claimed that the discov-
ery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus was made possible by the
use of a special kind of boat, the caravel, which was the result of the
knowledge exchange between Northern European and Mediterranean
naval traditions, fostered by maritime trade relations. According to
Braudel (Ib., p. 405): ‘The Portuguese caravel, dating from about 1403,
was the issue of this marriage of North and South. It was a small clinker-
built sailing ship with centreline rudder, three masts, two square sails and
one lateen sail.’
Even though knowledge exchange among social groups is probably as
old as humankind, the contemporary epoch is considered the knowledge
age. Global knowledge flows have probably never been so extended and
pervasive as now. This is also thanks to the development of the Internet,
which is the very result of a trans-national exchange of knowledge. In
fact, the birth of the Internet was the result of the research carried out by
the DARPA, a US military research agency that developed the ARPANET
Project, along with universities, public and private research centres. The
ARPANET project was originally intended for the design and set-up of a
digital non-hierarchical network, capable of maintaining communica-
tions among the vital nodes of the US military/civil system, even in a
nuclear attack.1 Nevertheless, the HTML, URL and HTTP technologies
that make the system work were invented by the British computer scien-
tist Sir Tim Berners-Lee, at CERN in Geneva.2 The Internet is thus the
result of the collaboration between a specific kind of inter-continental
‘nerd connection’, facilitated by governmental and non-governmental
institutions and by an international organization: CERN.
The historical events described above also show the key elements of
glocal knowledge sharing: local knowledge is exchanged through direct
and indirect interaction, across physical and digital boundaries, and pro-
duces new knowledge that may have a global impact. In some cases,
knowledge can already be global (in the case of the creation of the
Internet, CERN was already a global organization). In other cases, as
happened in the case of the discovery of the Americas, the knowledge
used by the carpenters to build caravels and by Christopher Columbus to
plot the course to ‘India’ is trans-local (e.g. the result of inter-exchange
among different regions and in the case of Columbus, European regions).
Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCs: Toward a Complex... 65
This exchange is creative because the result is not simply a transfer of

knowledge; it implies the enactment of a transformational process that
could lead to multiple (and therefore differentiated) outcomes. As the
example of Italian pizza (referred to in this book’s introductory chapter)
shows, local knowledge (in this case the material culture and the know-
how embodied in the cooking of the popular Italian food) may become
global and lead to several variations (and, in the case of pizza, satisfying a
range of cooking traditions and tastes).
Knowledge sharing is more than sharing. It entails the enactment of
transformational processes. When it encompasses inter-cultural exchange,
knowledge sharing may require the translation from one linguistic/cultural
milieu to another, and facilitate cultural contamination and hybridization.
For example, the main statistical concepts that inspired total quality
management (TQM) were elaborated by the US scholars Crosby, Deming,
Feigenbaum and Juran (Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst, & Dale, 1998), but
were assimilated by Japanese management, giving place to an original and
undoubtedly made-in-Japan approach to quality control, cost reduction
and continuous improvement (see Powell, 1995). TQM, in the specific
version elaborated by Toyota, became the Toyota production system, a mix
of organization, management, engineering and, to a certain degree, philo-
sophical and metaphysical spirit (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006), strongly
grounded on Japanese culture (see Recht & Wilderom, 1998).
Inter-cultural knowledge sharing may be considered a creative process,
since the knowledge is not simply transmitted but re-interpreted, adapted
(and therefore localized) and re-elaborated by culturally diverse actors.
Sometimes, the combination of existing knowledge may lead to very inno-
vative results. Perfumes, for example, were, presumably, invented by
Egyptians, who utilized scents for religious ceremonies, burial rituals and
everyday life. The art of perfume was then transformed into an industry in
Paris, considered the capital of the scent industry, as Patrick Suskind’s best
seller Perfume reminds us. Nevertheless, according to the Wall Street Journal
(Giovannoni, 2015): ‘Yet an Italian and an authentic Tuscan princess,
Caterina dei Medici, was the one to launch this fashion when moving with
her court to Paris in the fourteenth century. Not only had she dragged
along all her master chefs from Florence but also her perfumer Renato or
so-called “René the Nose.”’ Nevertheless, the famous five drops of the
66 F. Maimone
French scent that contributed to transforming Marilyn Monroe into a pop

icon were the result of the sophisticated taste, skilful artisanship and cre-
ativity of the French perfume makers who worked for Madame Coco
Chanel. Moreover, the luxury handmade ties sold by the Marinella bou-
tique in Naples, which are worn by businessmen, political leaders and
members of the jet set all over the world, are made of silk produced in the
UK and tailored in Naples. One of the most renowned Italian brands, the
symbol of Italian style and elegance, is actually the outcome of the encoun-
ter between the British tie tradition and Italian artisanship and design.
Finally, in order to cope with inter-cultural knowledge sharing, the
adoption of a complex and pluralistic approach is suggested (Lowe,
Magala, & Hwang, 2012).
4.2 T
he Process of Inter-cultural Knowledge
Sharing
As was pointed out above, knowledge is a critical resource for the perfor-
mance of (not only) MNCs (Holden, 2002, Mudambi, 2002; Phene &
Almeida, 2008).
According to Foss and Pedersen (2002, p. 50): ‘It is widely accepted in the
literature that the MNC owes its existence to its superior ability (relative to
markets) to transfer knowledge and that this superior ability may at the same
time be a source of competitive advantage (relative to purely domestic firms).’
Bollinger and Smith (2001) claimed that knowledge, according to the
resource-based view (Barney, 2001; Grant, 1996; Penrose, 1995), is a
strategic resource. Therefore knowledge sharing should be considered a
key process for the competitive advantage of MNCs, and particularly for
the success of global companies that implement a glocal strategy.
Moreover, as claimed by Nonaka and colleagues (Nonaka & Tackeuchi,
1995), it is possible to assume that MNCs are knowledge-based organiza-
tions (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005; Nonaka, Toyama, & Hirata, 2008;
Nonaka, Toyama & Nagata, 2000).
Nevertheless, organizational knowledge may be considered as some-
thing more than a resource (i.e. a scarce finite good that can be stocked
and transferred at convenience). If we adopt the dynamic, dialogical and
transformative perspective proposed by Nonaka and colleagues (Nonaka

& Toyama, 2002), then knowledge sharing may be considered a real
driver for the success of MNCs.
The process of knowing involves either knowledge creation or knowl-
edge sharing, entrenched in an evolutionary process based on two prem-
ises: (a) knowledge creation and knowledge sharing are two sides of the
same coin, since in organizational terms, knowledge is effective only
when it is shared; and (b) knowledge sharing is also a form of transforma-
tion and therefore creation of knowledge.
The theoretical premises illustrated above can also be applied to inter-
cultural knowledge sharing. Vespa, the iconic scooter produced by the Italian
company Piaggio and featured in the movie Roman Holiday, was designed by
Corradino D’Ascanio, an Italian aircraft engineer. Very few know that the
idea of the Vespa (‘wasp’, in English) was inspired (see Glancey, 2013) by the
Cushman Model 53 Airborne Scooter, a motor scooter used by US Army
troops during the Second World War. Piaggio thus took the idea of a cheap
and very maneuverable motor scooter from a US military vehicle. Thanks to
the creativity and the local knowledge of Italian engineers, the concept
became one of the most popular objects in the history of Italian design.
The history of the Mercedes Smart car is another example of glocal
knowledge sharing.3 The Smart car project was born from the collabora-
tion between Werner Niefer, the chairman of the Board of Management
of Mercedes-Benz AG, and Nicolas G. Hayek, the American-Lebanese
mathematician and physician who revitalized the Swiss Corporation for
Microelectronics and Watchmaking Industries, best known as the Swatch
Group. Mr Hayek was convinced that the manufacturing strategies he
had developed for the Swiss Company, in the 1980s, could also be applied
to the large-scale production of small cars. Hayek, therefore, wished to
apply the modular philosophy adopted for the production of Swatch
watches to small cars. The joint venture did not last long since there were
too many conflicts of interest and disagreements between Hayek and the
Mercedes management. The Smart car eventually became a Mercedes-
Benz product, but some ideas proposed by Hayek, and especially the
modular design philosophy, had a strong impact on the product concept
and design. Hayek’s conceptual and technical knowledge was translated
by German designers and engineers, integrated with local knowledge and
68 F. Maimone
transformed into something unique (translation, localization and trans-

formation). This process was extremely dynamic and conflictual, but led
to the production of a very innovative and successful car.
4.3 T
he Cycle of Knowledge and
Inter-Cultural Dynamics
The so-called SECI model (Nonaka & Konno, 1998) is the most popular
and globally recognized theory of knowledge exchange and, consequently,
it is considered a meta-theory of knowledge sharing.
The model elaborated by Nonaka and colleagues (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995) is aimed at describing knowledge sharing in terms of knowledge
conversion (i.e. a dynamic and social process that entails the continuous
transformation of tacit/explicit knowledge). SECI is an acronym that
stands for socialization, externalization, combination and internalization,
the four phases of the cycle of knowledge (Ib.). The model is illustrated
in the figure below (see Fig. 4.1).
• Tacit • Explicit
Externalization
Socialization
(tacit to
(tacit to tacit)
explicit)
Internalization Combination
(implicit to (Explicit to
implicit) explicit)
• Tacit • Explicit
Fig. 4.1 SECI model (Source: adapted from Nonaka & Konno, 1998)
As pointed out in the previous chapter, tacit knowledge is a type of

personal knowledge embedded in the mind, heart and body (1967).
According to the authors, knowledge is created and shared in ba
(knowledge spaces). These spaces may be also knowledge networks, espe-
cially in this age of social media (see Fig. 4.1).
As shown in the figure above, the main phases of the cycle of knowl-
edge are described as follows:
–– Socialization is the process that allows tacit-to-tacit knowledge
sharing. Tacit knowledge pertains to the sphere of intuitive semi-
conscious (not codified) knowledge and is therefore very difficult
to communicate. If you want to teach your children to ride a bicy-
cle, simply telling them how to do it (verbally) is insufficient. The
only way to help them learn to ride a bicycle is to physically show
them how to do it over and over again, and then make them do it,
usually adopting a trial and error approach. The learning path nec-
essarily involves many falls from the bicycle and a good number of
lessons learned from painful errors. More or less the same process
is involved if the object of learning is a new technical skill/expertise
(see Adachi, 2011). Socialization may be achieved through imita-
tion (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and ‘through narration, experi-
mentation, and joint execution in an organization or beyond
organizations’ (Adachi, 2011, p. 22). Moreover, social interaction,
informal communication and storytelling (see Hildreth, Kimble,
& Wright, 2000) are usually considered the best ways to facilitate
experience sharing in the workplace. The community of practices
(Wenger, 1998) is a typical example of social realities, aimed at
facilitating the socialization of knowledge. It is questionable
whether tacit knowledge sharing also occurs in virtual environ-
ments—namely, inside and outside digital media (see Augier &
Thanning Vendelø, 1999). According to Panahi, Watson, and
Partridge (2012), social media may facilitate tacit knowledge shar-
ing under certain conditions (see also Panahi, Watson, & Partridge,
2012; Tee & Karney, 2010).
70 F. Maimone
–– Externalization is the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit

(codified) knowledge. As already pointed out, tacit knowledge is
very difficult to articulate and, consequently, explicitly communi-
cate. Polanyi was pessimistic about the possibility of converting
tacit into explicit knowledge (see Nonaka & Von Krogh, 2009;
Polanyi, 1967; Tsoukas, 2003), particularly since he refused to con-
sider tacit and explicit knowledge as distinct objects (Polanyi, 1967).
In fact, he (Ib.) assumed that every type of knowledge had an
explicit and a tacit component. Meetings, brainstorming, individ-
ual and group interviews, online communities and social networks
may foster the conversion of implicit knowledge into explicit
knowledge. The result may be something more than the simple sum
of individual knowledge, as gestalt and general systems theories
explain (see Von Bertalanffy, 1972). Also in this case, knowledge
conversion is a transformative process.
–– Combination is the conversion of explicit knowledge into other
explicit knowledge. The question of the neutrality of this process is
once again a tricky argument: Does a form of explicit knowledge
exist that could be considered objective? The answer to this ques-
tion is arguably ‘not at all’, meaning explicit knowledge is neither
universal nor objective: Every codified piece of information, and
therefore also codified knowledge, is interpretable and, conse-
quently, situated, contextualized, subjective and inter-subjective.
The combination of explicit knowledge is traditionally the main
function of (traditional) knowledge management (see Davenport &
Prusak, 1998). Every time a research engine retrieves information
from a database and provides a summary and/or map of that infor-
mation, a combination process is enacted. In the digital age, the
knowledge manager has the opportunity to use sophisticated sys-
tems and tools to find and re-elaborate knowledge. Neural net-
works, big data analytics and artificial intelligence are powerful
tools that enable the synthesis and re-elaboration of big sets of data.
It is important to consider that, at least at the moment, artificial
intelligence cannot replace human intelligence entirely (see
Koltuksuz & Tekir, 2006): The recent failures in the fight against
the Jihadist global threat has arguably shown that technology-based
intelligence cannot completely replace human-based intelligence

(see NATO COE-DAT, 2014).
–– Internalization is the conversion of explicit knowledge into implicit
knowledge. This process, according to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
may be facilitated by the elaboration of documents and manuals
that report what the members of a team and/or a project have actu-
ally experienced when tackling a specific activity. The wiki is a digi-
tal tool that may be used to facilitate internalization (not only) in
project environments (see Fitzgerald & Findlay, 2011). In the digi-
tal age, multimedia objects and social networks may facilitate this
process, along with training.
The SECI model is a made-in-Japan theory (Nonaka & Holden, 2007)
that presumes the social and contextual nature of knowledge, as shown in
the previous chapter. The creation and sharing of new knowledge occurs
within ba or knowledge space (see previous chapter) and requires a social
process of legitimization. In other words, according to Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995), organizational knowledge is a ‘dynamic human process
of justifying personal belief, toward the “truth”’. Moreover, knowledge
(Nonaka et al., 2000, p. 2) is ‘context-specific, relational, dynamic and
humanistic’. From this perspective, the product of individual contribu-
tions is shared within social/collective contexts and needs to be legiti-
mated (i.e. justified as true knowledge) by the same social context. Ba,
according to Nonaka (Ib.), ‘is a place where information is given m eaning,
through interpretation, to become knowledge and new knowledge is cre-
ated through the change of the meaning and the context’. Therefore (Ib.),
knowledge conversion is a process that involves cognition and action and
also requires the sharing of a common epistemic framework.
The conversion process can be described as a sort of spiral of knowledge
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). As illustrated in the figure below (see Fig. 4.2).
As Nonaka, Toyama and Konno pointed out (2000, p. 12), ‘This inter-
active spiral process takes place both intra- and inter-organisationally.
Knowledge is transferred beyond organisational boundaries, and knowl-
edge from different organisations interacts to create new knowledge.’
Glisby and Holden(2003) and Holden and Tansley (2007), among oth-
ers, argued that the SECI model (Nonaka & Konno, 1998) is culturally
72 F. Maimone
Epistemological
dimension
Explicit
Knowledge
Externalizaon
Combinaon
Socializaon
Internalizaon
Ontological
dimension
Tacit Individual Team Organizaon Inter-
Knowledge organizaonal
exchange
Organizaonal
level
Fig. 4.2 The spiral of knowledge (Source: adapted from Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995)
bound and represents Japanese management’s typical approach to knowl-

edge sharing. In particular, the cultural embeddedness of the SECI model
is shown, according to Glisby and Holden (2003), by the external knowl-
edge-sharing focus of the model elaborated by Nonaka and colleagues. In
fact, the authors (Ib., pp. 30–31) argued: ‘The frequent and intensive shar-
ing of tacit and explicit knowledge among firms is dependent on the exis-
tence of tremendously strong inter-corporate networks, which have
characterized Japanese business behaviour both before and after the explo-
sion of Japanese economy, in 1989.’ More generally, the same authors (Ib.)
assumed that the SECI model is very difficult to implement in a non-
Japanese company.
Therefore, it is assumed there is also a cross-cultural side to the model,
which needs to be considered, taking the pros and the cons of the theo-
retical perspective into account.
The theoretical stance proposed by Nonaka and colleagues (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995) may be criticized for several reasons. First of all, the
creation of new knowledge is not necessarily an individual process: As
happens in the realm of scientific research, innovation and the same cre-
ativity could be also the product of collective phenomena (see Maimone

& Sinclair, 2010; Sun, Jie, Wang, Xue, & Liu, 2016). It is also worth
considering that not all knowledge is fully conscious. In particular, tacit
(personal) knowledge is very often created under the threshold of aware-
ness and, therefore, some type of knowledge may be shared without the
full consciousness of the social actors. Community of practices, for
example, typically involves emerging of forms of unconscious/semi-con-
scious knowledge, embedded in organizational practices (Gherardi,
2001).
Furthermore, knowledge exchange is selective: People are more likely
to recognize, give value to and retain information and knowledge that are
closer to the knowledge they already possess, and to their schemata and
cultural frameworks. To acquire new knowledge, it is necessary to recog-
nize it and understand the key features of it, at least as far as concerns
explicit knowledge. And the well-known phenomenon of cognitive dis-
sonance (Festinger, 1957) is a powerful obstacle for the acquisition of
knowledge that is highly diverse.
Not necessarily all shared knowledge is explicitly legitimated. For
example, social practices may be shared within a work group without an
explicit collective process of judgement. In fact, not all knowledge embed-
ded in social practices is poised at the level of awareness. Wenger (Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) suggested that to ‘cultivate’ a community
of practices (CoP), it is necessary to foster the level of awareness of CoP
members of the dominium (i.e. of the body of knowledge of their com-
munity of practice), enacting a specific facilitation process.
The process of legitimating, especially in Western countries, is not
always based on explicit-collective processes, as it is presumed to be by
the SECI model. It could be, instead, implicit and value/paradigm
based or simply hierarchical (i.e. based on organizational status and/or
power) (see Inglehart, Basanez, & Moreno, 1998; Schein, 1985;
Schwartz, 1999). Value/paradigm-based judgement is very often uncon-
scious. Individuals and teams evaluate situations and events based on
their semi-conscious values and paradigms (Schein, 1990). This process
may be partially or totally unconscious. David Foster Wallace’s brilliant
and illuminating speech at Kenyon College in 2005 is a good metaphor
for the hidden dynamics that influence human cognition and behaviour
74 F. Maimone
(Krajeski, 2008): ‘There are these two young fish swimming along, and
they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods
at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two
young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks
over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”’ Fish don’t know
they are swimming in water and humans are not always aware of the
values, paradigms and deep assumptions that affect their judgement at
the individual and collective level—and this is not restricted to the
legitimacy of new knowledge.
New knowledge is sometimes created in a serendipitous manner and
triggered by the so-called insight driven by intuition, a complex and
definitely implicit process. According to Sanfey, Loewenstein, McClure,
and Cohen (2006, p. 111): ‘Human behaviour is not the product of a
single process, but rather reflects the interaction of different specialized
subsystems. Although most of the time these systems interact synergis-
tically to determine behaviour, at times they compete, producing differ-
ent dispositions towards the same information.’ The contribution of
psychology and neurosciences to decision-making theory led to the rec-
ognition of two parallel decision systems (Ib.): (a) system 1 which
includes automatic and non-conscious processes, and (b) system 2
which includes controlled rational processes based on judgement and
rational choice. Sinclair and Ashkanasy (2005, p. 7) defined intuition
as ‘a non-sequential information processing mode, which comprises
both cognitive and affective elements and results in direct knowing
without any use of conscious reasoning’. Moreover, according Sinclair
(2011, p. 5) it is possible to distinguish two kinds of intuition pro-
cesses: (a) inferential processing, consisting of automated responses
based on a quick recognition of memory patterns accumulated through
experience; and (b) holistic processing, based on jigsaw non-sequential
patterns (Sinclair & Ashkanasy, 2005). Therefore, it is possible to
assume there is also a collective (social) type of intuition and that, argu-
ably, intuitive knowledge is shared differently from analytic, concep-
tual, explicit knowledge (see Maimone & Sinclair, 2014).
As was pointed out in the previous chapter, explicit and tacit knowl-
edge should be seen in a holistic fashion and therefore it is very difficult
to distinguish them in operational terms. As Nonaka and Peltokorpi
(2006, p. 76) argued, ‘Scholars, drawing from interpretative philoso-

phies, propose that strict categorization of knowledge is impossible
because of its holistic nature (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998; Tsoukas, 1996).’ Therefore, it is argued that knowledge
may be also the outcome of collective dynamics and thus the result of
social construction (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998; Tsoukas, 1996).
The SECI model (Nonaka, 1994), then, prefigures that companies,
to become one unique ba, should integrate individual knowledge at
team and organization levels and assure the connection between the
different knowledge spaces existing within the company. Therefore, the
made-in-Japan theory proposed by Nonaka and colleagues assumes
that organizations are consistent and integrated communities (see
Ouchi, 1980). This is, arguably, the most critical point of SECI theory.
In fact, contemporary organizations are very often flexible (Volberda,
1996) and networked (Magala, 2000) organizations. They may be seen
as organizational constellations (Maimone, 2007, 2017), characterized
by a cluster of social entities (team, units, divisions, professional and
personal networks, and the like) that are partially interconnected by
(physical and digital) social networks. This type of organization is
often united by a ‘soft glue’, a kind of kernel culture (Maimone &
Mormino, 2012) that assures a little bit of equifinality (i.e. the capac-
ity of different parts of the organization to aim at the same goals),
and by coordination mechanisms that also involve mutual adjustment
(Mintzberg, 1979)—namely, communication and informal relations
(Maimone, 2007). Nevertheless, the level of integration is not neces-
sarily strong enough to guarantee that an organization works as an
unique knowledge space. Hybridization and multiplicity characterizes
contemporary organizations (Bergquist, 1994; Malizia, 2017).
According to Malizia (Ib., p. 3),
within post-modern organizations may be observed a multiplicity of:
• Cultural programmes;
• Strategies and social structures;
• Identities ‘in-search-of-an-author’;
• Values and norms, and so on.
76 F. Maimone
Therefore, the concept of ‘one organization, one ba’ may be rather

utopian. The chain of negative events that caused the space shuttle
Columbia disaster is, arguably a tragic example of the fragmentation of
contemporary workplace and of the complexity of the knowledge
sharing process. Dunbar and Garud (2009) reported the result of a
study based on the analysis of data gathered by the independent com-
mission that investigated the disaster. The incident happened on the
1st of February 2003 and led to the death of seven astronauts and the
destruction of the spacecraft. The disaster was caused by human error.
NASA’s management underestimated the relevance of certain infor-
mation reported by a technical commission. It concerned the safety
risk associated with design flaws in a special insulating foam that cov-
ered the surface of the shuttle to protect it from elevated temperatures
produced by atmospheric friction during the spacecraft’s return to
Earth. According to the conclusions of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, the official commission in charge of investigating
the causes of the disaster (CAIB, 2003, p. 170): ‘Management deci-
sions made during Columbia’s final flight reflect missed opportunities,
blocked or ineffective communications channels, flawed analysis, and
ineffective leadership.’ Dunbar and Garud (2009) presumed that the
Columbia disaster was due to the conflict between the two different
information categories of meeting scheduling and safety management:
A few teams gave priority and relevance to time management and effi-
ciency while others privileged safety management. This c onflict was
fostered by interpretive indeterminacy, since no unique significance
was attributed to the event under assessment. Therefore, according to
the authors (Ib.), the incident was caused by conflicting interpreta-
tions of distributed knowledge, due to the contemporaneous enact-
ment of two distinct and parallel information categorization and
sense-making processes that affected decision making at individual,
team and hierarchical levels. The Columbia incident showed that orga-
nizational knowledge sharing may follow divergent and conflicting
paths and can lead to dramatic failures in the process of justifying
‘true’ knowledge.
The Columbia incident, furthermore, showed that knowledge may be
ambiguous (Alvesson, 1993). According to Alvesson (Ib., p. 1003):
‘Ambiguity means that the possibility of rationality—clarifying means-ends

relationships or exercising qualified judgment—becomes seriously reduced.’
Knowledge, then, may also become a form of institutionalized myth.
Institutionalized myths have two main characteristics (Ib., p. 1003): ‘They
are rationalized and impersonal prescriptions which identify various social
purposes as technical ones and they specify means to pursue these purposes,
and they are highly institutionalized, i.e. are taken-for-granted as legiti-
mate.’ Therefore, organizational knowledge has also rhetorical and ideo-
logical dimensions; it is related to social, political and organizational
struggles and it is never neutral, as functionalist models seem to presume.
Consideration should be given to the fact that the myth of ‘open
knowledge’ is very difficult to achieve. First of all, not all knowledge is
shareable. Confidential information, including knowledge related to
copyright, patent licensing and strategic initiatives, cannot be exchanged
with everybody in the world.
In many cultures, information and knowledge exchange is based on
affiliative relations (see Hall, 1976). Not every place is like California,
or Finland, and not all people are willing to share their knowledge
with everybody. Therefore, sometimes, knowledge circulates through
semi-closed clusters, based on personal affiliation, mutual trust and
power alliances. Moreover, even now, many people (inside and out-
side organizational boundaries) believe that knowledge is power and
should be shared only with certain persons for tactical and strategic
reasons—for example, to exchange favours or to achieve some per-
sonal advantage. Also in this case, the modalities of knowledge shar-
ing may be very different from the model proposed by Nonaka et al.
(2005).
Knowledge sharing, then, as illustrated in the last paragraph, is also
influenced by homophilic relations and, therefore, it may occur through
culture-bound personal networks (see Ibarra, Kilduff, & Tsai, 2005).
Like seeks like, and this also occurs in knowledge sharing and is true even
for cultural identity and/or closeness.
Finally, it is argued that a network society is a society of lobbies and
cliques. Lobbies and cliques, which exist inside and outside organiza-
tional boundaries, may enact strategic knowledge brokerage to gain
power and particular advantages for their affiliates. Sometimes, this pro-
78 F. Maimone
cess may become self-referential, going far beyond organizational aims

and becoming a means of discrimination and exclusion—and not only in
terms of the knowing process.
For these reasons too, the ideal of a unique ba is very often extremely
difficult to achieve in real-life MNCs.
These critical elements of the SECI model are also crucial for the com-
prehension of the mechanisms of inter-cultural knowledge sharing. In
fact, the legitimization process and the similar orientation toward indi-
vidual/collective innovation and knowledge creation processes are influ-
enced by cultural background and may impact inter-cultural dynamics.
As Glisby and Holden argued (2003, p. 36), the SECI model should
be conceived for non-Japanese firms ‘as a map rather than as a model; or
perhaps as a special kind of mirror, which allows us to see ourselves and
our knowledge management practices in new ways that may suggest
direction for change’.
4.4 Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing

as a Form of Knowledge Translation/
Transformation?
Holden (2002) assumed that the process of inter-cultural knowledge
transfer can be considered as a process of translation (i.e. an intra/inter-
organizational negotiation and cultural-linguistic systems shift process
that permits the cross-dissemination of knowledge among different
national/ethnic cultural groups). According to Holden and Glisby
(2010a), articulation is fundamental to allowing the inclusion of tacit
knowledge in the wider knowledge capital of the organization and lan-
guage plays a fundamental role.
Holden and Glisby (Ib., p. 67) elaborated the model of the knowledge
management golden triangle to describe how the three critical factors of
knowledge management, language and tacit knowledge interplay. The
model is illustrated in the figure below (see Fig. 4.3).
The model proposed by Holden and Glisby is based on the triangula-
tion of knowledge management, language and tacit knowledge. Tacit
Knowledge
Management Organizational
contexts
Interplay of Creation of
tacit and common
explicit cognitive
knowledge groud
Tacit Knowledge Language
Articulation
Fig. 4.3 The golden triangle of knowledge management (Source: adapted from Holden & Glisby, 2010a)
Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCs: Toward a Complex...
79
80 F. Maimone
knowledge, to be included in a knowledge management system, needs to

be articulated through language.
Articulation, according Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno (2000), is based
on ‘dialoguing ba’(Ib., p. 17), which ‘is defined by collective and face-to-
face interactions. It is the place where individuals’ mental models and skills
are shared, converted into common terms, and articulated as concepts.
Hence, dialoguing ba mainly offers a context for externalisation. Individuals’
tacit knowledge is shared and articulated through dialogues amongst par-
ticipants. The articulated knowledge is also brought back into each indi-
vidual, and further articulation occurs through self-reflection.’
Articulation of knowledge has two main aspects (Prencipe & Tell,
2001; Zollo & Winter, 2002): (a) the construction of a (shared) context
for justification/legitimating, and (b) the enactment of a cognitive pro-
cess that includes deliberation and implies that individuals and groups
formulate assumptions on causalities and feasibilities in performing dif-
ferent tasks.
Moreover, according Holden and Glisby (2010b, p. 303):
a) tacit knowledge is cross-culturally created at all manner of interfaces; b)

it acts as a subliminal influence on relationships; c) language and cultural
factors ‘shape’ this knowledge.
Holden (2002), moreover, considers culture and knowledge as practi-

cally equivalent (Ib.), so the concept of translation can also be applied to
cultural dynamics. Nevertheless, it could be argued that not all knowl-
edge is part of a specific culture. Usually, new knowledge becomes part of
the cultural system of an organization only some time after it has been
created. In some cases, while a piece of knowledge is part of one organi-
zational sub-culture, it is not shared by the whole organization. Therefore,
it is argued, knowledge and culture are strongly interrelated, even though
it is very difficult to distinguish them, in theoretical and operational
terms. So, even when the former and the latter overlap, they are not nec-
essarily the same thing. New knowledge may become culture as far it is
diffused, crystallized and transmitted from generation to generation
through acculturation processes (see Schein, 1985; Alvesson, 1993;
Malizia, 1998).
According to Holden and Glisby (2010a, p. 74): ‘Translation is indeed

a kind of knowledge conversion that seeks to create common cognitive
ground among people, for whom differences in language are hindrance to
comprehension.’ Translation is therefore also a ‘form of knowledge modi-
fication’ (Ib., p. 78).
Furthermore, as Holden and Von Kortzfleisch (2004, p. 53) argued:
‘Translation in the sense of transposing a text in one language in terms
of another is a notable form of converting tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge.’ Holden and Glisby (2010a) point to the role of relations
in the process of translation. According to these authors (Ib., p. 98):
‘Protagonists in cross-cultural business interaction consciously and
unconsciously co-create a relationship-specific kind of tacit knowl-
edge.’ This kind of relational tacit knowledge (Ib.) is based on mutual
trust, a conducive working atmosphere, motivation and values. The
process of translation is affected (Ib., 2010, p. 82) by ‘ambiguity, cul-
tural interference, and lack of equivalence among languages in
interplay’.
It is possible to argue that knowledge and therefore culture are not
only a matter of text (i.e. verbal language). As was suggested by Schein
(1985), culture is also made of ‘assumptions’, deep schemata that oper-
ate mainly at the pre-conscious and subconscious level. Then, as the
concept of ‘tacit knowledge’ proposed by Polanyi (1967) presumes, a
relevant part of our knowledge is personal, implicit and related not only
to symbols, mental schemes, codes and values, but also to body schemes
and affective memories. Therefore, the concept of translation could be
conceived, adhering to the etymology of the word (that comes from the
Latin trānslātus, meaning ‘transferred’), as a form of transition, in this
case from one knowledge/cultural system to another. This transition,
according to the SECI model (Nonaka, 1994), is also a form of conver-
sion, since the knowledge that is ‘translated’ may assume different forms
even though, from the critical perspective illustrated in the previous
paragraphs, this process may involve contemporaneous tacit and explicit
knowledge since the latter usually also contains a bit of the former and
it is arguably more correct to consider tacit and explicit knowledge as the
yin and the yang of knowledge, the two faces of the same coin. Moreover,
it is not to be taken for granted that this process of conversion always
82 F. Maimone
follows the model elaborated by Nonaka and colleagues (Nonaka &

Takeuchi, 1995).
As it was pointed out by Nonaka (1994), knowledge conversion is also
a kind of transformation (i.e. change). Knowledge transformation is con-
sequent to the same type of communication that is strictly related to
encoding and decoding processes. According to Eco (1990), interpreta-
tion is never neutral. Every language (textual, visual, audio, multimedia
and even para-verbal and body language) is submitted to interpretative
processes. With regard to verbal/textual language, De Saussure proposed
a distinction between langue and parole that is useful in understanding
why language may become an obstacle for the sharing of meanings.
Langue is a nation’s official language. In Italy, for example, it is protected
by the Accademia della Crusca, the Italian institution devoted to the
preservation of the idiom spoken by Dante. But as De Saussure (De
Saussure, Baskin, & Meisel, 2011) affirmed, the formal language, that is
recorded in dictionaries and protected by national institutions has a
deformed mirror in the living language, la parole, that is produced every
day in the form of linguistic variations, slang, professional jargon, and
now digital language. The same geographical (and organizational) enti-
ties may host different languages and dialects. It should also be noted
that audio, visual and multimedia objects are codified using different
languages and, therefore, the interpretation of non-textual message may
imply the same or an even higher level of difficulty than the decoding of
textual messages. Then, every text is polysemic (i.e. may be interpreted
by receivers in different ways). It means that there is always a difference
between the meaning desired by the author of the message and the inter-
pretation made by the receiver. So Eco (2011) used the concept of ‘coop-
erative interpretation’ to explain that the author of a text, to make the
reader decode the message in a certain way, needs the cooperation of the
interpreter. Mutatis mutandis, it is possible to assume that, when explicit
knowledge is exchanged, the same knowledge may be interpreted differ-
ently and re-contextualized by the different actors in so far as it is sub-
mitted to a process of transformation and change. The decoding process
is also influenced by the context, which could be considered the third
vertex of the triangle composed by sender, receiver and, of course, the
context. Inter-cultural exchange fosters this process and favours the

emergence of different meanings that are culture bound. Interpretation
is also a matter of power. Sense making has a narrative dimension and
storytelling plays an important role in creating and maintaining mean-
ings, within and across organizational boundaries. But as David Boje,
among others, pointed out (see Boje, Svane, & Gergerich, 2016, p. 57):
‘There is a web of living stories that do not make it into dominant organ-
isational narratives.’ Therefore, MNCs host many stories and some of
them, defined as living stories by Boje (see Boje, 2011; Rosile, Boje,
Carlon, Downs, & Saylors, 2013), may be very different from, and
sometimes antithetical to, the narratives created by the power elites.
Meaning can also be conceived as a means of power, as the Italian phi-
losopher Antonio Gramsci (1998) claimed.
4.5 Informal Networks as Interlocks

Between Global and Local and Critical
Channels for Inter-cultural Knowledge
Sharing
Ghoshal and Bartlett (1990) suggested that the inter-organizational net-
work is the emerging organizational structure of modern MNCs, focus-
ing their attention on the crucial role played by knowledge transfer and
sharing for the competitive advantage of global corporations.
According to Hansen (1996) and Tsai (2002), informal relations play
an important role in knowledge exchange (not only) in MNCs, because
organizational knowledge is situated and incorporated in individuals and
embedded in interpersonal relationships and social practices (Nicolini,
Gherardi, & Yanow, 2002).
Moreover, Awazu (2004) and Teigland (2003) affirmed that informal
networks are crucial for knowledge sharing and knowledge creation
processes.
Informal networks are based on social and personal relationships
(Awazu, 2004). Several authors defined these networks as emergent net-
works in order to distinguish them from formal networks (Monge &
84 F. Maimone
Contractor, 1997) and suggested that they characterized new organiza-

tional forms (Mormino, 2011). The term ‘emergent’ means that informal
networks are created spontaneously by people through social interaction,
inside and outside organizational boundaries (Teigland, 2003).
Informal networks may interlock the global and the local dimensions
of MNCs and play a critical role in knowledge sharing.
For example, in the case study reported by Maimone (2007), related to
the Italian branch of a Finnish company (Nokia Italy), the sample of
managers and employees (eighty interviewees) who participated in a
series of interviews and focus groups affirmed that informal networks in
their company were essential to sharing experience and knowledge, to
solving problems and exchanging solutions to cope with critical working
issues. For example, one project manager was involved in the roll-out of
a network infrastructure in Israel that was facing critical issues related to
the project’s start-up. He reported that he had found, through
word-of-mouth, a Brazilian colleague (the manager of a Brazilian project)
who had faced similar problems with his team and had already discovered
an effective solution. The Italian manager got in touch with his Brazilian
colleague and had the opportunity to exchange experiences and knowl-
edge with him, and to accelerate the process of roll-out, thanks to the
knowledge sharing enacted through informal networks. Similar situa-
tions were reported by the manager and employees of the Italian branch
of the European Space Agency (Maimone, 2005) that used informal net-
works to exchange experience and knowledge on critical issues related to
their tasks.
The relevance of informal networks for knowledge sharing is supported
by the results of empirical research conducted by Soda, Usai and Zaheer
(2004). In the case described by the authors (Ib.), an Italian television
production company, the team played a critical role in the production
processes. The informal structure of the company was characterized by a
complex texture of personal networks, connecting all the specialists work-
ing in the industry. According to the authors (Ib., pp. 894–895): ‘The
network of past relations among project members can be expected to
exert a particularly potent effect on project outcomes, since organiza-
tional memory is limited (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). At the same time,
current links between and among projects allow specialists to flexibly
draw on skills and resources resident in the external network that might
be valuable in a particular project.’
Some research has found that there is a correlation between the tie
strength and the level of knowledge transfer enacted through social net-
works (Hansen, 1996). Hansen (Ib.) argued that strong ties may promote
the transfer of complex knowledge, while weak ties may enhance the
transfer of ‘simple’ knowledge. Moreover, the level of the social cohesion
of the network may influence the quality and the level of knowledge shar-
ing as well (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). ‘Social embeddedness’ is the term
used to describe the strength of social ties, the level of network trust, and
the extent to which social networks share common processes and values
(Dhanaraj, Lyles, Steensma, & Tihanyi, 2004). The level of social embed-
dedness of personal networks is positively correlated to the level of knowl-
edge transfer (Ib.).
According to Reagans and Zuckerman (2001), collaboration among
people with different external contacts may bridge gaps, or ‘structural
holes’ among teams and networks, favouring the circulation of knowl-
edge across clusters, connecting social actors and bypassing social gaps.
Moreover, Tsai (2001) underlined the role of inter-unit networks: ‘By
linking different units together, a network arrangement provides a flexi-
ble learning structure that replaces old hierarchical structures’ (Ib.,
p. 997).
Some field research (Ailon & Kunda, 2009) has shown the significant
role of trans-national networks in fostering knowledge sharing. People
can use trans-national networks to communicate and interact with their
colleagues across and beyond their organization, seeking data and infor-
mation, finding helpful answers to their work problems. As did the case
of Nokia Italy, described above, Lyndsay et al. (2003, p. 11) shed light on
the role played by informal relationships in the international services sec-
tor: ‘Relationships between various actors in international services are
important determinants of knowledge transfer (Windrum & Tomlinson,
1999), competency development and perceived service quality (Eriksson,
Majkgård, & Deo Sharma, 1999).’
Moreover, Holden and Glisby (2010b, p. 304) pointed out the role of
the knowledge network and underlined the centrality of the concept of
the network package composed of ‘explicit and tacit elements intended
86 F. Maimone
for (very) different operating environments (Holden & Glisby, 2010a).

The idea of knowledge as a network package is very simple, but not unso-
phisticated. It supports the empirical evidence that knowledge as an
organisational resource is the creation of people working in a network
and that knowledge will be intended to be used by a network of people at
the receiving end.’
Finally, the so-called small world networks are particularly critical—
and not only—for inter-cultural knowledge sharing. The famous exper-
iment conducted by the American psychologist Stanley Milgram (1967)
showed that social networks are not symmetric and that the interaction
between stochastic phenomena and social dynamics creates bridges and
bypasses among teams, clusters and other social entities, across time
and space. Small world networks are a specific typology of networks
that (Wang & Chen, 2002, p. 187) ‘have intermediate connectivity
properties but exhibit a high degree of clustering as in the regular net-
works and a small average distance between vertices as in the random
networks’. The peculiar characteristics of small worlds are particularly
interesting for social organization and economic behavior. In fact (Uzzi
& Spiro, 2005, p. 2): ‘A small world is a network structure that is both
highly locally clustered and has a short path length, two network char-
acteristics that are normally divergent (Watts, 1999). The special facil-
ity of a small world to combine two network characteristics that
typically oppose one another has prompted researchers to speculate that
a small world may be a potent organizer of behavior (Feld, 1981;
Newman, 2000).’
Cassar (2007) reported the findings of an experiment, evidencing
that small world networks facilitate coordination among network
members during a prisoner’s dilemma game. According to the author
(Ib., p. 4): ‘The small world network is particularly important for eco-
nomics because it has the properties of many human networks from
the society in which we live to the World Wide Web (see Milgram,
1967; Adamic, 1999).’
The study of small world networks played an important role in the
progress of management studies (Uzzi, Amaral, & Reed-Tsochas, 2007).
Small world networks are important for knowledge sharing (Li & Zhu,
2009) and small world network exchanges are based on weak ties
C1
C2
C3
Fig. 4.4 The role of weak ties in the creation of small worlds (Source: adapted
from Metcalfe, 2005)
(Granovetter, 1983; Metcalfe, 2005). A member of one organizational

cluster may communicate with a member of another cluster and the like
through weak ties (inter-cluster relations that are neither strong nor fre-
quent), creating a bridge between different clusters and facilitating the
inter-connection among different organizational spaces (Maimone,
2007), as it is illustrated in the figure below (see Fig. 4.4).
Small world networks may facilitate the interconnection among indi-
viduals, teams, units, clusters and, more generally, organizational spaces
(Maimone, 2007; Yeung, 2005) and, therefore, the effective and perva-
sive enacting of knowledge exchange. Then, they may bridge different
organizational spaces, inside and outside MNCs’ boundaries, and fur-
thermore, may facilitate change processes that enable the transformation
of teams, units and the same organizational spaces (Ib.) into real knowl-
edge spaces and the transformation of social networks into knowledge
networks.
This mechanism is not always effective in culturally diverse work-
places. The social and cultural dynamics that may affect network-
based, inter-cultural knowledge sharing will be illustrated in the next
section.
88 F. Maimone
4.6 A
ffiliative and Homophilic Interactions,
Relation-Bound and Culture-Bound
Clusters and the Risk of Network Closure
Even though social networks play a critical role in (but not only in) inter-
cultural knowledge sharing, psycho-social, social and power-related
dynamics may influence inter-intra-organizational networking dynamics
and impact inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
As was pointed out above, knowledge sharing may be enacted through
affiliative clusters constructed on the base of personal ties, close relations,
power alliances, and the like. Affiliative clusters may be the outcome of
organizational emergent dynamics, or may be the outcome of strategic
actions, enacted by external and internal lobbies, interest groups, power
alliances and the like. Or they may be the outcome of social and organi-
zational routines that facilitated managerial careers and key roles—for
example, for managers coming from elite universities and business
schools. This phenomenon may lead to the formation of familistic and/
or elitist networks. In any case, if this process affects knowledge-sharing
dynamics, it is likely that clusters and organizational spaces (Maimone,
2007) based on self-referential processes and exclusive relations will
emerge and become an obstacle for effective and truly inclusive (not only)
knowledge sharing. This phenomenon, furthermore, could encourage a
knowledge struggle for power and hegemony (Gramsci, 1998).
Sometimes, new ideas and knowledge are created by individuals and
teams who are at the margins of institutional/organizational contexts.
(Darwin and Einstein were outsiders with respect to the academic orga-
nization of their epoch.) Inter-cultural knowledge sharing, to be really
effective and inclusive, should theoretically give an opportunity to every-
one to have something interesting/useful to share—to join the party. It is
obviously not only a matter of sharing, but also of legitimating. In fact,
knowledge sharing is also influenced by language, culture and power.
According to Kuhn (1970), new theories and discoveries become ‘scien-
tific knowledge’ only when they are recognized, accepted and legitimated
by the scientific community. Very often, this also happens in the case of
organizational knowledge. The process of knowledge legitimation that
underlies the SECI model (Nonaka et al., 2005) may also be a political
and power-related process.
Network structuring is also influenced by cultural homophily.
According to Centola, Eguiluz, and San Miguel (2007, p. 925):
‘Homophily is the tendency of people with similar traits (including phys-
ical, cultural, and attitudinal characteristics) to interact with one another
more than with people with dissimilar traits.’
Brannen and Salk (2000), adopting the theoretical perspectives of
social identity and social categorization theories, suggested that race,
accent, and situational factors may favour in-group preferences in spite of
inter-cultural policies and initiatives. According to Golub and Jackson
(2011, p. 2), homophily also affects network dynamics: ‘Homophily pro-
duces a signature in the structure of a network: a pattern of thick
concentrations of links within groups of individuals who have shared
characteristics and sparser connections between such groups.’
Mollica, Gray, and Treviño (2003) conducted field research on a sam-
ple of MBA students in the USA. The results of this research showed that
race was positively related to homophily.
Empirical research conducted by Yuan and Gay (2006) on the effect of
(digital) social networking on a distance learning class of multi-ethnic
North American students showed that (Ib., p. 1079) ‘homophily in social
characteristics was more important than either racial or gender homoph-
ily in driving the formation of network ties’.
Ibarra, Kilduff, and Tsai (2005) suggested that ethnicity may strongly
influence the formation and functioning of network ties. In particular,
homophile ties may limit access to resources and information within and
across organizations (Ibarra, 1992). The figure below provides an exam-
ple of homophilic networks (see Fig. 4.5).
In this example of a Chinese-US joint project, C2 represents the US
employees cluster and C3 represents the Chinese employees cluster.
The figure shown above represents knowledge exchange networks based
on cultural identity. In the example described in the figure, C1 is a multi-
cultural cluster, composed of employees of different nationalities who col-
laborate in the same project. The hypothesis is that one US employee is
connected with a cluster of North American co-workers employed in other
projects. The weak tie that connects the US employee to his colleagues is
90 F. Maimone
C3
(monocultural)
C1
(multicultural) C2
(monocultural)
Fig. 4.5 Knowledge sharing following culture-embedded networks
represented by the colour blue. Red represents the connection between a

Chinese employee and his own colleagues (of the same nationality). In real-
ity, the number and level of clusters may be n times more complex, config-
uring a set of small worlds composed of weak and strong ties that may be
mono-cultural or pluri-cultural, but in any case enact differentiated pro-
cesses that may favour the emergence of organizational silos (Maimone,
2007). These culture-embedded communication channels may facilitate
knowledge sharing based on cultural identity, creating parallel entities that
favour cultural barriers and exacerbate differences.
In the case of homophilic networks (Golub & Jackson, 2011), the
creation of culture-embedded small worlds (see Maimone, 2005) may
produce some kind of knowledge Babylon, with the knowledge distrib-
uted, translated and transformed on the basis of cultural resonance/close-
ness that facilitates a selection-translation-transformation process.
This phenomenon is arguably one of the components of the so-called

human factor that plays a critical role in the safety and security of specific
kinds of organizational contexts, such as the multi-cultural crews of com-
mercial cruisers which impact on the genesis and management of naval
disasters (Lützhöft, Grech, & Porathe, 2011).
Consistent with these this findings, qualitative research (Maimone,
2005) conducted at ESRIN, the Italian branch of the European Space
Agency, and at the European subsidiary of an American management
school showed (in both cases studied) the influence of cultural homoph-
ily on social networking among both organizations’ managers. In fact,
many interviewees affirmed they preferred to ask for confidential
information, talk about personal matters and spend free time with col-
leagues who shared their nationality or belonged to cultural groups per-
ceived to be closest to their own cultural identity. This does not mean
that culture is the only factor affecting the formation of personal ties, but
that cultural homophily can influence knowledge sharing also in ‘ideal’
multi-cultural organizations. And it also means that this phenomenon
should be analysed in qualitative terms, and not only in a quantitative
fashion, since homophile identitarian ties are often affectively bound to,
and associated with, a higher level of interpersonal trust.
Therefore (Ib.), it is possible to assume that culture-bound ties may be
associated with the exchange of explicit and tacit knowledge that has
particular meaning for the social actors and have special affective, sym-
bolic, identitarian and functional connotations. Furthermore (Ib.), the
special nature of the homophile social bonds can affect the transfer and
internalization of knowledge. It does not mean that some kinds of critical
information and knowledge are exchanged only through culture-bound
ties and homophily is the only factor that impacts the formation and
structure of social networks in multi-cultural contexts. Nevertheless,
culture-driven bonds, created on the basis of cultural identity or close-
ness, may influence knowledge sharing, creating short-cuts, semi-closed
clusters and organizational silos.
It is argued that social networks are not an organizational panacea:
they may help to overcome cultural barriers, or they may produce close-
ness and foster the creation of new boundaries and organizational silos
affecting the quantity and quality of inter-cultural exchange and therefore
92 F. Maimone
the effectiveness of inter-cultural communication and knowledge

sharing.
Therefore, cultural homophily in informal networks can be an obstacle
for inter-cultural information and knowledge sharing (Golub & Jackson,
2011).
For this reason, MNCs (and not only MNCs) should pay attention to
establishing the right preconditions and incentivizing and facilitating the
exchange and circulation of knowledge within and across mono-cultural
networks.
Notes
1. See V.A. Brief History of the Internet, retrieved on 15th February 2017:
http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/
brief-history-internet#Origins
2. See History of the Web, http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/
history-of-the-web/
3. Information retrieved on 8th February 2017 from the Mercedes-Benz
media site: http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/
Cooperation-of-Swatch-and-Mercedes-Benz.xhtml?oid=9274445
References
Adachi, Y. (2011). An examination of the SECI model in Nonaka’s theory.
Yamanashi Glocal Studies, 5, 99–108.
Adamic, L. (1999). The small world web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
1696, 443–452.
Ailon, G., & Kunda, G. (2009). ‘The one-company approach’: Transnationalism
in an Israeli-Palestinian subsidiary of an MNC. Organization Studies, 30,
693.
Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and
the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 997–1015.
Augier, M., & Thanning Vendelø, M. (1999). Networks, cognition and man-
agement of tacit knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4),
252–261.
Awazu, Y. (2004). Knowledge management in distributed environments: Roles

of informal network players, hicss, vol. 1, pp. 10025a, Proceedings of the
37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS’04)—Track 1, 2004.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strate-
gic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.
Bergquist, W. (1994). L’organizzazione postmoderna. Milano: Baldini e Castoldi.
Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(1), 56–72.
Boje, D. M. (Ed.). (2011). Storytelling and the future of organizations: An ante-
narrative handbook. Oxford: Routledge.
Boje, D. M., Svane, M., & Gergerich, E. M. (2016). Counternarrative and ante-
narrative inquiry in two cross-cultural contexts. European Journal of Cross-
Cultural Competence and Management, 4(1), 55–84.
Bollinger, A. S., & Smith, R. D. (2001). Managing organizational knowledge as
a strategic asset. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 8–18.
Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating
organizational culture in a German-Japanese joint venture. Human Relations,
53(4), 451–487.
Braudel, F. (1992). Civilization and capitalism, 15th–18th century: The structure
of everyday life. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-
practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
CAIB. (2003). Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report Volume 1.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Cassar, A. (2007). Coordination and cooperation in local, random and small
world networks: Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior,
58(2), 209–230.
Centola, G.-A. J. C., Eguiluz, V. M., & San, M. M. (2007). Homophily, cul-
tural drift and the co-evolution of cultural groups. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 51(6), 905–929.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations
manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.
De Caro, A., & Spadaro, A. (2016). LETTERATI CONFUCIANI E PRIMI
GESUITI IN CINA. L’amicizia come base del dialogo interreligioso. Quaderni
Civiltà Cattolica, Quaderno 3995 p. 446–459, Year 2016, Volume IV.
De Saussure, F., Baskin, W., & Meisel, P. (2011). Course in general linguistics.
New York: Columbia University Press.
94 F. Maimone
Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). Managing tacit
and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness
and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35,
428–442.
Dunbar, R. L., & Garud, R. (2009). Distributed knowledge and indeterminate
meaning: The case of the Columbia shuttle flight. Organization Studies,
30(4), 397–421.
Eco, U. (1990). I limiti dell’interpretazione. Milan: Bompiani.
Eco, U. (2011). Lector in fabula: la cooperazione interpretativa nei testi narrativi.
Giunti.
Eriksson, K., Majkgård, A., & Deo Sharma, D. (1999). Service quality by rela-
tionships in the international market. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(4/5),
361–375.
Feld, S. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of
Sociology, 86, 1015–1035.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Fitzgerald, R. & Findlay, J. (2011). Collaborative research tools: Using wikis
and team learning systems to collectively create new knowledge. In
S. Teoksessa Hesse-Biber (Ed.), The handbook of emergent technologies in social
research (pp. 300–319). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role
of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context. Journal of
International Management, 8(1), 49–67.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1990). The multinational corporation as an
interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4),
603–626.
Giovannoni, S. (2015, January 24). The king of scents of Tuscany. Perfumes
of Tuscany, Wall Street International. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from
http://wsimag.com/wellness/12867-the-king-of-scents-of-tuscany
Glancey, J. (2013). The Vespa: How a motor scooter became stylish. BBC
Culture. Retrieved February 17, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/culture/
story/20131122-the-vespa-motoring-with-style
Glisby, M., & Holden, N. (2003). Contextual constraints in knowledge man-
agement theory: The cultural embeddedness of Nonaka’s knowledge-creating
company. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(1), 29–36.
Golub, B., & Jackson, M. (2011). Network structure and the speed of learning:
Measuring homophily based on its consequences. Annals of Economics and
Statistics, forthcoming. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://stanford.

edu/˜ bgolub/papers/DWH. pdf
Gramsci, A. (1998). Hegemony, intellectuals, and the state. In J. Storey (Ed.),
Cultural theory and popular culture (pp. 206–219). Hemel Hempstead, UK:
Prentice Hall.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
Sociological Theory, 1(1), 201–233.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: C Doubleday and Anchor
Press.
Hansen, M. T. (1996). Knowledge integration in organizations. PhD dissertation,
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice in the
distributed international environment. Journal of Knowledge Management,
4(1), 27–38.
Holden, N., & Glisby, M. (2010a). Creating knowledge advantage: The tacit
dimensions of international competition and cooperation. Copenhagen,
Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Holden, N. J. (2002). Cross-cultural management. A knowledge management per-
spective. Harlow, Essex, UK: Financial Times—Prentice Hall.
Holden, N. J., & Glisby, M. (2010b). Researching and writing about tacit
knowledge: Some observations on a case-based book on an elusive phenom-
enon. European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, 1(4),
303–314.
Holden, N. J., & Von Kortzfleisch, H. F. O. (2004). Why cross-cultural knowl-
edge transfer is a form of translation in more ways than you think. Knowledge
and Process Management, 11(2), 127–138.
Holden, N. J., & Tansley, C. (2007). Culturally distinctive manifestations in
international knowledge management: A historical perspective. International
Journal of Advanced Media and Communication, 1(4), 313–327.
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in net-
work structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 422–447.
Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting
individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network
research. Organization Science, 16(4), 359–371.
Inglehart, R. F., Basanez, M., & Moreno, A. (1998). Human values and beliefs.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
96 F. Maimone
Koltuksuz, A., & Tekir, S. (2006, November). Intelligence analysis modeling. In

International Conference on Hybrid Information Technology (ICHIT’06),
IEEE 2006 (Vol. 1, pp. 146–151).
Krajeski, J. (2008, September 19). This is water. The New Yorker. Retrieved
March 19, 2017, from http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/
this-is-water
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Li, Z., & Zhu, T. (2009, August). Study on the knowledge sharing of communi-
ties of practice based on the small-world network model. In ISECS
International Colloquium on Computing, Communication, Control, and
Management, 2009. CCCM 2009 (Vol. 2, pp. 214–217). IEEE.
Lowe, S., Magala, S., & Hwang, K. S. (2012). All we are saying, is give theoreti-
cal pluralism a chance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(5),
752–774.
Lützhöft, M., Grech, M. R., & Porathe, T. (2011). Information environment,
fatigue, and culture in the maritime domain. Reviews of Human Factors and
Ergonomics, 7(1), 280–322.
Lyndsay, V., et al. (2003). Relationships, the role of individuals and knowledge
flows in the internationalisation of service firms. International Journal of
Service, Industry Management, 14(1), 7–35.
Magala, S. (2000). Critical complexities: From marginal paradigms to learning
networks. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(4), 312–333.
Maimone, F. (2005). Organizzazione cosmopolita. Relazioni organizzative e comu-
nicazione neicontesti multiculturali. Un approccio sociologico. Rome: Aracne.
Maimone, F. (2007). Dalla rete al silos. Dalla rete al silos. Modelli e strumenti per
comunicare egestire la conoscenza nelle organizzazioni “flessibili”. Milan: Franco
Angeli.
Maimone, F. (2017). Post-bureaucratic organizations as complex systems:
Toward a co-evolutionary and multiparadigmatic perspective. In P. Malizia,
C. Cannavale, & F. Maimone (Eds.), Evolution of the post-bureaucratic orga-
nization (pp. 321–341). Hershey: IGI Global.
tions. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture And Change Management,
11(5), 179–191.
Zerbe, C. Härtel, & N. Ashkanasy (Eds.), Research on emotions in organiza-

tions, volume 6: Emotions and organizational dynamism. Bingley, UK: Emerald
and JAI.
Maimone, F., & Sinclair, M. (2014). Dancing in the dark: Creativity, knowledge
creation and (emergent) organizational change. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 27(2), 344–361.
Malizia, P. (1998). La costruzione sociale dell’organizzazione: natura e struttura
delle organizzazioni complesse. Milano: Guerini Studio.
Malizia, P. (2017). Watercolour: Toward a socio-cultural and post-modern
approach to the study of post-bureaucratic organizations. In P. Malizia, C.
Cannavale, & F. Maimone (Eds.), Evolution of the post-bureaucratic organiza-
tion (pp. 321–341). Hershey: IGI Global.
Martínez-Lorente, A. R., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B. G. (1998). Total quality
management: Origins and evolution of the term. The TQM Magazine, 10(5),
378–386.
Mercedes-Benz media site. (2017). Retrieved February 8, 2017, from http://
media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Cooperation-of-Swatch-
and-Mercedes-Benz.xhtml?oid=9274445
Metcalfe, M. (2005). Knowledge sharing, complex environments and small-
worlds. Human Systems Management, 24(3), 185–195.
Milgram, S., 1967. The small world problem. Psycology Today, 2, 60–67.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations (Vol. 203). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mollica, K. A., Gray, B., & Treviño, L. (2003, March–April). Racial homophily
and its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organization Science,
14(2), 123–136.
Monge, P., & Contractor, N. (1997). Emergence of communication networks.
In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communi-
cation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mormino, S. (2011). Together. Team working, processi collaborativi, comunità pro-
fessionali nell’organizzazione postfordista. Roma: Polìmata.
Mudambi, R. (2002). Knowledge management in multinational firms. Journal
of International Management, 8, 1–9.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and
the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2),
242–266.
NATO COE-DAT. (2014). proceeding of the homegrown terrorism: Causes
and dimensions workshop organized by the NATO COE-DAT in Ankara on
98 F. Maimone
03–04 June 2014. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from http://www.coedat.

nato.int/publication/workshop_reports/02-Homegrown_Terrorism_
Workshop_Report.pdf
Newman, M. E. J. (2000). Models of the small world. Journal of Statistical
Physics, 101(3/4), 819–841.
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & e Yanow D. (Eds.). (2002). Knowing as practice.
Armock: M.E. Sharpe.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Nonaka, I., & Holden, N. (2007). A made-in-Japan theory with help from
Aristotle: Nigel Holden interviews Ikujiro Nonaka. European Journal of
International Management, 1(1–2), 104–110.
Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective—Tacit knowledge and knowl-
edge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge
creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.
Nonaka, I., & Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge
management: A review of 20 top articles. Knowledge and Process Management,
13(2), 73–82.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2002). A firm as a dialectical being: Towards a
dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(5), 995–1009.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm:
Subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change,
14(3), 419–436.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Hirata, T. (2008). Managing flow: A process theory of
the knowledge-based firm. London: Springer.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A uni-
fied model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5–34.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2005). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified
model of dynamic knowledge creation. Knowledge Management: Critical
Perspectives on Business and Management, 2(317), 16–29.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating
entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 9(1), 1–20.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 25, 129–141.
Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2012). Social media and tacit knowl-
edge sharing: Developing a conceptual model. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, 64, 1095–1102.
Penrose, E. T. (1995). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford, USA: Oxford
University Press.
Phene, A., & Almeida, P. (2008). Innovation in multinational subsidiaries: The
role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39, 901–919.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York, USA: Anchor Books.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A
review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15–37.
Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes
of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30(9),
1373–1394.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003, June). Network structure and knowledge
transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly,
48(2), 240–267.
Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. (2001). Networks, diversity and performance:
The social capital of R & D units. Organization Science, 12, 502–517.
Recht, R., & Wilderom, C. (1998). Kaizen and culture: On the transferability
of Japanese suggestion systems. International Business Review, 7(1), 7–22.
Rosile, G. A., Boje, D. M., Carlon, D. M., Downs, A., & Saylors, R. (2013).
Storytelling diamond: An antenarrative integration of the six facets of story-
telling in organization research design. Organizational Research Methods,
16(4), 557–580.
Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2006).
Neuroeconomics: Cross-currents in research on decision-making. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 108–116.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San
Francisco: Iossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychological Association,
45(2), 109.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for
work. Applied Psychology, 48(1), 23–47.
Sinclair, M. (2011). An integrated framework of intuition. In M. Sinclair (Ed.),
Handbook of intuition research (pp. 3–16). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
100 F. Maimone
Sinclair, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Intuition: Myth or a decision-making

tool? Management Learning, 36(3), 353–370.
Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. (2004). Network memory: The influence of
past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal,
47(6), 893–906.
Sun, X., Jie, Y., Wang, Y., Xue, G., & Liu, Y. (2016). Shared leadership improves
team novelty: The mechanism and its boundary condition. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7.
Tee, M. Y., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an
online learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 385–413.
Teigland, R. (2003). Knowledge Networking: Structure and Performance in
Networks of Practice. PhD dissertation, Stockholm Schools of Economics,
Sweden.
Tsai, W. (2001, October). Knowledge transfer in Intraorganizational networks:
Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innova-
tion and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organiza-
tion: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge shar-
ing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructiv-
ist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–25.
Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In M. Easterby-
Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning
and knowledge management (pp. 410–427). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Uzzi, B., Amaral, L. A., & Reed-Tsochas, F. (2007). Small-world networks and
management science research: A review. European Management Review, 4(2),
77–91.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world
problem 1. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.
V.A. (2017). Brief history of the Internet. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from
http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/
brief-history-internet#Origins
Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in
hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4), 359–374.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory.
Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of
Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.
Wang, X., & Chen, G. (2002). Synchronization in small-world dynamical net-

works. Journal of Bifurcation Chaos, 12(1), 187–192.
Watts, D. J. (1999). Small worlds: The dynamics of networks between order and
randomness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge University Press.
of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Press.
Windrum, P., & Tomlinson, M. (1999). Knowledge-intensive services and
international competitiveness: A four country comparison. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(3), 391–408.
Yeung, H. W.-C. (2005). Organizational space: A new frontier in international
business strategy? Critical Perspectives on International Business, 1, 219–240.
Yuan, Y. C., & Gay, G. (2006). Homophily of network ties and bonding and
bridging social capital in computer-mediated distributed teams. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 1062–1084.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of
dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.
5
Toward an Integrated and Inclusive
Approach to Inter-cultural Knowledge
Sharing
5.1 T
oward an Integrated and Inclusive
Approach
As was addressed in the previous chapter, social networks are critical for
knowledge sharing—and not only in MNCs. They may facilitate the
interconnection among teams, units and subsidiaries and create connec-
tions among knowledge spaces. Therefore, the approach presented in this
chapter sets out to exploit the power of social networks to trigger and
facilitate (not only) inter-cultural knowledge sharing. Moreover, other
factors and dynamics are highlighted that may contribute to the enhance-
ment of inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
Cultural barriers and cultural homophily may negatively impact inter-
cultural knowledge sharing, transforming the networked global company,
as theorized by Ghoshal and Bartlett (1990), into some kind of ‘Balkan
organization’, comprised of a differentiated and (at least partially) discon-
nected set of groups, units, networks and subsidiaries.
Ineffective inter-cultural knowledge sharing may also foster the
emergence of organizational silos (Diamond, Stein, & Allcorn, 2002;
Maimone, 2007; Serrat, 2010) and semi-closed clusters (Maimone,
2005). Consequently, knowledge spaces may produce self-referential

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57297-0_5
104 F. Maimone
knowledge and be affected by the rise of cultural barriers, fragmentation

and conflicts.
Therefore, it is claimed that an integrated and inclusive approach to
inter-cultural sharing is needed, in order to (a) improve the effectiveness
and efficacy of inter-cultural knowledge sharing (not only) in MNCs,
and (b) facilitate the construction and maintenance of bridges among
cultural groups, networks and social spaces.
This approach is glocal, since it aims to facilitate a creative synthesis
and, hopefully, a synergy between global and local knowledge. It is inclu-
sive, since it is committed to facilitating the overcoming of cultural bar-
riers, the valorization of cultural diversity and the inclusion of people
through the construction of a common ground that creates a bridge
between diversity and identity. It is assumed that effective knowledge
sharing involves (as far possible) explicit and tacit knowledge, analytic
and holistic views.
Furthermore, it is assumed that knowledge sharing has a relational
and social dimension (Sacco, Vanin, & Zamagni, 2006) and therefore
should be studied using various conceptual tools that go beyond the
limits of neo-classic economics (see also Bruni & Zamagni, 2004).
The approach presented in this chapter may also be defined as human-
istic, since it is person-centric and considers human dignity (see
Dierksmeier, 2011; Von Kimakowitz, Pirson, Spitzeck, & Dierksmeier,
2010; Pirson, & Von Kimakowitz, 2010) and recognition and respect for
others (Pless & Maak, 2004) as the basic pillars of inter-cultural encoun-
ters, and therefore, of inter-cultural knowledge sharing too.
The perspective adopted in this book could also be defined as multi-
paradigmatic and pluralistic (Gioia, & Pitre, 1990; Lowe, Magala, &
Hwang, 2012; Maimone in Malizia, Cannavale, & Maimone, 2017)
since it assumes that the complexity of cultural dynamics and knowing
processes may be grasped only by adopting a multiple and complex per-
spective (see also Mitleton-Kelly, 2003).
Therefore, the framework presented below aims to contribute to the
development of a knowledge-driven and multi-cultural organizational
eco-system, in which different kinds of knowledge-sharing processes may
emerge, partially facilitated by organizational design and managerial
strategies, and partially produced by emerging/spontaneous dynamics.
Toward an Integrated and Inclusive Approach to Inter-cultural... 105
5.1.1 The Epistemological Premises of the Approach
Organizational research, under the influence of social psychology (see

Lewin, 2013) and cultural anthropology (see Malinowski, 1944;
Schein, 1985), has recognized the relevance of the study of relational
forms. From its very beginning, it has been committed to entangling
micro-phenomena and macro-phenomena (see Aguinis, Boyd, Pierce,
& Short, 2011) and the context in which these relations emerge and
evolve (see Bamberger, 2008; Johns, 2006). For example, organizational
climate research has been particularly concerned with the gestalt of
socio-psychological dynamics (see James & Jones, 1974). Organizational
culture studies have also tried to depict the whole picture and the main
dynamics underpinning the creation and evolution of cultural systems
(see Schein, 1990).
Nevertheless, a positivist and reductionist approach still seems to prevail,
especially in mainstream research (see Hackman, 2003; Johns, 2006),
despite the rising interest in critical and post-modern perspectives (see
Alvesson & Willmott, 2003; Willmott, 1992). Referring to organizational
culture research, Johns (Ib., p. 403) claimed: ‘The tendency for organiza-
tional culture researchers to ignore industrial macrocultures suggests a gen-
eral tendency to seek causal explanations at lower rather than higher levels
of analysis, a tactic referred to unflatteringly by Hackman (2003) as explan-
atory reductionism.’ It is argued that this consideration may be applied to
the wider realm of organizational and managerial research.
This trend was presumably influenced by the assumption that the
social sciences follow the epistemological and methodological stances of
the natural sciences in order to achieve the analytic and predictive power
(and social legitimization) of the hard sciences (see Lee, 1991).
The positivist perspective is affected by several biases: (1) social systems
are different from natural systems; (2) human beings exercise human will
and, therefore, their complex attitudes and behaviours cannot be pre-
dicted in deterministic terms, but only with a certain rate of approxima-
tion; (3) in any case, even when scientists have had to tackle complex/
quantistic phenomena (see Eastwood, 2016; Von Bertalanffy, 1972;
Wolfram, 1985), they have been obliged to recognize that the positivistic
method has its limitations and, at least for speculation’s sake, the very
106 F. Maimone
universal validity of mathematical language for the description of natural

phenomena can be questioned (Wigner, 1960).
MNCs are also complex organizational systems (Lord, Dinh, &
Hoffman, 2015) and, therefore, the joint interaction of complex evolution-
ary dynamics may lead to the entanglement of different (and apparently
non-related) organizational processes and levels and to the possibility of
multiple futures that are co-constructed by the interaction between organi-
zational actors and internal and external environmental dynamics (Ib.).
Complex thinking should also be applied to organizational research
(see Maimone & Mormino, 2012). In his book Theory U: Leading from
the Future as It Emerges, Scharmer (p. 16), advocated a complex and holis-
tic approach to organizational research: ‘It is now time for social scientists
to step out of the shadow and to establish an advanced social sciences
methodology that integrates science (third-person view), social transfor-
mation (second-person view) and the evolution of self (first-person view)
into a coherent framework of consciousness-based action research.’.
Moreover, citing Aristotle, the author (Ib.) argued that to grasp the truth,
it is necessary to involve all the contexts of real life in the research process:
‘art or producing (techne), practical wisdom (phronesis), theoretical
wisdom (sophia), and intuition or the capacity to grasp first principles
or sources (nous)’. This perspective may provide useful suggestions for
the development of research on inter-cultural knowledge sharing—and
not only in MNCs.
It can be assumed that a multi-level approach is needed to better
understand and explain social and organizational dynamics (Hackman,
2003). And as Fink (2017, p. 55) claimed: ‘Simple correlations will not
lead far … Very likely management strategies with higher levels of struc-
ture (higher internal integrity and greater complexity) will tend to be
more effective in practical application (cf. Wallis, 2011). And, conversely,
management of lower complexity and less internal integrity tends to be
less effective, as already shown by the numerous investigations into the
outcomes of so-called “post-bureaucratic management”’.
Finally, it is assumed that the results of empirical research (in quantita-
tive, qualitative or mixed methods) should be considered a heuristic tool
that can help us to understand and (as far as is possible) manage organi-
zational behaviours, and not as an imitation of universal natural laws
(Lee, 1991). It is argued that theoretical and empirical research may be

affected by cultural bias or methodological parochialism (see Boyacigiller
& Adler, 1991; Johns, 2006; Morgan & Smircich, 1980; Van Maanen,
1979; Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987), and therefore it is necessary to pay
attention to the cross-cultural dimension of organizational research.
Contrary to the beliefs underlying the universalist perspective (Fayol,
1990; Taylor, 2004), we need to recognize that organizations (and there-
fore also MNCs), are unique and, for many reasons, irreproducible.
McKelvey (1999, p. 10), among others, highlighted the idiosyncratic
nature of organizational processes and behavior (not only) in complex
organizational systems, due to the following unique and non-reproducible
(Ib.) conditions:
–– Geographic context and ecological system of the company
–– Top management and power coalitions
–– Family, education and experience of individuals
–– Emergent corporate cultures
–– Nature of the relation with suppliers and customers that facilitates
the creation of specific inter-organizational and commercial
behaviours
–– People’s experience, based on the different roles, responsibilities,
skills, and personal and organizational relationships that form a
unique interaction network
–– Specific corporate process responsibilities, depending on leadership
styles, team and sub-unit dynamics.
The model proposed by McKelvey (Ib.) may be integrated, including
the so-called organizational climate (see Ashkanasy, Wilderom, &
Peterson, 2000) that has been defined as the specific psycho-social and
affective atmosphere of an organization (Maimone & Sinclair, 2010).
Organizational climate is an emerging phenomenon that may show
diverse characteristics among different organizations. Affective climate
(Ashkanasy, 2003; Ashkanasy & Härtel, 2014) plays an important role in
the construction of the general psycho-social atmosphere of the organiza-
tion. According to Cropanzano and Dasborough (2015, p. 845): ‘Affective
climate refers to the shared affective experience of a work group or team.’
The construct of affective climate may be extended to include the whole
108 F. Maimone
organization. In multi-cultural contexts, organizational and affective cli-

mates encompass inter-cultural relations, communication, collaboration
and experience that contribute to the creation of the inter-cultural cli-
mate (Holden, 2002).
It is quite impossible to interpret the specific features of organizational
climate without taking into account the characteristics of a specific
organization.
Climate also influences knowledge sharing. For instance, the findings
of a qualitative study, conducted by Vuori and Huy (2016), highlighted
the relation between top and middle managers’ shared emotions and the
failure of Nokia. The outcomes of the field research (Ib.) showed that top
managers were negatively influenced by the fear of external competitors
and shareholders, while middle managers feared their superiors and even
their peers. In this case, the top managers were unable to communicate
effectively to their subordinates the nature and seriousness of the external
threat: Apple’s launch of its iPhone. Conversely, middle managers tried to
control their fear, avoiding sharing negative information with top manag-
ers. The affective climate emerging in the company, which was also influ-
enced by Nokia’s history and culture, facilitated a communication short
circuit: Top managers failed to clearly communicate to their subordinates
the risks connected to the iPhone threat, and vice-versa. In fact, middle
managers tended to hide the severe knowledge gaps (with respect to
Apple) from their bosses, and did not clearly communicate to top manag-
ers that it was very difficult for them to compete with the US company
in terms of product innovation. The affective collective state to be found
at Nokia was, presumably, one of the factors that explained the defeat of
Nokia in the smart-phone war. Moreover, it is possible to argue that
Nokia’s specific characteristics played a role in the overall picture that
contributed to the failure of the Finnish company. The Viking corpora-
tion was a ‘strange kind’ of MNC, very global in terms of market and
geographical location, but very local at the same time, since its corporate
culture was strongly influenced by Finnish culture and the company was
very far from achieving a global and/or even glocal culture (see Maimone,
2007). Therefore, the loss of the smart-phone war was also a matter of
mindset (see Aspara Lamberg, Laukia, & Tikkanen, 2011) and, arguably,
also due to a lack of glocal knowledge and culture (see Maimone, 2007).
It can be thus concluded that even though the effects of organizational

isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, 1991), organizational ecosys-
tems (Hannan & Freeman, 1977) and inter-organizational interaction
(Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2000) should not be underestimated, all
organizations possess unique characteristics that may change across space
and time.
5.1.2 The Road Map of the Approach
The road map proposed in this chapter tries to go beyond routine (see
Grant, Spender, & Grant, 1996; March & Simon, 1958) and practice-
based perspectives (see Gherardi, 2001) in search of a more holistic and
evolutionary approach. As Grandori pointed out (in Grandori & Kogut,
2002, p. 226): ‘I think that there is growing agreement and shared interest
in exploring other and more far-reaching consequences of taking into
account knowledge and cognition, rather than just information and infor-
mation costs; and heuristic, theoretical, and paradigmatic knowledge,
rather than just routine-based knowledge in organizational analysis.’
According to the epistemological premises, the approach presented in
this chapter is not aimed to propose structural models and/or to provide
magic solutions for the development of inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
As Wenger (in Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) claimed, knowl-
edge spaces should be cultivated, not planned. It is not a job for knowl-
edge engineers—even though, obviously, engineers may play an important
role in this process—but for knowledge ‘farmers’.
From the perspective adopted in this book, knowledge management is
a paradoxical activity: if it does really work, the outcome of the process
should not be totally expected.
MNCs need to assure the diffusion and the effective application of
standardized knowledge, especially as far as technical knowledge is con-
cerned. Aviation systems, for instance, should work in a similar manner
everywhere in the world. Nonetheless, differences matter, even in the case
of technical knowledge.
Therefore, it is possible to assume that knowledge sharing is not only a
matter of knowledge transfer (Tsai, 2001) knowledge flows and absorptive
110 F. Maimone
capacity (Ib.). In fact, the absorptive capacity of MNCs (Ib., p. 998)—

‘their ability to assimilate and replicate new knowledge gained from exter-
nal sources’—does not depend only on the possession of the relevant
prior knowledge and the network position.
In a petroleum plant, safety procedures should not be submitted to
free interpretation, wherever this plant is located. But if the management
of the petroleum company wants to be sure that safety procedures are
enacted effectively in every plant, they must take into account tacit
knowledge (which is definitely culture bound) and consider the role of
inter-cultural communication, knowledge translation and adaptation to
the local context. Procedures may be universal, mindsets and behaviours
are definitely not.
Since it is a matter of cultivation, knowledge sharing needs to be nur-
tured. General strategies, aimed at fostering knowledge sharing, are also
expected to impact inter-cultural exchange. These preconditions are
described in the strategies list, illustrated below. It is easy to understand
that each of the several factors that impact the general setting and that
may facilitate or hinder knowledge sharing in the workplace are also cul-
ture sensitive. Therefore, it is argued that the effective management of
inter-cultural factors not only influences inter-cultural knowledge shar-
ing, but may also impact the general knowledge management processes.
On the other hand, inter-cultural knowledge sharing is influenced by the
general workplace setting. It is assumed that inter-cultural knowledge
sharing and the workplace setting for general knowledge management
purposes are inter-connected through a circular relation, which is typical
of complex processes (see Fig 5.1).
At the same time, it is argued that inter-cultural knowledge sharing is
not a separate process, but is embedded in the most general knowledge-
sharing dynamics, as illustrated in the next figure (see Fig. 5.2).
Three indicators are relevant to understanding the potential impact of
inter-cultural exchange on the general knowing process of an organiza-
tion: (a) the number of nationalities and different ethnic groups present
among company staff, at the corporate and local level, (b) how those
nationalities are globally distributed (i.e. the rate of national/ethnic
diversity observable at the headquarters and in each subsidiary of the
company, (c) the degree of national/ethnic diversity present within each
Intercultural Knowledge Knowledge Sharing

Exchange general processes
Fig. 5.1 The circular relation between inter-cultural knowledge sharing and gen-
eral knowledge sharing processes
General Knowledge
Sharing Processes
Intercultural
Knowledge
Sharing
Fig. 5.2 The location of inter-cultural knowledge sharing within general knowl-
edge sharing processes
organizational structure (departments and business units, project struc-

tures, teams, etc.).
One MNC may employ managers and employees of several nationali-
ties and ethnic groups, distributed almost homogeneously at the com-
pany’s different sites. In the typical staff distribution of a multi-domestic
organization (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989), the HQ and the subsidiaries
employ mainly local staff, except for the top management. Inter-cultural
knowledge sharing is mainly associated with the relations between the
112 F. Maimone
company and the external environment and with inter-subsidiary and

inter-organizational exchange. A trans-national/global MNC, on the
other hand (Ib.), may employ a multi-national/multi-ethnic staff and/or
utilize massively (even geographically dispersed) multi-cultural teams. In
this case, knowledge sharing encompasses an internal inter-cultural
exchange too.
5.1.3 The Conceptual View Underlying the Approach
The concept underlying the proposed approach is that in order to be

effective, knowledge sharing needs a ‘squint’ view that looks simultane-
ously at the whole picture and at the multiple views of a single process
(see De Bono, 2010). Therefore, as Sheth (2006) argues, in order to
improve inter-cultural knowledge sharing, MNCs should learn to con-
ciliate the anekanta (Ib.), the Buddhist ‘philosophical viewpoint that con-
siders that multiple perspectives of a single observation or phenomenon
can be true’ (Ib. p. 219), and the gestalt (i.e. the overall picture, some-
thing more than the sum of its parts). As Kofman and Senge (1993, p. 7)
affirm: ‘We continuously fragment problems into pieces; yet the major
challenges we face in our organizations and beyond are increasingly sys-
temic.’ Therefore, this integrated approach is also an attempt to apply
systemic thinking to knowledge sharing (Scharmer, 2007; Senge, 2014).
Finally, the approach proposed is inclusive (Maimone & Nava, 2017;
Pless & Maak, 2004), since it assumes that MNCs should conciliate
diversity and identity, creating a real multi-cultural workplace, in which
the values of human dignity (Dierksmeier, 2011; Pirson & Von
Kimakowitz, 2010; Von Kimakowitz, Pirson, Spitzeck, & Dierksmeier,
2010) and respect for others (Pless & Maak, 2004) are placed in the ker-
nel of organizational culture.
This perspective assumes that economic exchange (see Bruni &
Zamagni, 2004) may go far beyond individual self-interest and, conversely,
MNCs may be profitable even though they embrace the relational and
intangible aspects of economic exchange. Therefore, according to this the-
oretical stance, knowledge is not only a commodity functional to short-
term goals, or a capital to be exploited consistently with organizational
strategies but also a key element of the company that has a value beyond
the strategic position of the MNC. This knowledge is not a monad, iso-
lated from the rest of the world, but a dynamic product of the wider
knowledge eco-system. According to the theoretical perspective adopted
in this book, knowledge justification (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) should
not only take into account organizational values, strategies and goals, but
also social and environmental sustainability (UN, 2017).
Inclusivity arguably plays an important role in inter-cultural knowl-
edge sharing, since the meta-principle of mutual recognition (i.e. ‘recog-
nizing difference while looking for the common bond’) (Pless & Maak,
2004, p. 131) may also be considered a driver of inter-cultural exchange.
According to Pless and Maak, mutual recognition has three key elements:
emotional recognition, solidarity and legal and political recognition. This
approach integrates affective—relational, social and institutional—
dimensions and may provide a road map for setting the right precondi-
tions for inter-cultural knowledge sharing. Only if people perceive that
their identity is recognized and respected by their organization and co-
workers do they feel at home in their company, no matter what their own
culture and identity may be, and only where there is a climate of mutual
trust and engagement, can inter-cultural knowledge sharing—especially
as far as concerns tacit knowledge exchange—be enacted pervasively and
effectively.
5.1.4 T
he Inclusive and Integrated Approach to
Inter-Cultural Knowledge Sharing
The integrated and inclusive approach proposed in this book is based on

ten pillars (i.e. ten strategies designed to facilitate change management to
improve the level of intercultural knowledge sharing within and across
organizational boundaries):
1. The development of a knowledge-oriented workplace and a knowl-

edge culture
2. The development of cultural awareness and intelligence
3. The development of glocal identities
114 F. Maimone
4. The development of inter-cultural competence

5. The creation of knowledge-friendly multi-cultural teams, organiza-
tional spaces and networks
6. The creation of an inclusive workplace
7. The development of culturally competent leaders
8. The facilitation of inter-cultural knowledge networking, translation
and transformation processes
9. The ad hoc design and management of corporate social media
10. The development of inter-cultural digital competencies
These ten pillars do not represent separate strategies, but should be

considered as mutually reinforcing, since they are designed to act syner-
gistically, as is shown in the following figure (see Fig. 5.3).
This approach is intended to provide a general framework that can help
to enhance the ability of individuals and teams to effectively exchange
knowledge in culturally diverse contexts, to improve the efficacy of inter-
cultural network-based knowledge sharing, and to help (not only) MNCs
become a better workplace for inter-cultural knowledge sharing—in other
words, a real multi-cultural knowledge space. The strategy needed by each
individual MNC should be set by adopting ad hoc initiatives that follow
the suggestions provided in this book. These initiatives should be tailor-
made for the specific characteristics of the organization in order to meet
the needs of the people involved in the knowledge sharing processes.
5.2 S
etting the Stage for Knowledge
Sharing: The Development
of a Knowledge-Oriented Workplace
and a Knowledge Culture
As has already been pointed out, knowledge sharing may be nurtured and
facilitated through the development of organizational cultures and the
creation and facilitation of knowledge and network spaces. At the same
time, knowledge sharing, as stated by Nonaka and colleagues (see
Nonanka & Takeuchi, 1995), is enacted by people and therefore is mainly
General workplace
seng
The development of
Culture sensiviness and
intercultural digital
competences intelligence
The ad hoc design and

The development of
management of
corporate social media glocal idenes
The facilitaon of
knowledge sharing and Intercultural competence
translaon processes
knowledge friendly and

The development of
inclusive teams,
cultural competent
organizaonal spaces and
leaders
networks
Toward an Integrated and Inclusive Approach to Inter-cultural...
The creaon of an
inclusive workplace
115
Fig. 5.3 The ten pillars of the strategy

116 F. Maimone
human-centric. Curiosity, open-mindedness, self-confidence and the

ability to cope with ambiguity and uncertainty are the basic ingredients
for the development of knowledge sharing (not only) in MNCs. Moreover,
knowledge sharing is encouraged by philosophy, a word that comes from
the ancient Greek words φιλεω (phileo)—to love—and σοφια (sophia)—
wisdom—and means, literally, ‘love for wisdom’. Knowledge sharing
really works when it is not only functional (i.e. aimed at performing a
specific task), but also practiced for its own sake (Gherardi, Nicolini, &
Strati, 2007; Sié & Yakhlef, 2009).
In order to be really effective, knowledge sharing should involve a
wider and varied range of knowledge meeting the diversity and complex-
ity of the environment and the evolution of science, technology and the
environment itself, as is assumed by the so-called law of requisite variety
(Ashby, 1964). Knowledge is not a commodity and, when MNCs adopt
short-term knowledge strategies, they run the risk of being unable to
cope with the complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity and speed of change.
MNCs should create a knowledge-friendly environment, providing
managers and employees with resources, spaces (digital and physical)
designed for facilitating knowledge creation and sharing, tools for, and
the fostering of, learning and education processes, and they should not be
limited to practical, functional knowledge.
The following suggestions may help to improve the quantity and qual-
ity of knowledge sharing in MNCs, and should also be considered as a
prerequisite for the development of inter-cultural knowledge exchange.
5.2.1 Individuals and Knowledge Sharing
Mikulincer (1997) reported the results of five studies showing the rela-
tionship between two key elements of information processing—informa-
tion search and integration of new information within cognitive
structures—and attachment working models. The attachment working
model is a projection of the personal attachment model (generally refer-
ring to parental figures), developed in early childhood. Individuals who
received adequate parental care are seen to be more secure and therefore
less concerned about the risk of being abandoned by adults and, later on,
more self-confident about their own adulthood and even their workplace.
This attitude should influence (Ib.) personal orientations toward the
knowing process. In other words, if individuals can establish a positive
relation with co-workers and develop a self-confident and stable attitude
toward the workplace, they should be more capable of coping with the
uncertainty, ambiguity and efforts associated with learning processes. The
greater the self-confidence individuals possess, the more able they should
be to acquire new knowledge, questioning their own cognitive schemes
and beliefs. These findings suggest that (see Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005)
leadership can play a critical role in supporting less self-confident employ-
ees and encouraging them to go beyond their comfort zone.
Moreover, a study conducted by Wei, Liu, and Francesco (2010)
showed that personal and social norms influence motivation to share
knowledge. Personal norms are associated with intrinsic motivation.
Social norms influence individual attitudes to knowledge sharing through
internalization, identification and conformity. Therefore this study indi-
cates that managers and employees should be encouraged to engage in
knowledge sharing activities, fostering a shift in personal values and
norms. Change management initiatives (see Maimone, Ravazzani, &
Mormino, 2011) and training and coaching programs (see Sofo, Yeo, &
Villafañe, 2010) may favour a shift in norms and values and the diffusion
of knowing-oriented practices.
A survey conducted by Cabrera, Collins, and Salgado (2006) revealed
that self-efficacy, openness to experience and perceived support from col-
leagues and supervisors are strongly correlated to participation
(self-reported) in knowledge sharing. Organizational commitment, job
autonomy, perception of the availability and quality of knowledge man-
agement systems, and perception of rewards associated with active knowl-
edge sharing are also correlated (Ib.), though less significantly correlated
with self-perceived active engagement in knowledge sharing processes.
These findings support the human-centric perspective of knowledge
management. Therefore, individual engagement in knowledge sharing
activities is facilitated by knowledge management infrastructures and
policies, but it may also be fostered by human resources management and
people management practices.
118 F. Maimone
The findings of the research conducted by Cabrera, Collins and Salgado

(Ib.) are convergent with the results of the two studies carried out by Lu,
Leung, and Koch (2006). According to the outcomes of the field research
reported by the authors (Ib.), greed may negatively impact knowledge
sharing and instead it is assumed that self-efficacy fosters it. Furthermore,
co-worker collegiality indirectly influences knowledge sharing, since it
lowers greed and increases self-efficacy. Therefore, the diffusion of team
and inter-team collaboration (and, arguably, trust) may foster individual
engagement in knowledge exchange and mediate the negative impact of
selfish attitudes.
Chang and Chuang (2011) reported the findings of an online survey
of a sample of participants in virtual communities. According to the out-
comes of this research, altruism, identification, reciprocity and shared
language significantly and positively impacted knowledge sharing.
Reputation, social interaction, and trust had a positive influence on the
quality, but not on the quantity, of shared knowledge. The results of this
research support the hypothesis that individual attitudes impact individ-
uals’ propensity for knowledge exchange, while social capital positively
influences the quality of the process and hence the quality of the same
shared knowledge. In this case it is possible to argue that personal devel-
opment (see Sofo, 1999; Sofo et al., 2010) can enhance the level of indi-
vidual engagement in knowledge-sharing activities, also facilitating a
change in personal values and attitudes. The diffusion of team and inter-
team collaboration and the overall improvement of organizational social
capital is also required to improve the quality of the knowledge exchanged.
Individual engagement in knowledge sharing (Chang & Chuang,
2011) is facilitated by the presence and availability of information and
communication technologies. Reinholt, Pederson and Foss (2011)
affirmed that network centrality, motivation, and ability are critical for
the employees’ contribution to knowledge sharing. According to the
findings of empirical research conducted by the authors (Ib.), employees
are more engaged in knowledge sharing if they occupy a central position
in knowledge networks, are highly motivated in sharing their knowledge
with their colleagues and are able to communicate and interact effectively
during knowledge exchange. However, the findings seem to overlook
some of the progress made by social network and complexity theory that
suggests that centrality is not always necessary in knowledge sharing pro-

cesses, as shown by the theory of small worlds, illustrated in the previous
chapter. Nevertheless, network position, auto-motivation and the indi-
vidual’s ability to effectively implement shared knowledge should be con-
sidered critical for the success of knowledge sharing—and not only in
MNCs.
The findings presented above suggest that in order to improve their
capacity to foster knowledge exchange, MNCs need to cultivate a passion
for knowledge and for knowing (Gherardi, Nicolini, & Strati, 2007). For
this reason, human resources management, people management, training
and education and organizational communication strategies and prac-
tices should support the selection, retention, reward, development and
interconnection of managers and employees who share knowledge-
oriented values, attitudes and behaviours.
5.2.2 Setting the Stage
Knowledge sharing is really effective if the MNC is ready to learn and to

change its own paradigms and schemes, capitalizing on new knowledge.
In other words, the MNC needs to enact double-loop learning. Argyris
and Schön (1978, p. 24), defined double-loop learning as ‘those sorts of
organizational inquiry that resolve incompatible organizational norms by
setting new priorities and weightings of norms, or by restructuring the
norms themselves with associated strategies and assumptions’. Only if the
organization is actually ready to question its own schemes, rules and deci-
sion processes, and decisions taken at different levels, can knowledge
sharing be really effective.
Moreover, knowledge sharing is facilitated by knowledge-oriented cul-
ture (see Maimone, 2007) and organizational climate (Maimone & Sinclair,
2010). People are encouraged to share knowledge only if the organizational
environment encourages knowledge exchange, also when the knowledge
that is produced and exchanged questions authority, status, power and rou-
tines. Alvesson and Spicer (2012) proposed a ‘stupidity-based’ theory of
organization that assumes that contemporary organizations have the ten-
dency to enact ‘functional stupidity’. Functional stupidity (Ib., p. 5)
120 F. Maimone
‘is organizationally supported lack of reflexivity, substantive reasoning and

justification. It entails a refusal to use intellectual resources outside a narrow
and ‘safe’ terrain. It can provide a sense of certainty that allows organizations
to function smoothly. This can save the organization and its members from
the frictions provoked by doubt and reflection. Functional stupidity con-
tributes to maintaining and strengthening organizational order.’ Therefore,
stupidity may be functional for the maintenance of the organizational status
quo and to exorcise the fear of the loss of control. In the early 1950s, Jaques
(Amado, 1995; Jaques, 1955) hypothesized that organizational systems
might be interpreted as a form of defence against psychopathological anxi-
ety. Thus organizational stupidity (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012) may be also a
defence against negative emotions triggered by the growing turbulence and
uncertainty of external and internal organizational environments (see Vuori
& Huy, 2016).
Routine and procedure-based, acritical, conformist attitudes and
behaviours may be also an (illusory) attempt to ensure some kind of sta-
bility in the organizational system. In times of economic crisis, short-
ermism, unique thinking, orientation to norms and procedures and the
consequent rise of functional stupidity can be employed to maintain con-
trol during restructuring and downsizing processes.
This theoretical stance resembles the debate on the dark side of organi-
zational bureaucracy, which is still topical as a consequence of the return
of command and control managerial strategies (see Maimone, 2017).
Obviously, if organizational culture and strategies do not encourage
reflexivity, critical thinking, justification and double-loop learning, then
knowledge sharing cannot easily develop quantitatively and qualitatively.
On the contrary, it is more likely that defensive practices will prevail, and
that the lack of trust and organizational conformism will facilitate the
emergence of zero-sum organizational games.
For knowledge sharing to flourish, a conscious and wise organizational
approach to knowledge sharing is needed. Managers and stake holders
(not only) of MNCs should have a deep understanding of the fact that
functional stupidity and organizational conformism are counterproduc-
tive in the long term, and that the risk of the loss of control, associated
with free knowledge creation and exchange, is counterbalanced by the
economic and social benefits of knowledge sharing.
MNCs do not benefit from functional stupidity, at least in the long

term. On the contrary, they need to foster their internal diversity. In fact,
according to Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety (1964), contemporary
organizations need to increase the level of internal variety, in order to
cope with the rising complexity of the environment. As Schneider and
Barsoux (1999, p. 228) suggested: ‘Given the complexity of the current
business environment, there is a need for organizations to match that
variety internally, to have what is known as “requisite variety”.’ The attrac-
tion/selection of managers and workers of different national, professional
and generational identities plays an important role in this process (Ib.).
Therefore, the internal workplace of the contemporary MNC should
exhibit a high rate of variety—including in terms of organizational
knowledge and skills—that is able to match external complexity. The
more varied and rich the knowledge capital of a company is, the better its
capacity to cope with uncertainty and emergencies. For this reason, as
underlined above, knowledge, capacities and related processes should be
redundant, differentiated and wider than the limits of the resources
needed for carrying out planned activities and tasks.
Internal communication (Maimone, 2007, 2010) should support
knowing processes, which helps limit the increase of the level of organi-
zational disconnection and the creation of organizational silos. This goal
can be pursued in the design and implementation of communication
spaces and networks through ad hoc architectural and layout-design
strategies, and in the development of digital communication tools—for
instance, internal corporate social networks.
Another important precondition of knowledge sharing is care (Von
Krogh, 1998). According to Von Krogh (Ib., p. 136): ‘Untrustworthy
behavior, constant competition, imbalances in giving and receiving infor-
mation and “that’s not my job” endanger effective sharing of tacit knowl-
edge.’ Trust plays an important role in knowledge sharing, along with
more general relational capital (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003;
Holste & Fields, 2010). Therefore (Von Krogh, 1998, p. 136):
‘Constructive and helpful relations speed up the communication process,
enable organizational members to share their personal knowledge and to
discuss their ideas and concerns freely.’ Care, according to Von Krogh
(Ib.), has five dimensions: mutual trust, active empathy, access to help,
122 F. Maimone
lenience in judgement and courage. These conclusions are consistent

with the findings of field research that investigated the preconditions of
knowledge creation (Maimone & Sinclair, 2010). From that perspective,
knowledge sharing may be nurtured and leveraged by trustworthy, warm
and positive workplace relations. Therefore, good organizational and
inter-organizational relations and trust are critical for the effective imple-
mentation of knowledge sharing within and across organizational
boundaries.
The findings of the research, illustrated below, are convergent with the
results reported by Ismail Al-Alawi, Yousif Al-Marzooqi, and Fraidoon
Mohammed (2007). Trust is perceived as a critical factor for knowledge
sharing by the participants in a survey of a sample of employees and man-
agers. Knowledge sharing is effectively enacted only if managers and
employees understand that knowledge is not a scarce resource, but is
multiplied by exchange (Rullani, 1994, 2006).
According to Tsai (2002), coordination mechanisms may influence
knowledge sharing positively or negatively with respect to inter-unit
exchange. As his field research reported (Ib., p. 186): ‘Formal hierarchical
structure represented by centralization shows a negative impact on
intrafirm knowledge sharing. The more control the headquarters exer-
cised on its subunits, the less the subunits were willing to share knowl-
edge with other units.’ Tsai’s study (Ib.) revealed that hierarchical
structures (and culture) do not foster inter-functional and inter-unit
knowledge exchange. Instead, it highlighted the critical role of informal
lateral relations (Ib.): ‘Informal lateral relations manifested in interunit
social interaction show a significant positive effect on interunit knowl-
edge sharing. Organizational units that interact with each other socially
are likely to share knowledge with each other.’
Corporate universities may provide a significant contribution to the
development of knowledge sharing. According to Bersin (2017): ‘The
“corporate university” represents a centralized approach to corporate
training, in which the organization creates a set of programs and
discipline-specific owners that run the “colleges” or learning program
areas’ (see Meister, 1998; Jansink, Kwakman, & Streumer, 2005; Lui
Abel & Li, 2012). GE’s Management Development Institute in
Crotonville, New York, and McDonald’s Hamburger University in
Illinois are reportedly the best-known examples of a corporate university.

Furthermore, Barilla, Ferrero, Enel, TIM Telecommunication, Türk
Telekom and Airbus, among others, created corporate academies to
develop training and education programs and to coordinate learning
(and also knowing processes). Corporate universities may contribute to
the development of shared mindsets and behaviours that facilitate knowl-
edge sharing. Moreover, they may help to create weak ties (Granovetter,)
that play a crucial role in the creation of small worlds and the inter-
connection of teams, clusters and knowledge spaces. Corporate acade-
mies may facilitate interpersonal entanglement. For this reason, it is
necessary to avoid the tendency to adopt digital learning strategies based
on the use of massive e-learning, to cut training costs and to favour learn-
ing standardization. It is argued that content-based training is not suffi-
cient to enact the dynamics described above and to foster a
knowledge-sharing culture and dynamics. Corporate universities may
also become drivers of knowledge sharing. For this very reason they
should be designed and managed to facilitate explicit and tacit knowl-
edge sharing, conciliating normative and procedural training with higher-
level learning goals.
5.2.3 Nurturing Knowledge Space
Ashmos, Duchon, McDaniel, and Huonker (2002) highlighted the role

played by connectivity in complex systems. Connectivity can be seen as a
sort of extension of the predicate of the requisite variety law (Ashby,
1964): to manage the increasing level of complexity of external environ-
ments, contemporary organizations need to elevate their level of inter-
connection, fostering the number and strength of ties within and across
organizational boundaries. The rise of the level of organizational connec-
tivity is also important for building a common cognitive framework,
which is fundamental to the construction of a ‘third culture’ (Casmir,
1999), a concept that will be illustrated later in this chapter. According to
Ashmos et al. (2002): ‘New ideas and new possibilities are in turn set
loose in the network of connections where they will be subject to re-
interpretation and modification and where a collective sense of what
124 F. Maimone
actions are needed can continually emerge.’ Therefore, organizational

connectivity may facilitate the emergence of order from chaos and, more-
over, the creation of dissipative structures that counterbalance knowl-
edge entropy. Therefore, the creation and nurturing of knowledge
networks should also facilitate organizational interconnection with the
structuring proprieties of informal relations. This in turn should facilitate
knowledge sharing.
The power of self-organizing and synchronizing processes to produce
order from chaos was also shown by the pong experiment (Maynes-
Aminzade, Pausch, & Seitz, 2002). In the early 1990s, Loren and Rachel
Carpenter conducted a series of experiments using a system called
Cinematrix (Ib.). The participants in the experiment sat down in the seats
of a theatre. Each participant was given a plastic paddle, coloured red on
one side and green on the other. The people participating in the experi-
ment were asked to move a circle projected on the central screen in the
room, providing inputs to the computer system, using their paddle. The
participants were divided into two groups, each one responsible for the
movements of the circle in one axis of a two-dimensional space: horizon-
tal and vertical. Each colour represented a command: up or down, left or
right. A camera connected to the computerized system registered each
command and communicated it to the automatic system. The command
enacted by the computer was the result of the average sum of the outputs
produced by each member of the two groups. Considering that each
group was composed of several sub-groups of people and therefore the set
of participants in the experiment was highly heterogeneous, it would be
expected that the outcome of this experiment would have been a random
motion. Instead, the outcomes of repeated experiments evidenced that
groups of participants were able to quickly adapt their individual paddle
signals to achieve coherent motion control of the ‘ping pong ball’—that
is, the repetition of the experiment facilitated the emergence of collective
behaviours and a kind of coordination among the participants in the
experiment.
It is assumed that the pong experiment showed the emergence of self-
organizing processes. This process is the outcome of interaction mediated
by a specific medium—in this case the Cinematrix system (Ib.)—of peo-
ple who are not interconnected through personal ties and are simply
experimenting with a common situation requiring spontaneous coordi-

nation among the participants in the experiment. This kind of situation
facilitates the emergence of a collective (tacit) knowledge and, arguably,
also (tacit) knowledge sharing, since it is supposed that the same process
is at least partially asymmetric and that the moves are first enacted by
some participants and then imitated by the others through a process of
distributed problem solving and reciprocal adaptation.
It is possible to argue that the situation described above is a specific
case of a more general characteristic of social interaction: When people
are obliged to move and interact in the same physical and digital space,
social behaviours may emerge, especially if some common activities are
repeated several times or day after day. The gathering of people in front
of a coffee vending machine is a common event throughout the corridors
of our offices, in the open spaces of manufacturing plants, in the staff
canteen, and so on. For this reason, the design of physical (see Riege,
2005) and digital spaces is fundamental to the facilitation of knowledge
sharing (Maimone, 2007). Obviously, the architecture of knowledge
spaces is a precondition, but not sufficient to trigger inter-cultural
exchange: If people interact with similar/closely allied groups, social
spaces may produce separation and even segregation among different
social and cultural groups.
An exotic phenomenon studied in quantum physics may help organi-
zational researchers and practitioners to better understand how social
interaction works (not only) in MNCs. Quantum entanglement (Barad,
2007; Lord, Dinh, & Hoffman, 2015) is a physical phenomenon that
occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in a way
such that they are entangled. It means that the quantum state of each
particle cannot be described independently from that of the other and
the state of each particle seems to be influenced by the change of state of
the other sub-atomic unit (Ib.). This strange kind of connection is
observed even when the entangled particles are separated by large
distances.
The concept of entanglement may also be applied to human behav-
iour, and it is not necessary to evoke the ghost of telepathy or new-age
practices to explain the phenomenon. When people share very impactful
experiences, such as, for instance, being friends in the same college or co-
126 F. Maimone
workers in the same work team, they may be interconnected at a deep

level (due to cognitive, affective and experiential factors). This means that
even when the shared experience ends, and despite having an indepen-
dent life and no longer being in touch, these same people may retain
common attitudes, values, paradigms and behavioural patterns. This may
increase the likelihood that they cope with certain similar problems or
decision processes in a similar way. Moreover, entangled people may
exhibit, independently of one another, path-dependent patterns of behav-
iour (see Sydow, Schreyögg, & Koch, 2009) that show similar and/or
convergent features—for example, related to career pathways.
This phenomenon, which also depends on the intensity of the shared
experience and on the psychosocial dynamics enacted during the entan-
gling event, should not be interpreted in a deterministic way. As the
movie Sliding Doors showed, path-dependent behaviours also depend on
human will and fate.
If we want to adopt more alternative explanation models, human entan-
glement can also be related to synchronicity, a concept derived from
Buddhism and described in theoretical terms by Carl Gustav Jung (Jung,
Shamdasani, & Hull, 2010). It involves apparently non-casual connections
among situations and events, defined by Jung as ‘meaningful coincidences’.
McKelvey (2002) proposed an analogy between entanglement and the
so-called strength of weak ties (Granovetter, 1983). McKelvey referred to
the ‘entanglement pool’ (i.e. the set of sub-atomic particles that are cor-
related through quantum dynamics). According to McKelvey (2002,
p. 8): ‘Organization scientists should be quick to realize that the entan-
glement pool is somewhat analogous to Granovetter’s (1983) “strength of
weak ties” finding, with the proviso that the ties encompass a broad set of
correlated substantive interests across agents within a firm.’
Nevertheless, it is necessary to admit that entanglement, at least on an
interpersonal and social level, is not only a matter of ties; it is presumably
the output of a shared experience that facilitates the construction of a
common framework. Emotions, feelings and affective processes play the
same role as energy in quantum physics dynamics. In some cases, people
may show similar attitudes and behaviours, even if they have no longer
interacted with each other since the common experience that facilitated
entanglement in the first place. This process may also be influenced by
national and ethnic cultures (see Soliman, Ferguson, Dexheimer, &

Glenberg, 2015). Soliman et al. (Ib.) reported that Asian people, who
share a culture characterized by interdependent self-construals, are more
likely to develop a strong, interpersonal, joint, body schema after partici-
pating in an experiment on body scheme adaptation exercises, whereas
North-Americans and Western–Europeans are characterized by a culture
that privileges independent self–construals.
The military academy (see Bennet, Bennet, & Long Lee, 2010) was
also born to facilitate the entanglement of officers on the war front so
they may execute strategy and tactics and operate coherently, even though
they are not able to communicate with each other and to coordinate their
efforts in real time. Many MNCs implement special training programs
for young graduates and company talents and aimed (more or less con-
sciously) at facilitating this kind of entanglement. Heineken, the
European Space Agency and Unicredit, among others, offer, in addition
to the regular programs of the company, special international graduate
programs that facilitate this kind of process. Corporate universities (see
previous paragraph) may also enhance the level of interpersonal and orga-
nizational entanglement inside and outside organizational boundaries.
As mentioned in earlier in this chapter, MNCs may become a whole
knowledge space if the organizational social entities are interconnected
and the knowledge sharing processes are nurtured, creating a living and
dynamic fabric made of formal and informal ties, which should form a
complex interface and assure the development and maintenance of
knowledge exchange, the creation of bridges and ‘structural holes’ among
individuals and formal and informal social entities, and they should also
help to manage complexity, solve conflicts and guarantee some kind of
dynamic dis-equilibrium.
5.3 T
he Development of (Inter-)cultural
Sensitivity and Intelligence
Inter-cultural exchange presumes the ability of the actors to recognize
and appreciate cultural differences and therefore requires inter-cultural
sensitivity, which (Hammer, Bennet, & Wiseman, 2003, p. 424) refers to
128 F. Maimone
‘the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences’

(see also Bennett & Bennett, 2004). Even though expatriate staff, manag-
ers and employees with multi-cultural backgrounds may have a high level
of inter-cultural experience (see Maimone, 2005), it might not be enough
to develop true inter-cultural awareness. In fact, inter-cultural sensitivity
also depends on cognitive flexibility (Endicott, Bock, & Narvaez, 2003;),
which is (Endicott et al., 2003, p. 415): ‘the ability to understand, con-
sider, and weigh multiple frameworks’ that can entail flexible cultural
thinking and flexible moral thinking (i.e. the ability to be aware of differ-
ent moral frameworks). Moreover, it is arguably influenced by emotional
and social intelligence (Bar-On and Parker, 2000; Goleman, 2006;
Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). Ad hoc training and international
mobility programs (Endicott et al., 2003) and inter-cultural coaching
may help managers and employees of MNCs to be more prepared to face
inter-cultural exchange and to learn from their experiences abroad and
improve their level of inter-cultural sensitivity. Online communities and
social networks may also help people to improve their level of inter-
cultural sensitivity, as is illustrated in the last chapter.
Cultural intelligence is another socio-cognitive driver of knowledge
sharing. Cultural intelligence is defined (Ang et al., 2007, p. 336) as ‘an
individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally
diverse settings, CQ is a multidimensional construct targeted at situa-
tions involving cross-cultural interactions arising from differences in race,
ethnicity and nationality.’ As Early and Mosakowski (2004) claimed:
‘Although some aspects of cultural intelligence are innate, anyone reason-
ably alert, motivated, and poised can attain an acceptable level of cultural
intelligence.’
A field study, conducted by Chen and Lin (2013), who adopted the
socio-cognitive perspective (Bandura, 2002), showed a significant corre-
lation between the level of knowledge sharing within diverse cultural
teams and cultural intelligence. The construct of cultural intelligence was
disaggregated into four sub-dimensions (Ang et al., 2007): meta-
cognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural cultural intelligence.
According to the results of the study, meta-cognitive cultural intelligence
is strongly and directly correlated with the level of knowledge sharing and
therefore the authors (Ib.) suggested that team managers should pay par-
ticular attention to incentivizing this component of cultural intelligence

among their collaborators. The same study revealed that the other three
dimensions included in the cultural intelligence model (Ib.) may produce
either direct or indirect effects on knowledge sharing, suggesting that
they are complementary to each other in facilitating knowledge exchange
among culturally diverse team members. Furthermore, (Ib., p. 686):
‘Team leaders should encourage their members to take actions toward
experiencing different cultural values and manners and establishing their
self-confidence even under a culture that is unfamiliar to them.’
Also in this case, ad hoc development and training programs may help
managers and other people to improve their ability to cope with inter-
cultural exchange and actively engage with inter-cultural sharing. They
may also be able to assess the (inter)cultural intelligence of managers and
key people involved in critical inter-cultural knowledge sharing processes
in order to allocate ‘culturally intelligent’ people within teams and
business units and to facilitate the personal and professional development
of the same people involved in inter-cultural exchange.
5.4 T
he Development of Inter-Cultural
Competences
Inter-cultural knowledge sharing is, arguably, leveraged by the develop-
ment of inter-cultural competences, which refer to the set of knowledge
and skills that enables individuals to interact effectively within different
cultural contexts and/or with interlocutors of diverse cultures.
According to Nava (2017, p. 405): ‘Intercultural competence is con-
sidered a set of cognitive, affective and behavioural skills, involving also
interaction, language and knowledge skills. A person with intercultural
competence has the ability to communicate effectively and successfully in
intercultural situations based on his or her intercultural knowledge, abili-
ties and attitudes.’
Furthermore, according to Cannavale (2017, p. 132), inter-cultural
competences have an impact on ‘individuals’ inclination to knowledge
transfer and sharing, on the way individuals decide to share knowledge,
130 F. Maimone
and on their capability to recognize and evaluate key information’

(Magala, 2005)’ (see also Calvelli and Cannavale, 2013).
Therefore, ad hoc training and development strategies should be
implemented to improve the inter-cultural competences of staff, with
particular attention to the people who work in multi-cultural teams/
workplaces and to those playing the role of knowledge brokers within
and across diverse cultural groups and clusters, and the role of critical
nodes for intercultural exchange.
According to Nava (2017, p. 407), who reported the conclusions of a
field study (see also Pliopaitė & Radzevičienė, 2010), inter-cultural com-
petences may be improved through the development of the following
knowledge/skills:
• Knowledge of costumes, traditions, culture and organizational poli-

cies, negotiation strategies of the various cultures
• Ability to analyse and interpret adequately the diverse cultural con-
texts, reacting appropriately
• Capacity to build relations within the organization
• Interacting and working effectively in multi-cultural teams and contexts
• Language skills
• Positive inclination to intercultural challenges
As Cannavale pointed out (2017, p. 407): ‘Although companies can

contribute to the development of cultural knowledge, and cultural com-
petence by a supportive organizational culture (Kriemadis, Pelagidis, &
Kartakoullis, 2012), cultural competence strongly depends on individu-
als’ capability and inclination to accept and value diversities.’
5.5 T
he Creation of Knowledge-Friendly
Multi-cultural Teams, Organizational
Spaces and Networks
The theory of similarity/attraction (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) assumes
that people prefer to work and interact with other people they find simi-
lar in terms of values, beliefs, and attitudes. Therefore, multi-cultural
teams and networks, to be effective, should counterbalance the human

preference for similars. This is also true with regard to knowledge
sharing.
Generally speaking, as far as concerns the national and ethnic origin of
team members, team composition is crucial for the effective inter-cultural
knowledge circulation and exchange (Maimone, 2005). For this reason,
people having the same nationality or ethnic identity should not be the
majority within one team. It would be also opportune to avoid teams
composed of about 50 per cent of people of one nationality and 50 per
cent of another since, there is the concrete risk that the team will be split
into two informal sub-groups, based on cultural identity.
Team composition should also take into account cultural distance (i.e.
the supposed degree of difference between two cultural systems in terms
of values, beliefs and behaviours) (see Shenkar, 2001). According to the
similarity/attraction theory (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), people are
keener to get along and work together if they perceive they are culturally
similar (see Maimone, 2005). The higher the (perceived) cultural dis-
tance among people is, the more difficult inter-cultural encounter is
expected to be. Nevertheless, according to the emic perspective adopted
in this book, cultural distance should be analysed within a wider and
more complex framework that includes social, economic, status-related,
organizational and power-related issues. For example, there is an arguable
difference between a distant ‘cultural alter’ who belongs to the same
national/ethnic group as the owners and/or the top management of the
MNC and a ‘cultural alter’ who is a member of an under-represented or
marginalized national/ethnic group or affiliated with an influential pro-
fessional or power-related clique and could therefore receive preferential
treatment, even though the influential professional or power-related
clique is considered by co-workers to be ‘very distant’.
Moreover, Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, and Jonsen (2010) reported the
results of a meta-analysis of multi-cultural teams. One of the key findings
was that, apparently, intra-national variations may impact team diversity
in the same way that inter-national differences do (Tung, 2008, p. 41).
Therefore, it is possible to assume that the relation between diversity and
knowledge sharing goes far beyond the perimeter of cultural differences
(see Sammarra, Profili, Maimone, & Gabrielli, 2017).
132 F. Maimone
A balanced and ‘wise’ team composition that takes into account cul-
tural diversity should help knowledge sharing inside and outside the
team’s boundaries.
Moreover, Stahl et al. (2010) found that culturally diverse teams showed
more team satisfaction than mono-cultural teams. These findings are con-
vergent with the results of two case studies of international organizations
(Maimone, 2005): in both cases managers and key people affirmed that
working in a multi-cultural environment is a very satisfactory experience
and they prefer to be employed in a multi-cultural context rather than in
a mono-cultural organization. Arguably, if people are keener to work in a
multi-cultural team, this should facilitate intra-group knowledge sharing,
even though it is not the only factor impacting this process.
Furthermore, (Stahl et al., 2010) dispersed multi-cultural teams seem
to be less conflictual than co-located ones. These findings support the
hypothesis that dispersed teams, operating through digital media, could
effectively facilitate inter-cultural knowledge sharing. Team tenure (Ib.),
on the other hand, is associated with more conflict and less effective com-
munication. It is a counter-intuitive finding that would suggest focussing
attention on the management of multi-cultural teams that have been
operating for a long-time—and this could work for knowledge sharing.
Furthermore, Jang (2014), conducted experimental research on cul-
tural brokerage. The author (Ib.) found that members of multi-cultural
teams that have relatively more cross-cultural experience are more ori-
ented to active engagement in cultural brokerage, where it is possible to
divide cultural brokers into two broad categories:
(a) cultural insiders who have a deep knowledge of the cultures of the
other members of the team and are more likely to enact brokerage,
thereby directly resolving cultural issues
(b) cultural outsiders who have a deep knowledge of other cultures (out-
side the group) and are more likely to enact brokerage facilitating
interactions
Both profiles may play a critical role for knowledge sharing.

Moreover, according to Bodla, Tang, Jiang, and Tian (2016), a team-
inclusive climate plays an important role in multi-cultural team
anagement and therefore also in team knowledge sharing. An inclusive

m
team climate is defined (Ib., p. 256): ‘as the overall perception of diverse
team members of fair treatment, integration of differences, and inclusion
in decision making in a team (Nishii, 2013)’. Culturally diverse team
members are likely to outperform if they are fairly treated, valued and
involved and engaged in core decision making (Nishii, 2013). Therefore
(Ib.) an inclusive climate promotes the social and cultural inclusion of
team members of multi-cultural teams (Azmat, Fujimoto, & Rentschler,
2014) and, arguably, is critical also for knowledge sharing. As will be
shown in the following paragraphs, inclusive cultures and climates are fun-
damental also for the development of a wider multi-cultural workplace.
Ritter and Gemünden (2003) indicated four organizational precondi-
tions that may have an impact on the development of inter-cultural,
network-building competences: access to resources, network orientation
of human resource management, integration of intra organizational com-
munication, and openness of corporate culture.
Another stream of research is related to team leadership and manage-
ment (Rivera-Vazquez, Ortiz-Fournier, & Rogelio Flores, 2009; Zakaria,
Amelinckx, & Wilemon, 2004). According to this perspective, inter-
cultural knowledge sharing should be facilitated by a conscious and cultur-
ally intelligent leadership. Leaders should nurture inter-cultural exchange
between and within teams, facilitating the development of inter-cultural
trust, climate and collaboration. Moreover, they should facilitate the medi-
ation between different worldviews, attitudes and behaviours. Conflict
negotiation is also critical for inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
Inter-cultural communication is equally important: knowledge exchange
is also related to the creation of a lingua franca and/or to linguistic skills.
Linguistic barriers, misunderstandings and ‘lost-in-translation’ experiences
are obstacles (not only) for inter-cultural knowledge sharing (Ting-Toomey,
2012). Inter-cultural exchange is not only a matter of verbal communication.
Every day, human communication is enacted in body language, emotional
display, proxemics, and symbolic and ritual interaction (Gudykunst, Ting-
Toomey, & Chua, 1988). Moreover, the classic model proposed by Hall
(1976), showed that human communication is not only a matter of content
but also of processes: people from highly contextualized cultures, like Asiatic
and Mediterranean cultures, prefer implicit communication requiring a
134 F. Maimone
shared context. The double nature of interpersonal communication was con-

secrated by the Seventh Art. The movie masterpiece Seven Samurai, directed
by the Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa, emphasized the role of silence
and implicitness in communication: the heroes of the film, ancient samurais,
spoke by means of sight, body, pauses, and the enactment of an esoteric com-
munication that required the sharing of a common symbolic, linguistic and
experiential background. The samurai-like implicit and nonverbal commu-
nication was also used by the Italian film maker Sergio Leone, one of the
fathers of the spaghetti western: The character of Joe, played by Clint
Eastwood in Leone’s masterpiece A Fistful of Dollars, managed to speak with-
out speaking, using his famous sight (that characterizes hiw own peculiar
“minimal” body language). Also in this case, the sharing of a common ground
(some kind of bandidos code) was necessary for the protagonists of Italian
western movies to communicate and express emotions and feelings. On the
other hand (Ib.), low-context communication, typical of Anglo-Saxons and
Northern European people, is supposed to be direct and explicit. Inter-
cultural communication, which is fundamental for knowledge sharing, is a
matter of both low-context and high-context communication.
Empathy, sensitivity to emotional differences in terms of perception
and display, active listening, continuous search for feedback and meta-
communication, and conflict management are critical for effective inter-
cultural communication (Maimone, 2005)—and not only for the sake of
knowledge sharing.
Inter-cultural communication skills are learned through training and
education, experiences and background. The individual and social devel-
opment of linguistic and non-linguistic competences may be favoured by
the emerging processes that occur in a nurturing and inclusive multi-
cultural work place (Maimone, 2005). If culture, values, climate, organi-
zational practices and individual orientations are consistent and oriented
toward inter-cultural encounter, people may learn from each other and
from the work environment how to communicate and interact with oth-
ers. Nevertheless, spontaneous and informal learning may not be enough
and therefore inter-cultural communication should also be developed by
implementing specific learning programs.
The outcome of conscious multi-cultural team management and the
effective behaviour of team members is the emergence of a third culture,
which is a type of of synergistic sub-culture that may arise in team and

organizational sub-units as a consequence of the mutual adjustment
between team/organizational sub-unit members. It is generally composed
of a mix of cultural traits, coming from the individual cultures of the
people who frequently interact and collaborate to achieve common goals.
This process may also be influenced by corporate/local culture and hier-
archy. For example, the team leader is expected to play an influential role
in shaping team (third) culture. Third culture is a type of cultural i nterface
that allows people from different geographic origins to interact and col-
laborate while dealing with different work cultures, linguistic misunder-
standings and culture-based conflicts.
The definition of third culture proposed by Adair, Tinsley and Taylor
(2006 p. 2) is particularly useful for knowledge sharing: ‘Third culture is
a shared knowledge structure consisting of team and task knowledge, as
well as values and norms rooted in the traditional cultural belief system
of one or more members.’ Therefore, third culture can be identified as a
shared cognitive structure, a set of knowledge and values and norms that
are embedded in the belief system of one or more group members and
may facilitate inter-cultural encounter and knowledge sharing.
Casmir (1993, 1999), among others, described third culture as a combi-
nation of mindset and shared actions, value and communication systems.
According to the author (Ib.), third culture is the product of the negotia-
tion process and synthesis among the original cultures of the actors involved
in the inter-cultural interaction. This framework plays an important role in
facilitating team work and knowledge sharing in multi-cultural groups.
All the strategies and practices illustrated in this chapter may contrib-
ute to the construction of a shared third culture, within and across multi-
cultural teams.
5.6 The Creation of an Inclusive Workplace

Third culture is an important component for the development of
knowledge-friendly teams, organizational spaces and networks.
Nevertheless, social inclusion is as important as third culture in facilitat-
ing the creation of a knowledge-friendly and inclusive workplace, as
136 F. Maimone
argued in the previous chapter. Pless and Maak (2004, p. 130) affirmed
that inclusivity can be an attribute of a specific kind of culture defined as
‘inclusive culture’. According to the authors (Ib., p. 130): ‘When we talk
about a culture of inclusion we think about an organizational environ-
ment that allows people with multiple backgrounds, mindsets and ways
of thinking to work effectively together and to perform to their highest
potential in order to achieve organizational objectives based on sound
principles.’
Chavez and Weisinger (2008, p. 340) suggested that inclusive culture
is based on three key elements: (a) a relational culture that allows people
to ’feel proud of their own uniqueness and at the same time to become
socially integrated into a larger group by celebrating the “me” within the
“we”’; (b) a strong orientation toward social inclusion that incentivizes
organizational learning; and (c) multiple organizational strategies, that
facilitate the individual participation in creative organizational processes,
fostering the attractiveness of the workplace and the level of well-being.
These elements are critical for the development of a culture that encour-
ages diversity and inclusion at the same time.
Holzinger and Dhalla (2007, p. 7) pointed out that ‘An inclusive cul-
ture will allow organizations to benefit from the talents of a diverse work-
force and, hence, from multiple identities’ (Barbosa & Cabral-Cardoso,
2007).
Inclusive culture is based also on mutual recognition, respect and trust
(Pless & Maak, 2004).
Inclusive culture is the result of the joint effect of organizational design,
human resources and internal communication management, and people
management.
Third culture and inclusive culture may be considered as the two faces
of the same coin: one is focused on cognitive and functional elements;
the other one on culture, relation, organizational justice. Each one may
reinforce the other through a circular relation. If people work and col-
laborate together effectively, work processes may foster the creation of an
inter-cultural cooperative spirit and cohesion and, therefore, it is more
likely that diverse people are included in the organization, no matter
what their nationality, language and identity may be. On the other hand,
only if the workplace is inclusive is it possible to create a really c ooperative
spirit. But to develop a really inclusive workplace, it is necessary to facili-

tate the development of inclusive meta-principles and values (Pless &
Maak, 2004).
If organizational networks and spaces facilitate the diffusion of inter-
cultural collaboration and inclusion, MNCs are likely to become better
able to manage and give value to inter-cultural relations—and not only
for knowledge sharing.
5.7 T
he Development of Cultural Competent
Leaders
Leadership plays an important role in inter-cultural knowledge sharing,
as underlined above. Culture-sensitive managers who are capable of
building social ties within and across organizational boundaries can play
a key role in facilitating knowledge interchange, translation and cross-
fertilization of knowledge, according to Holden (2002).
More generally, inclusive leaders are more able to facilitate perfor-
mance and team members’ engagement and therefore to nurture an
inclusive breeding ground—and not only for knowledge sharing. For
instance, according to Nishii and Mayer (2009, p. 1421): ‘The pattern of
inclusion that leaders create through the relationships that they develop
with their followers has a significant impact on the relationship between
diversity and turnover.’
Research (Huffaker, 2010) conducted on a sample of participants in
Google groups indicated that the leaders of online communities are more
likely to (a) be expansive and more likely to serve as brokers between
otherwise disconnected participants, and (b) demonstrate greater talk-
ativeness, linguistic diversity, assertiveness and affect.
Formal and informal leaders may play the role of inter-cultural knowl-
edge broker in MNCs, favouring inter-cultural exchange, participating in
digital interactions, and bridging different cultural groups. They may also
facilitate a digital-positive inter-cultural climate (Holden, 2002), enact-
ing and facilitating inter-cultural dialogue, diversity-oriented storytelling
and co-evolutionary processes, according to the complexity theory per-
spective adopted in this paper (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). For Boal and
138 F. Maimone
Schultz (2007, p. 419): ‘Dialogue is important because it is an under-

recognized aspect of the collaboration that is needed in order to build
shared meanings and collective pools of knowledge in an organization,
but storytelling gives life to the knowledge being generated and shared
among organization members.’
Moreover, the findings of a piece of empirical research conducted by
Lee, Masuda, Fu, and Reiche (2017) showed very interesting and insight-
ful results, opening new research pathways. The authors (Ib.) conducted
a field study that tested the joint effect of home, host, and global identi-
ties on cultural intelligence (CQ) and the leadership perception of mem-
bers of multi-cultural teams. The authors (Ib.) collected data from a
sample of 196 experienced professionals studying for MBA and interna-
tional masters degrees at two international universities based in Barcelona,
Spain. The participants in the survey were members of self-managed
multi-cultural teams. The outcomes of the empirical research were anal-
ysed, using polynomial regression and response surface methods. The
research surveyed global identity (the level of identification with global
culture), local identity (the level of identification with national culture),
host identity (the level of identification with the host country where the
participants lived at the time of the research), the CQ score and the per-
ceived level of leadership of other team members. The authors (Ib.) found
that when global identity is low, people with a more balanced identity
configuration (i.e. people who show a high level of identification with
both global and local identity or a low level of identification with global
and local identity), have a higher CQ score and are perceived by other
members of the team to be more leader-like. On the other hand (Ib.),
when the level of global identity is higher, people with a higher level of
identification with global identity show a higher level of CQ, even though
they are less recognized as leaders. When the level of identification with
global identity is higher, people with a low level of identification with the
local and host culture are more likely to be recognized as leaders.
According to Lee et al., (Ib., p. 24) the research ‘shed light on the positive
effects of holding low home/low host identities (or marginalization orien-
tation) especially when one’s global identity is low.’
Therefore, according to the findings of this research (Ib.), when global
identity is low, leaders who show a more balanced identity profile in
terms of local/host culture identification are more likely to show higher

levels of CQ and be recognized as leaders by other team members. Lee
et al. (Ib.) argued that this could happen because people who show a
more balanced identity profile in terms of multi-cultural or ‘not-
belonging-anywhere’ mindsets, are better able to process and interpret
social complexity and better engage with a multi-cultural team. When
the level of identification with global identity is higher, marginalized
people, who are not strongly attached to a specific identity, are more
likely to be accepted by other members of a multi-cultural team. It is
conjectured (Ib.) that the mechanism is exactly the opposite of what usu-
ally happens in mono-cultural teams, where marginalized people experi-
ence a lot of difficulty in being accepted by the group.
In multi-cultural teams that show a high level of global identity, people
who have a strong global identity are perceived as leaders, no matter what
their CQ is.
The findings of the empirical research (Ib.) may provide a few sugges-
tions for the improvement of knowledge sharing processes—and not only
in MNCs. In fact, the results of the research show that in multi-cultural
contexts in which the global identity is low, people with a more balanced
identity profile are more likely to show a higher CQ level and to be rec-
ognized as leaders by the other members of a multi-cultural team. This
condition is very likely to emerge among geographically dispersed project
teams and business units that are the backbone of contemporary glocal
flexible organizations. A weak global identity is sometimes to be found in
the foreign subsidiaries of MNCs and in multinational alliances and joint
ventures. In these cases, people who show a balanced configuration
between local and host identities might be more apt to behave as cultur-
ally intelligent and competent leaders. In an organization where the
global identity is stronger, as in the case of some types of international
organizations (see Maimone, 2005), marginalized people could have
more chance of being recognized as leaders.
According to the findings of the research (Ib.), in multi-cultural teams
and workplaces that are characterized by a high level of global identity,
managers may benefit from the development of a global mindset. In fact,
when managers do not have a high level of cultural sensitivity and CQ, it
is difficult to help them to improve their level of cultural intelligence as it
140 F. Maimone
requires thorough and time-consuming learning. The development of a

global view could help leaders to be more effective in inter-cultural
exchange.
Finally, identity and identity-related awareness could be included in
inter-cultural training programs: a leader who is more aware of his own
and others’ identity-related processes and the impact of these processes
on inter-cultural and leadership in multi-cultural contexts may be more
effective in managing multi-cultural teams. These suggestions could
also be helpful to the role of leaders in inter-cultural knowledge
sharing.
5.8 T
he Facilitation of Inter-Cultural
Knowledge Networking, Translation
and Transformation Processes
5.8.1 Nurturing Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing is (also) a matter of culture. The findings of the study

conducted by Wei et al. (2010), reported in paragraph 4.2.1, showed that
social norms that impact knowledge sharing are correlated with national
culture. According to the authors (Ib, p. 227): ‘In Chinese-based cultural
background, people support acquiescence to KS to avoid punishment;
however, in American-based cultural background, people are inclined to
disregard fear of punishment. Further, Chinese appear to have more ten-
dencies to conform to groups’ opinions and tend to favour KS as a means
of achieving harmonious relationships within the group; while Americans
appear to engage in KS because self-worth is viewed as the manifestation
of their individual determinations.’ Therefore, the authors of the research
(Ib.) suggested that managers should adopt different strategies and mech-
anisms to foster knowledge sharing within the different national groups
present in MNCs. US employees should be incentivized by recognizing
their personal contribution to the knowledge sharing process. As Wei
et al. pointed out (Ib., 228): ‘Since American employees seemed to favor
visibility into their personal abilities and commitment to KS, a system
that can bring their KS contributions into view should be a more effec-
tive mechanism to spread KS for that organization.’ The authors further
state (Ib., p. 228): ‘Since Chinese are more sensitive to others’ apprecia-
tion when seen as good contributors, the appropriate compliments to the
Chinese employees who actively engage in KS would reinforce their
favorable attitudes toward KS.’
The results of this study suggest a two-step strategy: (1) to provide dif-
ferent incentives to encourage members of diverse cultural groups to
actively engage in knowledge sharing processes, also offering different
narratives that may facilitate culturally embedded sense-making pro-
cesses, and (2) to facilitate self-reflective and meta-cognitive processes in
order to help members of different cultural groups to be more aware of
the mechanisms that influence knowledge sharing, within and outside
their own national group, and to facilitate the creation of a foundation
for the development of a shared inter-cultural framework.
Ford and Chan (2002, p. 7) applied Hofstede’s model (Hofstede &
Bond 1988, Hofstede 1991) to knowledge sharing and suggested that an
individualistic culture may find it more difficult to exchange knowledge,
respect collectivistic culture. High-power distance cultures may prefer top-
down knowledge sharing, while low-power distance cultures may privilege
task-related and content-related knowledge sharing and horizontal pro-
cesses. Masculinity-oriented cultures may show less propensity toward
knowledge sharing if individualistic attitudes and behaviours prevail. For
this reason, inter-cultural knowledge-sharing processes should take into
account cultural differences but also facilitate meta-learning and the shift
of mindsets and behavioural patterns in order to facilitate inter-cultural
exchange through the development of common meta-knowledge and
practices.
5.8.2 F acilitating Knowledge Translation

and Transformation
Knowledge sharing is not effective per se, especially if it encompasses

inter-cultural exchange. In fact, through the process of translation/trans-
formation, the same knowledge exchanged through small-world net-
142 F. Maimone
works may be misunderstood, overlooked, misinterpreted or voluntarily

submitted to an alternative and antagonistic decoding process (see Boje,
2011; Boje, Svane, & Gergerich, 2016; Eco, 1990), as a consequence of
language (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007) and cultural diversity
(Holden, 2002).
To overcome the homophilic syndrome, it is necessary to create per-
sonal bridges through the active engagement of people who, in terms of
personality, personal background, inter-cultural experiences (inside and
outside the MNC perimeter), and training and education are more apt to
behave as inter-cultural knowledge brokers (Holden, 2002; Holden &
Glisby, 2010), become inter-cultural hubs and construct bridges between
teams and organizational clusters.
Inter-cultural leaders may be helped to facilitate inter-cultural knowl-
edge sharing through the design and implementation of specific initia-
tives. For instance, knowledge ambassador programs may be designed
and implemented to facilitate (not only) inter-cultural exchange.
Knowledge ambassadors are (also) inter-cultural knowledge-sharing facil-
itators, selected among managers and employees and matching formal
roles with personal attitudes, interests, motivation to be actively engaged
in knowledge sharing, cultural sensitivity and intelligence, and inter-
cultural competence.
Knowledge facilitators should help the organization to (a) create
dynamic connections among co-workers speaking different languages
and belonging to diverse nationalities and/or ethnicities, different cul-
tural clusters and mono-cultural teams; (b) facilitate knowledge exchange,
translation and transformation, enacting dynamic and (at least partially)
creative knowledge sharing processes; (c) favour (along with the compa-
ny’s other organizational strategies and practices) the construction of a
really synergistic and inclusive workplace, also facilitating and re-
enforcing emerging (spontaneous) inter-cultural dynamics; and (d) con-
tributing to the enactment of organizational interfaces that should
facilitate and enhance inter-level and inter-cluster knowledge sharing,
inside and outside MNC boundaries. Also, in this case, the approach
should be glocal and inclusive.
As has already been pointed out, inter-cultural knowledge sharing is
based on translation processes (Holden & Von Kortzfleisch, 2004).
Translation is also a matter of language (Holden & Glisby, 2010).

Feely and Harzing (2003) defined three dimensions of the linguistic bar-
riers in MNCs:
(a) Language diversity is a function of the number of languages spoken

in the MNC.
(b) Language penetration is the number of people and roles within the
company that speak a certain language.
(c) Language sophistication is the level of linguistic literacy and com-
mand required by different roles.
The establishment of a lingua franca and the development of linguistic

competences may foster inter-cultural exchange—not only with respect
to knowledge sharing. Knowledge translation is a complex activity. The
different actors involved should collaborate to encourage the emergence
of a shared translation and interpretative practice. Inter-cultural collabo-
ration, dialogues and continuous feedback may help to create networks
of meaning that allow convergence among textual and audio-visual con-
tent. Therefore, it is argued that knowledge translation is a form of co-
construction of a shared dynamic framework and is the complex outcome
of the interplay between the different actors involved in the process.
Knowledge translation is also a matter of meta-linguistic competence
that should be fostered through ad hoc communication and training
strategies. Knowledge translation, though, requires the ability to create a
connection with diverse others and to understand and or intuitively per-
ceive the whole picture and the key details of ‘alter’ knowledge. Moreover,
active dialogue and continuous feedback are fundamental to the transla-
tion of knowledge and to its application to another knowledge system
and cultural context. Knowledge translation, therefore, is a kind of arti-
san activity that implies mutual exchange and adjustment between the
different actors involved.
Nevertheless, it necessary to point out that knowledge is not only a
matter of language. Knowledge in embodied in deep schemes and para-
digms (Schein, 1990), bodily memories (Ropo & Parviainen, 2001),
emotional patterns (Conway & Bekerian, 1987), material and digital
artefacts (see Malafouris, 2004) and technological infrastructure and
144 F. Maimone
objects (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008, 2015). Knowledge is also shared

through implicit process, as usually happens in the case of bodily, emo-
tional and other kinds of tacit knowledge. Imitation, collaboration,
immersion in a common experiential framework, and participation in
common activities related to work, as well as activities that are not related
to work, may facilitate the exchange of tacit knowledge between diverse
actors. Reflexivity, self-reflexivity and meta-learning may foster these
processes.
Inter-cultural exchange cannot be standardized, in the opinion of the
author of this book, but could be leveraged by long-term formal and
informal learning processes.
Knowledge translation may be enhanced by ‘participative competence’
(Holden and Glisby, p. 273) (i.e. ‘the ability to interact on equal terms in
multi-cultural environments in such a way that knowledge is shared and
that the learning experience is professionally enhancing’ (Ib.). It is sug-
gested that participative competence should be fostered through ad hoc
training and learning initiatives, international mobility programs, and
the participation of key managers and people in international projects,
based on distance and/or co-located activities.
As already pointed out, it is important to highlight that translation is
for many reasons a creative process. For instance, sometimes corporate
best-practices dissemination programs fail, and not only in MNCs. In
fact, an HRM program that was effective in one subsidiary of an MNC
does not necessarily work effectively in another one. A best practice
emerges in a specific context, and the knowledge embedded in that prac-
tice is situated and very often culture bound. Therefore, best practices
should be adapted to meet the different characteristics and needs of other
branches of an MNC. This process of translation/adaptation requires the
ability to deeply understand and contextualize, also in cultural terms, the
knowledge embedded in the best practice and to create something (at
least) different and therefore new. In this way it is also a creative process.
More generally, very often it is not possible to ‘copy and drag’ the
knowledge produced in one specific organizational context into other
parts of an MNC. The knowledge should be translated, adapted and in
some cases transformed into something different to meet the different
characteristics and demands of the diverse organizational contexts. This
assumption is, arguably, valid in the case of inter-organizational or exter-

nal knowledge sharing.
The ability to facilitate inter-cultural translation and transformation is
an individual and organizational competence. It is an individual
competence since it depends on the sensitivity, knowledge, skills and
meta-competence of people. It is an organizational competence since to
be effective, inter-cultural translation and transformation need a nurtur-
ing and enabling workplace. It has been proposed that inter-cultural
knowledge sharing should be embedded in work processes and practices
at every level of an MNC. And all corporate functions should contribute
to the facilitation of inter-cultural exchange, establishing ad hoc processes
and practices with their counterparts in the different subsidiaries and
branches of the organization.
It has also been suggested that transformational and knowledge-
oriented leadership styles and practices, managerial systems that recog-
nize and reward the ability to facilitate inter-cultural knowledge, the
diffusion of inter-cultural practices at each level of the organization, and
the development of initiatives and managerial practices that favour inter-
cultural translation and transformation may contribute to the creation of
a multi-cultural and intelligent workplace—and not only in MNCs.
Digital and social media may play an important role in this process.
The digital strategies that are aimed at integrating the strategic initiatives
mentioned in this chapter will be illustrated in the next one.
The Role of Women
Field research conducted by Ibarra (1992) showed that men were more
likely to form homophilic ties across multiple networks, while women
showed differentiated network patterns, and manifested less propensity
for homophilic relations.
The findings of qualitative field research (Maimone, Mormino, &
Guccione, 2011) involving twenty managers and employees of the Italian
branch of a Chinese MNC supported this assumption. Also, in this case,
women turned out to be less oriented to homophilic relationships in
terms of gender and cultural interactions with men.
146 F. Maimone
Therefore, it has been argued that the involvement of women as facili-

tators and champions of physical and virtual inter-cultural interactions
could facilitate the development of inter-cultural exchange and foster the
growth of multi-cultural informal networks.
It is suggested that strategies and practices oriented to gender diversity
management and valorization could also contribute to the fostering of
inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
References
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interper-
sonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. The Academy of Management
Executive, 17(4), 64–77.
Adair, W. L., Tinsley, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2006). Managing the intercultural
interface: Third cultures, antecedents, and consequences. In E. A. Mannix,
M. A. Neale, & Y.-R. Chen (Eds.), National culture and groups (pp. 205–232).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Aguinis, H., Boyd, B. K., Pierce, C. A., & Short, J. C. (2011). Walking new
avenues in management research methods and theories: Bridging micro and
macro domains. Journal of Management, 37, 395–403.
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organizations.
Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1194–1220.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2003). Studying management critically.
London: Sage.
Amado, G. (1995). Why psychoanalytical knowledge helps us understand organi-
zations; A discussion with Elliott Jaques. Human Relations, 48(4), 351–357.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., et al. (2007).
Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and
decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and
Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective.
In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizational
behavior and strategy (pp. 9–54). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Härtel, C. E. (2014). Positive and negative affective climate
and culture: The good, the bad and the ugly. In K. M. Barbera (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture (pp. 136–152).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.). (2000).
Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 131–146). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashmos, D. P., Duchon, D., McDaniel, R. R., Jr., & Huonker, J. W. (2002).
What a mess! Participation as a simple managerial rule to ‘complexify’ orga-
nizations. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2), 189–206.
Aspara, J., Lamberg, J. A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Strategic man-
agement of business model transformation: Lessons from Nokia. Management
Decision, 49(4), 622–647.
Azmat, F., Fujimoto, Y., & Rentschler, R. (2014). Exploring cultural inclusion:
Perspectives from a community arts organisation. Australian Journal of
Management, 40(2), 375–396.
Bamberger, P. (2008). From the editors beyond contextualization: Using context
theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management research. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(5), 839–846.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied
Psychology, 51, 269–290.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entan-
glement of matter and meaning. London: Duke University Press.
Barbosa, Í., & Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2007). Managing diversity in academic
organizations: A challenge to organizational culture. Women in Management
Review, 22(4), 274–288.
Bar-On, R. E., & Parker, J. D. (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence:
Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the
workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Björkman, I. (2007). Language fluency, socialization
and inter-unit relationships in Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries. Management
and Organization Review, 3(1), 105–128.
solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bennet, A., Bennet, D., & Long Lee, S. (2010). Exploring the military contri-
bution to KBD through leadership and values. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 14(2), 314–330.
Bennett, M. J., & Bennett, J. M. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity:
An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. M.
148 F. Maimone
Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training. Los

Angeles: Sage Publications.
Bersin. (2017). Lexicon, The corporate university. Retrieved 15, 2017, from
http://www.bersin.com/Lexicon/Details.aspx?id=12811
Boal, K. B., & Schultz, P. L. (2007). Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role
of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(4), 411–428.
Bodla, A. A., Tang, N., Jiang, W., & Tian, L. (2016). Diversity and creativity in
cross-national teams: The role of team knowledge sharing and inclusive cli-
mate. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–19. Retrieved from https://
www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-management-and-organiza-
tion/article/diversity-and-creativityin-cross-national-teams-the-role-of-
team-knowledge-sharing-and-inclusiveclimate/8953A8EB7B04969912604
F107929E8E0
Boje, D. M. (Ed.). (2011). Storytelling and the future of organizations: An ante-
narrative handbook. London: Routledge.
Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational
science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 262–290.
Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2004). Economia civile. Efficienza, equità, felicità pub-
blica. Bologna: il Mulino.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual
engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 17(2), 245–264.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through
people management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16(5), 720–735.
Calvelli, A., & Cannavale, C. (2013). Competenze culturali e internazionalizza-
zione delle imprese. Torino: G Giappichelli Editore.
Cannavale, C. (2017). Post-bureaucratic firms’ internationalization: A cross-cultural
perspective. In P. Malizia , C. Cannavale, & F. Maimone (Eds.), Evolution of
the post-bureaucratic organization (pp. 126–151). Hershey: IGI Global.
Casmir, F. L. (1993). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for international
and intercultural communication. Annals of the International Communication
Association, 16(1), 407–428.
Casmir, F. L. (1999, January). Foundations for the study of intercultural commu-
nication based on a third-culture model. Intercultural Relations, 23(1), 91–116.
Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motiva-
tions on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator.
Information Management, 48(1), 9–18.
Chavez, C. I., & Weisinger, J. Y. (2008). Beyond diversity training: A social infu-
sion for cultural inclusion. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 331–350.
Chen, M. L., & Lin, C. P. (2013). Assessing the effects of cultural intelligence
on team knowledge sharing from a socio-cognitive perspective. Human
Resource Management, 52(5), 675–695.
Conway, M. A., & Bekerian, D. A. (1987). Situational knowledge and emo-
tions. Cognition and Emotion, 1(2), 145–191.
Cropanzano, R., & Dasborough, M. T. (2015). Dynamic models of well-being:
Implications of affective events theory for expanding current views on per-
sonality and climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
24(6), 844–847.
De Bono, E. (2010). Lateral thinking: A textbook of creativity. London:
Penguin.
Diamond, M. A., Stein, H. F., & Allcorn, S. (2002). Organizational silos:
Horizontal organizational fragmentation. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of
Culture & Society, 7(2), 280–296.
Dierksmeier, C. (2011). Reorienting management education: From homo oeco-
nomicus to human dignity. In H. M. Network (Ed.), Business schools under
fire. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective ratio-
nality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in
organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business
Review, 82(10), 139–146.
Eastwood, M. A. (2016). Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. QJM, hcw193.
Eco, U. (1990). I limiti dell’interpretazione. Milan: Bompiani.
Endicott, L., Bock, T., & Narvaez, D. (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural
development, and multicultural experiences: Relations and cognitive under-
pinnings. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 403–419.
Fayol, H. (1990). General principles of management. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.),
Organizational theory (3rd ed., pp. 179–181). New York: Penguin Books.
Feely, A. J., & Harzing, A. W. (2003). Language management in multinational
companies. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 10(2),
37–52.
150 F. Maimone
Fink, G. (2017). Power systems: How power works in different systems. In

P. Malizia, C. Cannavale, & F. Maimone (Eds.), Evolution of the post-bureau-
cratic organization (pp. 126–151). Hershey: IGI Global.
Ford, D., & Chan, Y. (2002). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural setting: A case
study (No. 02-09). Kingston: Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University
at Kingston.
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Strati, A. (2007). The passion for knowing.
Organization, 14(3), 315–329.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1990). The multinational corporation as an inter-
organizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 603–626.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory build-
ing. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.
Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence. Bantam.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing
the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Press.
Grandori, A., & Kogut, B. (2002). Dialogue on organization and knowledge.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
Sociological Theory, 1(1), 201–233.
Grant, R. M., Spender, J.-C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-
based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Culture and interper-
sonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes,
hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 905–922.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercul-
tural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421–443.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations.
American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1988). Confucius and economic growth: New
trends in culture’s consequences. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21.
Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management per-
spective. London: Pearson Education.
Holden, N. J., & Von Kortzfleisch, H. F. (2004). Why cross-cultural knowledge
transfer is a form of translation in more ways than you think. Knowledge and
Process Management, 11(2), 127–136.
Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 128–140.
Holzinger, I., & Dhalla, R. (2007). Multiple identities in organizations: The
effects of diversity on organizational identity. International Journal of Diversity
in Organisations, Communities & Nations, 7(5), 43–51.
Huffaker, D. (2010). Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online
communities. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 593–617.
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in net-
work structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 422–447.
Ismail Al-Alawi, A., Yousif Al-Marzooqi, N., & Fraidoon Mohammed, Y.
(2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success fac-
tors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22–42.
James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory
and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 1096.
Jang, S. (2014). Bringing worlds together: Cultural brokerage in multicultural
teams. Doctoral dissertation.
Jansink, F., Kwakman, K., & Streumer, J. (2005). The knowledge-productive
corporate university. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(1), 40–57.
Jaques, E. (1955). Social systems as a defence against persecutory and depressive
anxiety. In M. Klein, P. Heimann, & R. Money-Kyrle (Eds.), New directions
in psychoanalysis (pp. 478–498). London: Tavistock Publications.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.
Jung, C. G., Shamdasani, S., & Hull, R. F. C. (2010). Synchronicity: An acausal
connecting principle (From Vol. 8. of the Collected Works of CG Jung, New
in Paper). Princeton University Press.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of
learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5–23.
Kriemadis, T., Pelagidis, T., & Kartakoullis, N. (2012). The role of organizational
culture in Greek businesses. EuroMed Journal of Business, 7(2), 129–141.
Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organiza-
tional research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342–365.
Lee, Y. T., Masuda, A., Fu, X., & Reiche, B. S. (2017). Navigating between
home, host, and global: Consequences of multicultural team members’ iden-
tity configurations. Academy of Management Discoveries, amd-2016.
152 F. Maimone
Lewin, K. (2013). Principles of topological psychology. Worcestershire: Read Books

Ltd.
Lord, R. G., Dinh, J. E., & Hoffman, E. L. (2015). A quantum approach to
time and organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 40(2),
263–290.
Lowe, S., Magala, S., & Hwang, K. S. (2012). All we are saying, is give theoreti-
cal pluralism a chance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(5),
752–774.
Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The
role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and
Organization Review, 2(1), 15–41.
Lui Abel, A., & Li, J. (2012). Exploring the corporate university phenomenon:
Development and implementation of a comprehensive survey. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 103–128.
Magala, S. (2005). Cross-cultural competence. London: Routledge.
Maimone, F. (2005). Organizzazione cosmopolita. Relazioni organizzative e comu-
nicazione nei contesti multiculturali. Un approccio sociologico. Rome: Aracne.
gestire la conoscenza nelle organizzazioni “flessibili”. Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
Maimone, F. (2010). La comunicazione organizzativa: comunicazione, relazioni e
comportamenti organizzativi nelle imprese, nella PA e nel no profit. Milan:
Franco Angeli.
Maimone, F. (2017). Post-bureaucratic organizations as complex systems:
Toward a co-evolutionary and multiparadigmatic perspective. In P. Malizia,
C. Cannavale, & F. Maimone (Eds.), Evolution of the post-bureaucratic orga-
nization (pp. 126–151). Hershey: IGI Global.
tions. International Journal of Knowledge. Culture and Change Management,
11, 179–192.
Maimone, F., Mormino, S., & Guccione, G. (2011). Close encounters of the
fourth kind. The impact of cultural and linguistic barriers on communication
and cooperation, the emergence of identitarian networks and the need for
“translation” in the Italian Subsidiary of a Chinese Multinational Company,
manuscript, unpublished.
Zerbe, N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Research on emotions in
organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 309–332). Bingley, UK: Elsevier JAI.
Malafouris, L. (2004). The cognitive basis of material engagement: Where brain,

body and culture conflate. In Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with
the material world (pp. 53–61). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.
Malinowski, B. (1944). A scientific theory of culture. Chapel Hill, NC: University
of North Carolina Press.
Malizia, P., Cannavale, C., & Maimone, F. (2017). Evolution of the post-
bureaucratic organization. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Maynes-Aminzade, D., Pausch, R., & Seitz, S. (2002, October). Techniques for
interactive audience participation. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International
Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (p. 15). IEEE Computer Society.
McKelvey, B. (1999). Complexity theory in organization science: Seizing the
promise or becoming a fad? Emergence, 1(1), 5–32.
McKelvey, B. (2002). Emergent order in firms: Complexity science vs. the entangle-
ment trap. Organizations are complex social systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Meister, J. (1998). Corporate universities: Lessons in building a world-class work
force. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing:
Individual differences in curiosity and cognitive closure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1217.
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on
organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations. Oxford:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy
of Management Review, 5(4), 491–500.
Nava, M. R. (2017). The development of intercultural competences in post-
bureaucratic organizations. In P. Malizia, C. Cannavale, & F. Maimone (Eds),
Evolution of the post-bureaucratic organization (pp. 126–151). Hershey: IGI
Global.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774.
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover
in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader –member exchange in the diver-
sity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company, how
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, USA: Oxford
University.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: Challenging the
separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management
Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
154 F. Maimone
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2015). Exploring material-discursive prac-
tices. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 697–705.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-organizational collabo-
ration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies,
37, 23–45.
Pirson, M., & Von Kimakowitz, E. (2014). Towards a human-centered theory
and practice of the firm: Presenting the humanistic paradigm of business and
management. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 2(1), 17–48.
Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles,
processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 129–147.
Pliopaitė, I., & Radzevičienė, A. (2010). Intercultural competence development
in the banking sector. Science-Future of Lithuania, 2(2), 75–82.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1987). Research methodology in organiza-
tional studies. Journal of Management, 13(2), 419–441.
Reinholt, M. I. A., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central network
position isn’t enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing
in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277–1297.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must con-
sider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18–35.
Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. (2003). Network competence: Its impact on inno-
vation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 745–755.
Rivera-Vazquez, J. C., Ortiz-Fournier, L. V., & Rogelio Flores, F. (2009).
Overcoming cultural barriers for innovation and knowledge sharing. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 13(5), 257–270.
Ropo, A., & Parviainen, J. (2001). Leadership and bodily knowledge in expert
organizations: Epistemological rethinking. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 17(1), 1–18.
Rullani, E. (1994). Il valore della conoscenza. Economia e politica industriale.
Rullani, E. (2006). Economia della conoscenza: creatività e valore nel capital-
ismo delle reti. Carocci.
Sacco, P. L., Vanin, P., & Zamagni, S. (2006). The economics of human relation-
ships. In S.-C. Kolm & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of giving,
altruism and reciprocity. (Vol. 1, pp. 695–730). London: Elsevier.
Sammarra, A., Profili, S., Maimone, F., & Gabrielli, G. (2017). Enhancing
knowledge sharing in age diverse organisations: The role of HRM practices, in age
diversity in the workplace: An organizational perspective. Emerald Publishing.
Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges—The
social technology of presencing. Cambridge: Society of Organizational Learning.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San
Francisco: Iossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychological Association,

45(2), 109.
Schneider, S., & Barsoux, J. (1999). Managing across culture. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.
Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building
a learning organization. New York: Crown Business.
Serrat, O. (2010). Bridging organizational silos. Washington, DC: Asian
Development Bank.
Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous con-
ceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of
International Business Studies, 32(3), 519–535.
Sheth, J. N. (2006, June). Clash of cultures or fusion of cultures?: Implications for
international business. Journal of International Management, 12(2), 218–221.
Sié, L., & Yakhlef, A. (2009). Passion and expertise knowledge transfer. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 175–186.
Sofo, F. (1999). Human resource development: Perspectives, roles and practice
choices. Sydney: Business & Professional Publishing.
Sofo, F., Yeo, R. K., & Villafañe, J. (2010). Optimizing the learning in action
learning: Reflective questions, levels of learning, and coaching. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 12(2), 205–224.
Soliman, T. M., Ferguson, R., Dexheimer, M. S., & Glenberg, A. M. (2015).
Consequences of joint action: Entanglement with your partner. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), 873.
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the
effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicul-
tural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709.
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence:
Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.
Taylor, F. W. (2004). Scientific management. Routledge.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Communicating across cultures. Guilford Press.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of
network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “Coopetition” within a multiunit organiza-
tion: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge shar-
ing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking
organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.
156 F. Maimone
Tung, R. L. (2008). The cross-cultural research imperative: The need to balance
cross-national and intra-national diversity. Journal of International Business
Studies, 39(1), 41–46.
United Nations. (2017). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustain-
able development. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from https://sustainablede-
velopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational
research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520–526.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory.
Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426.
Von Kimakowitz, E., Pirson, M., Spitzeck, H., Dierksmeier, C., & Amann, W.
(Eds.). (2010). Humanistic management in practice. Springer.
Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management
Review, 40(3), 133–153.
Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2016). Distributed attention and shared emotions
in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(1), 9–51.
Wallis, S. E. (2011). Avoiding policy failure: A workable approach. Litchfield Park,
AZ: Emergent Publications.
Wei, J., Liu, L., & Francesco, C. A. (2010). A cognitive model of intra-
organizational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture.
International Journal of Information Management, 30, 220–230.
of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the nat-
ural sciences. Richard courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at
New York University, May 11, 1959. Communications on Pure and Applied
Mathematics, 13(1), 1–14.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1998). Demography and diversity in
organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Willmott, H. (Ed.). (1992). Critical management studies. London: Sage.
Wolfram, S. (1985). Complex systems theory. Princeton: The Institute for
Advanced Study.
Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working together apart?
Building a knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 13(1), 15–29.
6
An Integrated Approach to Facilitate
Knowledge Sharing Among and Beyond
Cultural Barriers, Using Social Media
6.1 Toward an Integrated Approach

According to the theoretical framework illustrated in the previous chap-
ter, digital media may foster the effective development and management
of inter-cultural networks to facilitate knowledge sharing in MNCs and
in other types of glocal organizations. It is suggested, moreover, that an
integrated approach to the presence and distance of multi-cultural teams,
communities and networks management is needed to facilitate the syn-
ergy between online (and offline) knowledge exchange.
Based on the integrated and inclusive perspective adopted in this book,
the design and management of digital media should be embedded in the
more general strategic framework described in the previous chapter.
Therefore, digital strategy should be considered as a part of the more
general approach, aimed to foster inter-cultural knowledge sharing in
MNCs.
It is assumed that digital, and particularly social media, may contrib-
ute to the more general development of a resilient and adaptive knowl-
edge place, able to better cope with the complexity, uncertainty and
ambiguity of the glocal environment. As Newman and Newman (2005,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57297-0_6
158 F. Maimone
p. 1) argued: ‘Maintaining a dynamic interplay of bonding and bridging

links allows for proactive resilience building, and supports the diversity
needed to adapt to unexpected changes, many of which are outside of any
one community.’ Even though the authors (Ib.) refer mainly to the capac-
ity of communities to adapt to climate change, it is assumed that this
principle could be applied to MNCs too: glocal companies need to incre-
ment the quantity and quality of links and bonds among groups and
networks, within and across the organizational boundaries, facilitating
the bridging among diversities. Digital tools may also contribute to this
goal.
On the other hand, it is necessary to understand that technology is
a means and not an end in itself. In fact, open knowledge sharing does
not happen automatically. Technology is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for effective distance knowledge sharing. As Gibbs, Rozaidi
and Eisenberg (2013, p. 103) pointed out: ‘Much of the emerging
literature on knowledge sharing in social media succumbs to an “ide-
ology of openness” (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987), by assuming that
open communication is an unmitigated good and that social media
tools will be used primarily for facilitating communication and knowl-
edge sharing in organizations.’ Field research (Ib.), conducted on a
sample of engineers working in a start-up, showed that digital collabo-
ration and knowledge sharing among people, situated in diverse geo-
graphical and functional contexts, are characterized by three dialectic
tensions: visibility versus invisibility, engagement versus disengage-
ment, and sharing versus control. The engineers managed these ten-
sions by adopting two different strategies: (a) selective sharing
(choosing which type of knowledge to share and which type not to);
and (b) selective tools (using digital tools that make it possible to
select and limit the audience). These strategies (Ib.) are conceived for
different reasons: security, confidentiality, and retention of expertise.
‘Knowledge is power’ seems to be the old motto inspiring new digital
workers too.
Presumably, this attitude is particularly related to organizational
cultures and confirms the assumption that digital behavior is not
totally distinct from the individual and interpersonal dynamics enacted
in the physical world (see Schultze & Orlikowski, 2010). It is thus
An Integrated Approach to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing... 159
argued that the social media may foster knowledge sharing only if they
are effectively designed, managed and used—and not only in multi-
cultural workplaces.
6.2 Web 2.0 Tools for Knowledge Sharing

The term ‘Web 2.0’, coined by Timothy O’Reilly (2005), refers to web-
based applications, tools and utilities that allow individuals to communi-
cate, interact and communicate, create content and participate in
collective exchange. Online communities, wikis, YouTube-like platforms,
corporate social networks are Web 2.0 tools.
Web 2.0 includes a variety of technologies built for different purposes
(Chui, Miller, & Roberts, 2009):
–– They can support collaboration and cooperation, among distrib-
uted individuals: (e.g. wikis, and shared workspaces).
–– They can create connections and relations among people—for
example, corporate social networks.
–– They can encourage communication and knowledge/information
sharing: (e.g. blogs, podcasts, video-casts, online communities).
–– They can enable information management and classification, meta-
data creation(e.g. social tagging, social bookmarking, feed rss).
Since its beginning, the Web 2.0 revolution, inspired by ‘digital com-
munitarianism’ (see Rheingold, 1993) and by the philosophy of open
source movement, has been mainly focused on connecting people and
knowledge sharing.
While it is widely recognized that explicit knowledge is exchanged
through digital media, it is questionable whether tacit knowledge could
be shared using online tools.
It is argued that even tacit knowledge may be shared through digital
media, at least partially, on certain conditions. Marwick (2001) assumed
that online discussion forums, chat rooms and other synchronous com-
munication tools can effectively facilitate tacit knowledge sharing among
team members. Lai (2005), maintained that tacit knowledge may be
shared through Internet discussion and chat sessions. Wahlroos (2010),
160 F. Maimone
affirmed that social media may enhance tacit knowledge sharing by

providing live conversations, relationship networking and collaboration
among individuals.
According to Panahi, Watson, and Partridge (2012), it is possible to
assume that social media can implement tacit knowledge sharing through
the following dynamics:
• Social interactions
• Experience sharing
• Informal relationships and social networking
• Observation and listening
• Swift trust (a special form of trust that may emerge in temporary teams
in online environments)
Tacit knowledge may also be shared through storytelling (see Sole &
Wilson, 2002). Stories are a powerful tool whereby to exchange experi-
ences and tacit knowledge. Narratives contribute to a cognitive, symbolic
and value-based framework, that makes it possible to include a specific
piece of knowledge in the general picture of overall knowledge and the
cultural system. As Wenger argued,1 communities of practices were prob-
ably born in the prehistoric age: After a long hard hunt, our ancestors
used to sit in front of the fire and tell stories. Storytelling, in fact, is asso-
ciated with oral communication and memories (see Tobin & Snyman,
2008). When prehistoric men learned to paint pictograms, storytelling
became visual.
Stories are culture bound and therefore cross-cultural and inter-cultural
issues should be considered, in storytelling (see Boje, Svane, & Gergerich,
2016).
Chatti, Jarke, and Frosch-Wilke (2007) proposed a map that matched
the SECI model phases (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) with knowledge
sharing and digital learning tools. The map proposed by the authors (Ib.)
indicated which tools were suitable to support each of the four SECI
phases ((Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995):
(a) Socialization: groupware, expert location system and communities

(b) Externalization: wikis, blogs, forums and news groups
(c) Combination: bookmarking, tagging and recommendation features

(d) Internalization: online training, games, feedback opportunities.
Below, a new version of the map is proposed, designed by the author

of this book, and based on the model elaborated by Chatti et al. (2007).
The map provides a synthesis of current research and organizational
praxis of digital media. It illustrates the different prevailing uses of digital
media concerning knowledge conversion and sharing. Some digital tools
may be present in different sections of the map, since they have multiple
uses and functions (see Fig. 6.1).
The Eni Group, the Italian MNC that operates in the energy sector,
has designed and implemented a social working tool (a knowledge man-
agement system—KMS)2 that is aimed to facilitate knowledge manage-
ment and sharing among divisions, subsidiaries and plants at the global
level. Eni’s KMS (ENI, 2017) ‘has a network structure, based on 27
Practice Communities and 36 Geographical Units, bringing staff together
by operational and geographical areas—from exploration to health and
from Norway to Angola’. The system is horizontal and participatory and
implements social tools that allow each person at Eni to communicate
with colleagues directly from their smart phone. Informal knowledge
exchanges are then tracked by the KMS, which is thus able to capture
technical knowledge and share it through training webinars and e-learning
contents such as knowledge nuggets, innovation ideas and technology
application. According to ENI (Ib.), the success of the initiative has been
confirmed by the increase in the volume of online exchanges. Since the
launch of the social tools, contributions from all the communities of
practice have increased significantly. In 2015 alone 450 webinars were
delivered and attended by over 20,000 people.
The Eni case showed that it is possible to design and implement a
global and social knowledge sharing system based on digital technologies.
With regard to this, it is suggested (Maimone, 2007)—and not only for
the sake of knowledge sharing—to integrate online and offline activities,
in order to enhance the synergy among different tools and opportunities
of interaction.
The program launched by the Academy of Program/Project &
Engineering Leadership (APPEL) at NASA3 is an example of the inte-
162
•Socialization •Externalization
(tacit - to - tacit) Blogs
(tacit - to -
E-collaboration tools Wikis explicit)
Social learning tools On line Forums
Digital Communities Istant messanging
F. Maimone
Digital social networks Artificial intelligence systems

Digital storytelling
On line Forums
Brainstoriming and
Istant messanging
mindmappingdigital tools
Digital storytelling
Social learning tools
Tele and video conferences
Digital Communities
MOOCS
Digital social networks
Digital Virtual Worlds Tele and video conferences
Blended learning tools Search engines and artificial

MOOCS intelligence systems
Gamification social digital
bookmarking and tagging
Online simulation
Blogs
Augmented reality
Wikis
Digital storytelling Inphographics and visual
Tele and video conferences tools
Mindmapping digital tools
•Internalization Elearning •Combination
(explicit - to - Digital Libraries (explicit - to -
MOOCS
tacit) explicit)
Fig. 6.1 Mapping of Web 2.0 tools for different phases of knowledge combination (Source: adapted from Chatti, 2007)
grated design of knowledge sharing systems. APPEL (NASA, 2017) is

designed to gather and share knowledge and wisdom from the best pro-
gram/project and engineering leaders across the Agency. According to the
Agency (Ib.): ‘This initiative has proven to be an effective catalyst in
building and supporting ongoing NASA communities of practice.’ The
program is structured through several initiatives:
• Semi-annual masters forums

• Principle Investigator (PI) team masters forums
• Knowledge forums
• NASA Virtual Project Management Challenge (VPMC)
• Center-driven forums
• Hot topics forums
• Publications
Masters forums play a central role. They aim at sharing best prac-
tices and lessons learned, cultivating a community of practices, build-
ing cross-centre relationships, facilitating the realization of the ‘one
NASA’ vision, developing the leadership expertise of senior and junior
NASA project managers, creating a dialogue and facilitating network
building with influential leaders from government agencies, universi-
ties, and private industry. According to the Agency: ‘Consistent
throughout all Masters Forums is the belief in the power of storytell-
ing. Stories engage and motivate. They illuminate subtle and contrast-
ing points of view that otherwise might be missed. They provide a
framework to deal with extraordinary change, allowing us to imagine
new possibilities, preparing us for the supposedly unheard of and
unimaginable. Through storytelling we communicate our expectations
and expand the boundaries of the possible. Stories broaden our per-
spective, allowing us to see with the tellers’ eyes. Through stories, we
can convey knowledge that helps us innovate, problem-solve, and add
valuable tools to the toolboxes of project management and engineering
professionals.’ Moreover, digital content, e-learning courses and digi-
tal tools are used to facilitate knowledge sharing through the APPEL
networks.
164 F. Maimone
The initiative is designed to provide NASA managers, scientists, and

engineers with examples and lessons learned. As NASA pointed out (Ib.):
‘Dialogue through narratives and informal storytelling is used to give
practitioners a sense of the context in which experience has been acquired,
obstacles overcome, successes achieved. The storytelling conversational
format also helps practitioners grasp the tacit nature of the knowledge
being shared.’
The NASA APPEL initiative is an example of an integrated knowledge
sharing system that uses in-presence and at-distance tools to facilitate
explicit and tacit knowledge exchange. Dialogue, experience sharing and
storytelling plays an important role in this process. Moreover, the initia-
tive is also aimed to facilitate people’s engagement and entanglement and
social networking, contributing to the creation of knowledge networks
and interconnection among NASA project teams, units, clusters and
small worlds (see previous chapter).
6.3 C
ultural Differences, Digital Interaction
and Knowledge Sharing
Even though Web 2.0 was a real revolution that changed the way we live,
communicate, share information and knowledge, work and learn, cul-
tural differences were not erased by the ascent of the digital society. As
mentioned in the previous chapters, we are living in a glocal world
(Robertson, 1992): global and local processes are entrenched in a com-
plex and intricate texture.
Chen (2012) highlighted the differences between low-context and
high-context cultures (Hall, 1976) in e-communication. As was illus-
trated in the previous chapter, the model elaborated by Hall (Ib.) made a
distinction between low-context culture, shared by Northern European
and Anglo-Saxon peoples, and high-context culture, characterizing the
Mediterranean and Asian peoples. Obviously, the theory should be inter-
preted cum grano salis, since, as many authors have pointed out, geo-
graphical and national borders do not necessarily correspond to cultural
boundaries and contemporary societies are a cultural patchwork.
Table 6.1 Difference between High-Context and Low-Context E-Communication

Low-context ulture High-context culture
Communication style Explicit Tacit
Value orientation Individual orientation Group orientation
Personal relationship Temporary Long-term
Action based Oriented to norms and Personal
procedure
Logic Linear Spiral
Message learning time Short Long
Verbal interaction Direct Indirect
Non-verbal style Individualistic Context oriented
Idea presentation Logic Feelings
Message style Detailed Simple
Credibility source Authority Credibility of communication
source
Source: Adapted from Chen (2012)
Moreover, significant differences among ethnic groups may be observed

within the same meta-cultural milieu. The below table, proposed by
Chen (2012) and partially re-elaborated by the author of this book, may
help to better understand and manage cross-cultural differences in digital
communication (see Table 6.1).
It is argued that inter-cultural training in digital communication
should facilitate the increase of the level of awareness of cultural differ-
ences in online interactions and the improvement of digital inter-cultural
competences.
Kim, Sohn, and Choi (2011), moreover, found that a user’s cultural
value orientation may influence that user’s attitude to new media.
Rosen, Stefanone, and Lackaff (2010) suggested that people from low-
context cultures tend to emphasize personal promotion and individual
achievements, whereas people from high-context cultures are more
oriented toward social acceptance. Meta-cognition and self-reflexivity
should help people to achieve better comprehension of self and other
attitudes/behaviours. Ad hoc training and coaching activities are likely
needed to achieve this goal.
From their study of health-care digital communication on Facebook,
Spence, Lachlan, Spates, and Lin (2013) found that there are cultural
differences in behavioral intentions and response efficacy. Yoo and Huang
166 F. Maimone
(2011), found that cultural diversity may impact technology acceptance

and level of anxiety.
Furthermore, Fujimoto, Bahfen, Fermelis and Hartel (2007) high-
lighted the critical role played in Web 2.0 and digital media communi-
cation and collaboration through the differences between collectivistic
and individualistic cultures. In particular (Ib.), collectivistic cultures
are seen to be more oriented to sharing knowledge within social groups
and affiliative networks. People belonging to individualistic groups, on
the other hand, are seen to be more oriented to exchanging knowledge
for instrumental and functional purposes. According to the authors
(Ib.), the combination of individualistic/collectivistic practices may
facilitate the integration of different cultural and ethnic groups in a
business context.
Storytelling is culture bound and can produce multiple and, in some
cases, antithetical narratives. According to Boje et al. (2016, p. 56): ‘The
organisation’s cohered narratives and people’s own living stories are not
the totality of the storytelling going on in a community. There are also
antenarrative threads that permeate each storytelling field, accomplishing
transformations of grand narratives and living stories that are in the mid-
dle of being lived through.’
Narratives and symbols are not universal, even though some stories
may embed universal narrative structures (Prop, 1982) and symbols
(Jung, 1964). For this reason, there is also a cross-cultural side to story-
telling. In order to be cross-culturally effective, storytelling should create
a bridge between different knowledge and culture systems. Moreover, sto-
rytelling should provide some kind of meta-narrative (Maimone, 2007,
2010) in order to facilitate the inclusion of diverse cultural groups
involved in the knowledge exchange.
It can be said that to be really inclusive, storytelling should facilitate
inter-cultural dialogue. In fact, on the one hand, storytelling may foster
inter-cultural exchange and enhance reciprocal knowledge among dif-
ferent national and ethnic groups (Boje et al., 2016). On the other, in
some cases, storytelling needs to be translated so as to be understood by
linguistically and culturally different receivers. For this reason, it is nec-
essary to take into account that translation is also an interpretative and
transformative process. Therefore, inter-cultural storytelling should be

considered as a creative process, at least partially.
Thus the enactment of collective and participatory story-telling pro-
cesses has been recommended to encourage the creation of narratives
and meta-narratives that may facilitate inter-cultural exchange and
inclusion.
6.4 T
he Role of Digital Media in Improving
Inter-cultural Competences and Practices
Elola and Oskoz (2009) found that blogging might have a positive effect
on the development of inter-cultural relationships and inter-cultural
competence in the context of foreign language and study abroad. McEwan
and Sobre-Denton (2011) believe that computer-mediated communica-
tion may contribute to the development of virtual cosmopolitanism and
virtual third cultures (Casmir, 1999).
It is possible to affirm that in certain conditions Web 2.0 might foster
a change of attitudes, values and competences in terms of cultural aware-
ness and inter-cultural communication.
According to Thorne, Black, and Sykes (2009), virtual environments,
such as online game communities for foreign language learners, may fos-
ter linguistic and meta-linguistic learning and the development of com-
municative practices. Bridging practices play a positive role in the
process.
Lee (2012) reported the findings of an online survey of foreign lan-
guage learners who used blogs to communicate. According to these
findings, digital communication fostered the increase of cultural aware-
ness, the shift from ethnocentrism to ethno-relativism (Bennett, 1993).
The results of that survey were convergent with the findings of a study
carried out by Wang and Vasquez (2012) on the use of Web 2.0 tech-
nologies for foreign language learning: The authors (Ib.) found that the
utilization of digital media may contribute to a rise in the level of cul-
tural awareness.
168 F. Maimone
6.5 The Role of Virtual Teams

Virtual and geographically dispersed teams are very often utilized in
MNCs to accomplish complex tasks, requiring the involvement of a
multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural staff. Obviously, globally distrib-
uted teams play an important role in inter-cultural sharing. The key fea-
tures related to multi-cultural team management were illustrated in the
previous chapter. The following paragraph is focused on specific issues
related to digital interaction.
Kauppila, Rajala, and Jyrämä (2011) reported the case study of Vaisala
Instruments, one of the business units of Vaisala Corporation, a Finnish
company. Vaisala Instruments employed around 400 employees and had
an extensive sales and service network, with twenty-four offices in twelve
countries. Vaisala Instruments created cross-functional virtual teams to
facilitate knowledge sharing among salespeople, product-line marketing
specialists, and R&D personnel. According to the mission of the virtual
teams, salespersons from different geographical and cultural regions were
selected to join the teams (Ib.). Before starting work, each team attended
a one-week training seminar in Finland.
In order to facilitate trust building and the construction of interper-
sonal ties, the training program also included social events like sauna
evenings and weekends in cottages. According to Kauppila et al. (Ib.,
p. 406): ‘Special emphasis was given to the intensiveness of the teaming
activities because several studies (e.g. Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998;
Malhotra, Majchrzek, & Rosen, 2007; Orlikowski, 2002) have accentu-
ated the role of face-to-face interaction in creating trust and a collective
identity among the team members.’
The company designed and developed Open House (Ib.), an intranet
portal aimed at facilitating knowledge sharing among virtual teams. The
portal hosted several discussion forums. Some of them were accessible to
every member of the business unit. Other discussion spaces could be
accessed only by the members of one virtual team. Search engines and ad
hoc applications were implemented in order to facilitate shared practices
and create a common language and common concepts.
The portal also implemented personal pages in which each team mem-
ber could add personal information and visual information, as, for
example, personal photos, in order to facilitate social interaction.

According to the authors (Ib., p. 407): ‘By sharing such information and
visual images, users built a sense of community to encourage social inter-
action and the establishment of deeper relationships within their virtual
teams (Peters & Manz, 2007). This sense of community was vital to over-
come the obstacles associated with computer-mediated communication,
in which the lack of face-to-face meetings, facial expressions, and body
language made communications between team members difficult to
interpret and understand, especially when team members are from differ-
ent cultures’ (Malhotra et al., 2007). As soon as the intranet portal
opened, the virtual teams began creating content.
The fact that the personal contribution of every team member was vis-
ible to everyone, encouraged (Ib.) the same team members to produce
and share content. Moreover, this process contributed to reinforcing
team identity and cohesion. Kauppila et al. (2011) argued that while the
virtual exchange fostered the active engagement of a few team members,
in other teams the approach was less proactive, more individualistic and
associated with a lower level of team cohesion. Therefore, the knowledge
exchange was not symmetric, since salespersons utilized the portal to
obtain technical knowledge related to the company’s products whereas
people working for other units seemed to be less engaged in the exchange
process.
This case study confirms the importance of the design and manage-
ment of digital knowledge sharing to implement an integrated and hori-
zontal approach. But it can be argued that inter-cultural and other
diversity-related issues were substantially overlooked. The outcome of the
knowledge sharing process was (at least partially) unsatisfactory, since
there was a lack of awareness of the effect of glocal dynamics on
virtual/geographically dispersed teams and a non-inclusive approach to
knowledge sharing was applied.
Furthermore, it is assumed that frequent communication is a key fac-
tor in the effectiveness of distributed team working (Connaughton &
Shuffler, 2007). Hinds & Mortensen (2005), for example, affirmed that
informal communication may facilitate the sharing of identity and con-
texts and may moderate the effect of interpersonal and task-related con-
flict (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007). According to the findings of the
170 F. Maimone
case study presented above (Kauppila et al., 2011), face-to-face commu-

nication plays an important role in distributed team effectiveness, since it
facilitates trust (Oertig & Buegri, 2006), conflict management (Hinds &
Mortensen, 2005) and team dynamics (Vogel et al., 2001).
Wei (2007) highlighted the impact of cultural differences in the interac-
tion and communication among distributed teams. The role of cultural
differences, barriers and misunderstandings is critical in digital interaction
and knowledge sharing too, since online exchange is based mainly on tex-
tual communication. Richer media, such as e-collaboration tools and
video-conferencing, are used less frequently and emails continue to be the
medium most often utilized in communications within distributed teams.
Wei (Ib.) presented a case study related to the Chinese subsidiary of a
US company. The aim of the case study was to analyse individuals’ per-
ceptions of national cultural differences in knowledge sharing activities
among global virtual teams, using Terpstra and Sarathy’s cultural dimen-
sions (2000).
The model elaborated by Terpstra and Sarathy (Ib.) was composed of
the following dimensions:
• Technology and material culture

• Language
• Aesthetics
• Education
• Religion
• Attitudes and values
• Social organization
• Political life
The research findings highlighted that inter-cultural knowledge shar-

ing in virtual teams was influenced by four cultural dimensions: language,
education, technology and material culture, attitudes and values.
Language in particular had the most significant influence, followed by
education, attitudes and values, technology and material culture.
Moreover, Wei (2007) found that individual characteristics, organiza-
tional culture, time zone differences, and leadership style mediated
knowledge-sharing activities
6.6 T
he Ad Hoc Design and Management
of Corporate Social Media
6.6.1 T
he Role of Digital Media in the Development
of Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing Processes
As already pointed out above, informal networks may bridge knowledge

gaps, facilitating the formation of small worlds and inter-connection
among teams, units, networks and knowledge spaces. At the same time,
they may foster the emergence of homophilic networks and culture-
bound organizational silos (Maimone, 2007), and become a barrier for
the free flow of knowledge (Golub & Jackson, 2011).
The role of digital media in facilitating inter-cultural interaction is
confirmed by several pieces of research carried out in different fields of
study, such as multi-cultural society and minority integration (see Fleras,
2009; Lin, Peng, Kim, Kim & LaRose, 2012; Phua & Jin, 2011; Terry &
Terry, 2012). On the other hand, it is necessary to note that social net-
works may reinforce mono-cultural networks based on homophily
(Barnes-Mauthe, Arita, Allen, Gray, & Leung, 2013) if they are not effec-
tively managed.
Digital knowledge spaces, such as Web 2.0 tools (wikis, blogs, digital
social networks, etc.), may facilitate the development of ‘real’ multi-
cultural networks as long as digital media are co-designed (Kensing &
Blomberg, 1998) and managed by adopting a participative and inclusive
approach (Fitzgerald et al., 2009) in order to contribute to the improve-
ment of inter-cultural knowledge sharing processes (Ray, 2014).
Digital media may foster an improvement in the level of cultural
awareness (Frydenberg & Andone, 2010; Wang & Vasquez, 2012), facili-
tate the shift from ethnocentrism toward ethno-relativism (Lee, 2012),
encourage linguistic and meta-linguistic learning and, more generally, the
development of inter-cultural communication practices (Fujimoto,
Bahfen, Fermelis, & Hartel, 2007; Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009; Thorne
& Reinhardt, 2008).
London and Hall (2011) suggest that Web 2.0 technologies make it
possible to create generative learning, offering individuals the opportunity
172 F. Maimone
to share not only their opinions and knowledge, but also their personal
skills and behaviors, and innovative work practices. This enables the cre-
ation of a common ground, the so-called third culture, creating a bridge
between cultural differences and facilitating inter-cultural knowledge
sharing.
Fujimoto, Bahfen, Fermelis and Hartel (2007) assumed that an effec-
tive strategy to enhance the level of inter-cultural exchange in virtual
exchanges is to take into account the differences between high-
contextualization and low-contextualization cultures (Hall, 1976).
According to the authors, the combination of individualistic/collectivis-
tic practices may facilitate the convergence and integration of low-context
and high-context users in a business context.
6.6.2 H
ow to Design and Manage Corporate Social
Media
Based on the approach proposed in this book, corporate social media

should facilitate knowledge sharing among different cultural groups and
the development of an inclusive meta-narration and meta-knowledge
framework. The claim of this approach might be: We are different, have
diverse stories and identities, but we have also something in common,
shared history, mission, goals, organizational values, and a piece of identity
that could become a meta-identity that unites us in our differences. Digital
storytelling should be considered as a strategic tool to create a bridge among
the different social groups working in MNCs (see Boje et al., 2016), facili-
tating the production of multiple and meta-narratives. The construction of
a common ground, composed of languages, competences and knowledge,
should enhance inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
Therefore, the goal is not to facilitate homologation and standardiza-
tion if not explicitly required by specific activities and tasks, but to inter-
connect differences.
Moreover, it is argued that knowledge management, human resources
management (HRM), internal communication functions and other busi-
ness functions and roles involved in the development of knowledge shar-
ing processes should facilitate the negotiations among different knowledge
perspectives and cultural identities, adopting a multi-stakeholder and

diversity-oriented approach to knowledge management.
Social media may facilitate the emergence of collective intelligence
(Lévy, 2010) and enhance the level of reflexivity and self-reflexivity of
managers and employees.
Corporate social media may have also a dark side, beyond inter-cultural
knowledge sharing. In fact, if not effectively managed, social media may
cause information overload (Hemp, 2009) and the unintended growth of
system complexity (Aral, Dellarocas, & Godes, 2013). It is argued that
(not only) MNCs need to define a social media strategy and adopt ad hoc
methodologies and practices for the design and implementation of inter-
nal corporate Web 2.0 platforms and tools (see Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010;
Wilson et al., 2011) and to facilitate inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
Participatory design of corporate internal social media and a horizon-
tal approach to the management of Web 2.0 tools (see Asaro, 2000;
Carroll & Rosson, 2007; Kautz, 2011; Simonsen & Robertson, 2012)
may foster more effective implementation of Web 2.0 tools—and not
only for knowledge sharing.
The participatory design is an emerging method for the development
of technology that is particularly suitable for the development of social
(digital) media, in terms of virtual environment, tools, contents and
activities, procedures and practices. The flexible and open design of blogs,
wikis, smart intranets, corporate social networks, professional and
managerial virtual communities and so on could be enhanced by the
direct participation of the end-users in the development and manage-
ment of the platforms, tools and activities (Johnson & Hyysalo, 2012).
It is suggested that participatory design should include an integrated
framework, following the principles proposed by Pascal, Thomas, and
Romme (2013): an integrated approach to knowledge management sys-
tems design, aimed at conciliating science-based and human-centric
perspectives.
Science-based design includes elements of research synthesis that are
applied from a realist perspective, including Pawson’s (2006) notion of
generative mechanism, which relates to the functioning of systems that
make things happen. According to the authors (Pascal et al., 2013,
pp. 4–5): ‘Science-based design implies design propositions need to
174 F. Maimone
be(come) grounded in research and tested in practice (Romme, 2003;

Van Aken, 2004). That is, the ideal design proposition is firmly grounded
in the scholarly body of knowledge available in the literature as well as
extensively tested in practice.’
The authors (Ib.) suggested that science-based design should follow
the CIMO (context, intervention, management and outcomes) approach
(Denyer, Tranfield, & van Aken, 2008, p. 408), which involves four com-
ponents: (1) a problematic context that includes internal and external
environmental factors and the attitudes and behavior of the actors
involved in the change process; (2) the intervention type of approach that
managers have at their disposal to influence behavior; (3) management
activities that, using specific generative mechanisms, facilitate change
processes in a certain context; and (4) intended outcomes (Denyer et al.,
2008). Moreover, the authors (Ib.) suggested consideration of the mecha-
nism defined as ‘potential mediators’ or ‘moderators’ (Pawson, 2006),
which influences the efficacy of the intervention.
Pascal et al. (2013), proposed the integration of the science-based
design with human-centred design. They argued that human-centric
design (Ib., p. 269) includes: ‘design processes that involve the (future)
users (Bate & Robert, 2007; Plsek, Bibby, & Whitby, 2007; Hatchuel,
Lemasson, & Weil, 2006). According to Mohrman (2007, p. 15), this
approach has risen from a “myriad of human-friendly design fields, such
as usability engineering, user-centered design, participatory design, and
experience-based design”.’
According to Pascal et al. (2013), the science-based and human-centric
design perspectives are complementary: Interviews and participant obser-
vation help the researcher to define ‘key touch points’ for the development
of grounded design propositions. By applying the integrated approach,
researchers transform the tacit knowledge of those involved in the process
into explicit knowledge that can support design propositions.
Moreover, it is argued that the participatory approach should be
applied to the subsequent phases of the project. People involved in the
change process should participate in the management and further devel-
opment of corporate social media.
In accordance with the perspective adopted in this book, the integrated
approach should also include cultural diversity. The involvement of
experts, managers, professionals and participants of different linguistic

and cultural backgrounds should allow a better match between the digital
communication system and the diverse (internal and external) organiza-
tional environment in which the system operates.
This approach may foster the valorization of organizational diversity
(Hagen & Robertson, 2009; Light, Kleine, & Vivent, 2010), the valori-
zation and management of generational and professional differences
(Buchmüller, Joost, Bessing, & Stein, 2011, Sammarra, Profili, Maimone,
& Gabrielli, 2017), also in terms of (digital) competence and attitudes
toward digital media, and the capacity of media to facilitate self-organizing
and complex management processes (see Fischer & Ostwald, 2002).
Participatory design and user involvement in development and man-
agement processes should arguably facilitate the connection between vir-
tual and organizational dynamics, assuring a better level of integration
between the digital and the ‘real’ workplace. At the same time, it is
assumed that the collaboration and involvement of managers and work-
ers in the design and management of corporate social media could foster
the creation of connections and the synchronization between physical
and virtual organizational environments and processes (see Byrne &
Sahay, 2007) and the emergence of new knowledge.
If developed following this approach, social media could also become
a type of intelligent interface, able to foster inter-cultural, knowledge-
sharing translation and transformation, facilitating people’s organization
entanglement and synchronization: Social media may function, there-
fore, as a type of dissipative structure, able to produce new and/or re-
elaborated knowledge from inter-cultural exchange and reduce the level
of organizational entropy, consequent to the evolutionary organizational
process and to the increase of the level of (requisite) variety (see Ashby,
1956).
Knowledge management, in collaboration with the other corporate
functions involved in these processes—human resources management,
corporate communication and information communication technology
(ICT)—should facilitate the integration of the activities carried out by
corporate social media in the general framework of the organization’s
managerial activities (see Maimone, 2007). The implementation of a par-
ticipatory approach should also foster integration among HRM, internal
176 F. Maimone
communication and knowledge management functions, facilitating the

construction of cross-functional and cross-boundary informal mecha-
nisms of coordination (Maimone, 2010)
The pathway suggested for the development of a corporate social tool,
aimed at facilitating inter-cultural knowledge sharing, is articulated in
the following phases:
(a) Audit: This is designed to gather, elaborate and interpret data (quan-
titative, qualitative and mixed research methodologies) in order to
analyse the context, map out tools and initiatives that have been
already implemented, and gather the demands, expectations and
needs of top managers, middle managers and employees, organiza-
tional functions, foreign subsidiaries, different national and ethnic
groups, and various stakeholders. Social network analysis (Cross,
Parker, Prusak, & Borgatti, 2001; Cross, Parker, & Borgatti, 2002)
and online tracking may provide a powerful insight into the hidden
fabric of knowledge sharing. Nevertheless, it is necessary to find a
wise balance between the completeness of the analysis, the respect for
people’s privacy and the confidentiality of information and the finan-
cial sustainability of the investigation.
(b) Design of platform and tools: This includes the choice of digital solu-
tions and the adaptation of platforms and tools to meet the expecta-
tions, demands and needs of different targets involved in the
project—and also in cultural terms.
(c) Planning of activities and communication strategies: The implementa-
tion of corporate social media encompasses the communication
strategy aimed at fostering the kick-off of the project, obtaining the
sponsorship of top management, and the engagement of organiza-
tional key roles: stakeholders, members and more influential mem-
bers of different national and ethnic groups. And social media
facilitate the coordination and entanglement of online and offline
activities. The launch of the corporate social tool may be associated
with specific activities: storytelling, project work, gamification,
knowledge contests, and the like.
(d) Tutoring role design and staffing: The development of the project also
encompasses the design of tutoring and animation roles and the
selection of the right people to hold various positions. The different

roles that may be involved in the everyday management of the online
activities include community manager, process and content tutor,
digital evangelist, among others. The project staff should possess a
reasonable and balanced mix of relational, technical, methodological
and inter-cultural competences. The right mix depends on the spe-
cific content of each role.
(e) Project implementation: The roll-out of the project is critical for the suc-
cess of the initiative. As far as concerns inter-cultural issues, it is sug-
gested that participants should be involved in the development phases
too, where they could play the double role of testers and informants.
(f ) Project monitoring for continuous improvement: The continuous mon-
itoring of the project, through the use of digital analytics, quantita-
tive and qualitative methodologies should also be focused on the
inter-cultural dimensions of digital interaction and knowledge
sharing.
(g) Final assessment: This may utilize the same methodologies and instru-
ments employed in the audit, and should include the assessment of
the organizational impact in terms of perceived effects and the ROI
of the initiatives.
(h) Re-design: Social media are complex systems and therefore new needs,
behavioral patterns and practices may emerge from the ongoing pro-
cess of digital interaction. Analysis and interpretation of ex-post data
should help management to improve digital platforms and tools,
strategies and online practices in order to meet the new demands,
needs and practices arising from online and offline activities.
The key features of the process are represented in the below figure (see

Fig. 6.2):
The approach described is an ongoing and evolutionary process, since
it is based on continuous dialogue and improvement.
The participatory approach to the knowledge sharing process entails
the involvement of a selected group of participants who will be actively
engaged in all the phases of the project and collaborate with experts,
technicians and HRM, internal communication and knowledge manage-
ment (KM) officers and staff in its development.
178 F. Maimone
Planning of activities
Design of platforms
Audit and communication
and tools
strategies
Project monitoring
Project Tutoring roles design
and continuous
implementation and staffing
improving
Final assssement Re-design
Fig. 6.2 The pattern of activities to implement an inter-cultural knowledge shar-

ing project
It is recommended that the participants who will be involved in the

different phases of the project should be selected on the basis of the fol-
lowing characteristics:
(a) Managerial and professional role

(b) Motivation to be actively engaged in the process
(c) Professional background
(d) Geographical location
(e) Unit and team collocation
(f ) Nationality and/or ethnic identity
(g) Leadership
(h) Relational and digital networking competence (ability to become a
social hub constructing personal ties)
(i) Inter-cultural sensitivity, intelligence and competence
Obviously, these characteristics are expected to be distributed among

the participants and it should not be necessary for each participant to
possess all the qualities listed above. The final composition of the support
team that will be called upon to co-operate with company experts, pro-
fessionals and managers depends on the characteristics and needs of the
company and its staff.
Participants could also play the role of digital facilitators, contributing
to the kick-off of the project, promoting the project to their professional
and personal contacts, providing feedback to the project management,
facilitating knowledge translation and transformation and facilitating the
cross-fertilization of new/adapted knowledge produced by knowledge
sharing, hybridization and re-elaboration processes. They can also con-
tribute to the development of a culture of knowledge and inter-cultural
practices and facilitate the construction of a common framework and a
shared meta-narrative, the diffusion of organizational stories, the enhance-
ment of the level of organizational interconnection among various teams,
units, clusters and small worlds. They can also counter the tendency to
develop homophilic relations and create organizational silos, and they
can facilitate organizational synchronization.
6.7 T
he Development of Inter-cultural Digital
Competencies
According to the European Commission and Council (Alan-Mutka,
2011, p. 6): ‘Digital competence involves the confident and critical use
of Information Society Technology (IST) for work, leisure and com-
munication. It is underpinned by basic skills in ICT: the use of com-
puters to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange
information, and to communicate and participate in collaborative net-
works via the Internet.’
According to Ferrari (2012), digital competences encompass the fol-
lowing dimensions:
1. Information
2. Communication
3. Content creation
180 F. Maimone
4. Security
5. Problem-solving
According to Alan-Mutka, (2011, p. 6) digital competences also

encompass the following areas:
1 . Instrumental knowledge and skills for digital tool and media usage
2. Advanced skills and knowledge for communication and collaboration,
information management, learning and problem solving, and mean-
ingful participation
3. Attitudes to strategic skills usage in inter-cultural, critical, creative,
responsible and autonomous ways
Thus digital competences also have an inter-cultural side. Therefore, to

communicate, collaborate and share knowledge in multi-cultural online
environments, it is necessary to possess both digital and inter-cultural
competences.
This means that for digital knowledge sharing to be effective, it is not
only necessary to be digitally competent—namely, to possess good liter-
acy in digital information search, communication, collaboration, l earning
and meta-learning (i.e. learning to improve digital skills), problem solv-
ing and creativity. It is also necessary to be aware of the linguistic and
meta-linguistic aspects of inter-cultural communication, and to under-
stand the complex cultural dynamics that influence online attitudes,
communication and behaviours.
For this reason, it is necessary to design ad hoc training and coaching
programs aimed at facilitating the development of inter-cultural digital
competences. As mentioned in previously, participation in (multi-cultural)
online communities and networks and social learning activities may con-
tribute to the development of inter-cultural digital competences as well.
Reverse mentoring (see Sammarra et al., 2017) may facilitate the
development of digital competences in ‘analogical migrants’. In fact, mil-
lennials may help senior colleagues to learn how to use digital media
effectively—and not only in the workplace. Many MNCs have imple-
mented reverse-mentoring programs to facilitate intergenerational learn-
ing (Ib.). According to the theoretical premises illustrated above, reverse
mentoring could also be used to leverage inter-cultural digital compe-

tences, as young mentors possess inter-cultural intelligence and compe-
tences and are also skilled in inter-cultural training and coaching.
6.8 Conclusion
It is assumed that an integrated, inclusive and human-centric approach to
inter-cultural knowledge sharing is needed in order to foster the effective-
ness of knowledge exchange and to create a better workplace.
Inter-cultural knowledge sharing is not only a matter of scientific and
technical knowledge, but also a matter of epistemological, conceptual
and practical views. Moreover, there is an ethical stance underpinning the
theoretical and practical issues. Inter-cultural knowledge sharing should
contribute to creating a fairer and more inclusive workplace. It is sug-
gested that a humanistic perspective may help MNCs to become a better
knowledge space.
Informal personal networks may facilitate the circulation of informa-
tion and knowledge within and between organizational boundaries,
bridging the knowledge and competence gaps among teams, business
units and different branches of trans-national companies. At the same
time, social networks may become an obstacle for cross-fertilization and
knowledge sharing processes, especially if personal bonds generate closed
and/or mono-cultural networks.
The previous chapters have provided a road map to improve the effec-
tiveness and inclusiveness (not only) of MNCs. The organizational strate-
gies proposed are glocal to meet the contemporary tendency of business
dynamics to follow glocal patterns.
The approach proposed in this book is based on conscious wise man-
agement of teams, business units, organizational spaces and informal net-
works. It also assumed that to match external diversity, glocal MNCs
should create a complex and highly diversified web of connections and
relations, which should play the role of intelligent interface and organiza-
tional attractor—and not only for inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
This approach attributes a critical role to the development of inter-
cultural competences and social interactions, also through the design
182 F. Maimone
and implementation of corporate digital media like blogs, wikies,

social networks, virtual communities, and so on. The Web 2.0 tools,
and particularly social (digital) media, may play an important role in
fostering the level and quality of inter-cultural knowledge sharing,
together with ad hoc human resources and internal communication
policies.
Some of the suggestions proposed in this book may be applied, mutatis
mutandis, to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), public and non-
profit organizations.
This volume is aimed at tracing a new pathway for a better understand-
ing and management of inter-cultural knowledge sharing.
Undoubtedly, more research is needed to identify and analyse the other
individual and organizational factors that, under certain conditions, may
foster the growth and effectiveness of inter-cultural knowledge sharing
(online and offline) consistently with the complex perspective adopted in
this paper.
Lastly, it is claimed that more research is needed to enhance our capac-
ity to design, implement and manage Web 2.0 tools—particularly social
media in trans-national companies—and to facilitate inter-cultural
knowledge sharing through the cultivation of inter-cultural bonding and
bridging ties, within and across the boundaries of MNCs.
This book offers a humble and necessarily incomplete contribution to
the development of the academic debate and the enhancement of meth-
odological and practical knowledge concerned with the improvement of
inter-cultural knowledge sharing—and not only in MNCs.
Notes
1. E. Wenger, presentation delivered at the seminar ‘Cultivating Communities
of Practices’, Regione Umbria, Perugia, Italy, 2005.
2. Eni, ‘Knowledge Management System’, retrieved on 15th February 2017
from: https://www.eni.com/en_IT/innovation/our-skills/knowledge-
management-system.page
3. NASA, APPEL, ‘Knowledge Sharing’, retrieved on 15th February 2017,
from: https://appel.nasa.gov/knowledge-sharing/
References
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual under-
standing. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved
15, 2017, from http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Aral, S., Dellarocas, C., & Godes, D. (2013). Introduction to the special issue—
Social media and business transformation: A framework for research.
Information Systems Research, 24(1), 3–13.
Asaro, P. M. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: The sci-
ence and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and
Information Technologies, 10(4), 257–290.
Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
Barnes-Mauthe, M., Arita, S., Allen, S. D., Gray, S. A., & Leung, P. (2013). The
influence of ethnic diversity on social network structure in a common-pool
resource system: Implications for collaborative management. Ecology and
Society, 18(1), 23.
Bate, P., & Robert, G. (2007). Toward more user-centric OD: Lessons from the
field of experience-based design and a case study. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43, 41–66.
Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A development model of inter-
cultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the inter-cultural experi-
ence (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Inter-cultural Press.
Buchmüller, S., Joost, G., Bessing, N., & Stein, S. (2011). Bridging the gender
and generation gap by ICT applying a participatory design process. Personal
and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(7), 743–758.
Byrne, E., & Sahay, S. (2007). Participatory design for social development: A
South African case study on community-based health information systems.
Information Technology for Development, 13(1), 71–94.
Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2007). Participatory design in community
informatics. Design Studies, 28(3), 243–261.
Casmir, F. L. (1999, January). Foundations for the study of inter-cultural com-
munication based on a third-culture model. Inter-cultural Relations, 23(1),
91–116.
Chatti, M. A., Jarke, M., & Frosch-Wilke, D. (2007). The future of e-learning:
A shift to knowledge networking and social software. International Journal of
Knowledge and Learning, 3(4–5), 404–420.
184 F. Maimone
Chen, G. M. (2012). The impact of new media on inter-cultural communica-

tion in global context. China Media Research, 8(2), 1–10.
Chui, M., Miller, A., & Roberts, R. P. (2009). Six ways to make Web 2.0 work.
The McKinsey Quarterly, (2), 64–73.
Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multinational and multi-cultural
distributed teams: A review and future agenda. Small Group Research, 38(3),
387–412.
Cross, R., Parker, A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2002). A bird’s-eye view: Using social
network analysis to improve knowledge creation and sharing. IBM Institute
for Business Value, pp. 1669–1600.
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing what we
know: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks.
Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 100–120.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propo-
sitions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–414.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Witten, M. G. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organi-
zational communication. Academy of Management Review, 12, 418–426.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2009). Blogging: Fostering inter-cultural competence
development in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language
Annals, 41(3), 454–477.
Eni. (2017). Knowledge management system. Retrieved February 15, 2017,
from https://www.eni.com/en_IT/innovation/our-skills/knowledge-man-
agement-system.page
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in Praxis: An analysis of frameworks
(pp. 1–91). Seville: JRC-IPTS. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://is.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/documents/FinalCSReport_PDFPARAWEB.pdf
Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. (2002). Seeding, evolutionary growth, and reseeding:
Enriching participatory design with informed participation. In Proceedings of
the Participatory Design Conference, PDC (Vol. 2, pp. 135–143).
Fitzgerald, R. N., Barrass, S., Campbell, J., Hinton, S., Ryan, Y., Whitelaw, M.,
et al. (2009). Digital learning communities (DLC): Investigating the application
of social software to support networked learning (p. 52). Australian Learning
and Teaching Council. ISBN: 978-1-74088-296-5.
Fleras, A. (2009). Theorizing multi-cultural media as social capital: Crossing
borders, constructing buffers, creating bonds, building bridges. Canadian
Journal of Communication, 34(4), 725–729.
Frydenberg, M., & Andone, D. (2010). Two screens and an ocean: Collaborating
across continents and cultures with web-based tools. Information Systems
Education Journal, 8(55), 316–329.
Fujimoto, Y., Bahfen, N., Fermelis, J., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2007). The global
village: Online cross-cultural communication and HRM. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 14(1), 7–22.
Gibbs, J. L., Rozaidi, N. A., & Eisenberg, J. (2013). Overcoming the “ideology
of openness”: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowl-
edge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 102–120.
Golub, B., & Jackson, M. (2011). Network structure and the speed of learning:
Measuring homophily based on its consequences, annals of economics and
statistics, forthcoming. Retrived from http://stanford.edu/˜bgolub/papers/
DWH.pdf
Hagen, P., & Robertson, T. (2009, November). Dissolving boundaries: Social
technologies and participation in design. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual
Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest
Group: Design: Open 24/7 (pp. 129–136). ACM.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Hatchuel, A., Lemasson, P., & Weil, B. (2006). Building innovation capabilities:
The development of design-oriented organizations. In J. Hage & M. Meeus
(Eds.), Innovation, science and industrial change: The handbook of research
(pp. 294–312). London: Oxford Press.
Hemp, P. (2009). Death by information overload. Harvard Business Review,
87(9), 83–89.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically
distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context,
and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 290–307.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there?
Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.
Johnson, M., & Hyysalo, S. (2012, August). Lessons for participatory designers
of social media: Long-term user involvement strategies in industry. In
Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers—
Volume 1 (pp. 71–80). ACM.
Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and his symbol. New York: Dell.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The chal-
lenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
Kauppila, O. P., Rajala, R., & Jyrämä, A. (2011). Knowledge sharing through
virtual teams across borders and boundaries. Management Learning, 42(4),
395–418.
Kautz, K. (2011). Investigating the design process: Participatory design in agile
software development. Information Technology & People, 24(3), 217–235.
186 F. Maimone
Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3/4), 167–185.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for
using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean col-
lege students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365–372.
Lai, I. L. A. (2005). Knowledge management for Chinese medicines: A concep-
tual model. Information Management & Computer Security, 13, 244–255.
Lee, L. (2012). Engaging study abroad students in intercultural learning through
blogging and ethnographic interviews. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 7–21.
Lévy, P. (2010). From social computing to reflexive collective intelligence: The
IEML research program. Information Sciences, 180(1), 71–94.
Light, A., Kleine, D., & Vivent, M. (2010). Performing Charlotte: A technique
to bridge cultures in participatory design. International Journal of
Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), 2(1), 36–58.
Lin, J. H., Peng, W., Kim, M., Kim, S. Y., & LaRose, R. (2012). Social network-
ing and adjustments among international students. New Media & Society,
14(3), 421–440.
London, M., & Hall, M. J. (2011). Unlocking the value of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies for training and development: The shift from instructor-controlled,
adaptive learning to learner-driven, generative learning. Human Resource
Management, 50(6), 757–775.
Maimone, F. (2007). Dalla rete al silos. Dalla rete al silos. Modelli e strumenti per
comunicare egestire la conoscenza nelle organizzazioni “flessibili”. Milan: Franco
Angeli.
Maimone, F. (2010). La comunicazione organizzativa: comunicazione, relazioni e
comportamenti organizzativi nelle imprese, nella PA e nel no profit. Milan:
Franco Angeli.
Malhotra, A., Majchrzek, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams.
Academy of Management Perspective, 21(1), 60–70.
Marwick, A. D. (2001). Knowledge management technology. IBM Systems
Journal, 40, 814–830.
McEwan, B., & Sobre-Denton, M. (2011). Virtual cosmopolitanism:
Constructing third cultures and transmitting social and cultural capital
through social media. Journal of International and Inter-cultural
Communication, 4(4), 252–258.
Mohrman, S. A. (2007). Having relevance and impact: The benefits of integrat-
ing the perspectives of design science and organizational development.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 12–24.
NASA. (2017). APPEL, knowledge sharing. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from
https://appel.nasa.gov/knowledge-sharing/
Newman, L. L., & Newman, D. A. (2005). Network structure, diversity, and
proactive resilience building: A response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology and
Society, 10(1), r2.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company, how
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for
the next generation of software. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://
www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.
html
Oertig, M., & Buegri, T. (2006). The challenges of managing cross-cultural vir-
tual project teams. Team Performance Management, 12(1-2), 23–30.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability
in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.
Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2012) Social media and tacit knowledge
sharing: Developing a conceptual model. In World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology (pp. 1095–1102). Paris, France: World Academy
of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET).
Pascal, A., Thomas, C., & Romme, A. G. L. (2013). Developing a human-
centred and science-based approach to design: The knowledge management
platform project. British Journal of Management, 24(2), 264–280.
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.
Peters, L. M., & Manz, C. C. (2007). Identifying antecedents of virtual team
collaboration. Team Performance Management, 13(3/4), 117–129.
Phua, J., & Jin, S. A. A. (2011). ‘Finding a home away from home’: The use of
social networking sites by Asia-Pacific students in the United States for bridg-
ing and bonding social capital. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(5),
504–519.
Plsek, P., Bibby, J., & Whitby, E. (2007). Practical methods for extracting
explicit design rules grounded in the experience of organizational managers.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 153–170.
Prop, V. (1982). The morphology of fairy tales. Belgrade, Serbia: Prosveta.
Ray, D. (2014). Overcoming cross-cultural barriers to knowledge management
using social media. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1),
45–55.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computer-
ized world. Chicago, IL: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co, Inc.
188 F. Maimone
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London:

Sage.
Romme, A. G. L. (2003). Making a difference: Organization as design.
Organization Science, 14, 558–573.
Rosen, D., Stefanone, M. A., & Lackaff, D. (2010). Online and offline social
networks: Investigating culturally-specific behavior and satisfaction.
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International.
Sammarra, A., Profili, S., Maimone, F., & Gabrielli, G. (2017). Enhancing
knowledge sharing in age-diverse organizations: The role of HRM practices.
In S. Profili, A. Sammarra, & L. Innocenti (Eds.), Age diversity in the work-
place: An organizational perspective (pp. 161–187). Emerald Publishing
Limited.
Schultze, U., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Research commentary-virtual worlds:
A performative perspective on globally distributed, immersive work.
Information Systems Research, 21, 810–821.
Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge international handbook
of participatory design. London: Routledge.
Sole, D., & Wilson, D. G. (2002). Storytelling in organizations: The power and
traps of using stories to share knowledge in organizations. LILA, Harvard,
Graduate School of Education.
Spence, P. R., Lachlan, K. A., Spates, S. A., & Lin, X. (2013). Inter-cultural dif-
ferences in responses to health messages on social media from spokespeople
with varying levels of ethnic identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 29,
1255–1259.
Terpstra, V., & Sarathy, R. (2000). International Marketing (8th ed.). Hinsdale,
IL: The Dryden Press.
Terry, D., & Terry, M. (2012). Common interests, social ties and the develop-
ment of social capital. The Internet Journal of Language, Culture and Society,
35, 105–113.
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, social-
ization, and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming.
The Modern Language Journal, 93(Focus Issue), 802–821.
Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). “Bridging activities,” new media litera-
cies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3),
558–572.
Tobin, P. K., & Snyman, R. (2008, March). Once upon a time in Africa: A case
study of storytelling for knowledge sharing. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 60, No.
2, pp. 130–142). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research on the basis of the design para-
digm: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of
Management Studies, 4, 219–246.
Vogel, D. R., Van Genuchten, M., Lou, D., Verveen, S., Van Eekout, M., &
Adams, A. (2001). Exploratory research on the role of national and profes-
sional cultures in a distributed learning project. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 44, 114–125.
Wahlroos J. K. (2010). Social media as a form of organizational knowledge shar-
ing: A case study on employee participation at Wärtsilä. Master, Department
of Social Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki.
Wang, S., & Vasquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What
does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412–430.
Wei, K. (2007). Sharing knowledge in global virtual teams. In K. Crowston,
S. Sieber, & E. Wynn (Eds.), Virtuality and virtualization (pp. 251–265).
Boston, MA: Springer.
Wilson, J. H., Guinan, P. J., Parise, P., & Weinberg, B. (2011). What’s your
social media strategy. Harvard Business Review, 89(7/8), 23–25.
Yoo, S. J., & Huang, W.-H. D. (2011). Comparison of Web 2.0 technology
acceptance level based on cultural differences. Educational Technology &
Society, 14(4), 241–252.
Index
A Cognitive perspective, 41–44

Absorptive capacity, 109, 110 Community of practices (CoP), 51,
Active listening, 134 73
Affective climates, 107, 108 Complex systems theory, 19
Analogical migrants, 180 Conflict management, 134, 170
Artificial intelligence, 38, 70 Constructionist approach, 41
Auto-poiesis, 19, 49 Cooperative interpretation, 82
Coordination mechanisms, 75
Corporate social media, 114,
B 171–179
Ba, 8, 50, 51, 69, 71, 75, 76, 78, 80 Corporate universities, 122, 123,
Behaviours, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 127
72–74, 105–107, 110, 119, Critical management theory, 105
120, 123–126, 131, 133, 134, Cultural awareness, 113, 167, 171
141, 165, 180 Cultural barriers, 90, 91, 103, 104,
Body language, 82, 133, 169 157
Cultural brokerage, 132
Cultural change, 6, 22
C Cultural differences, 10, 11, 21,
Cimo (Context, Intervention, 23–31, 55, 56, 127, 131,
Management and Outcomes) 164–167, 170
Approach, 174 Cultural dynamics, 23
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57297-0
192 Index
Cultural homophily, 89 Explicit knowledge, 39, 41, 68,

Cultural hybridization, 29 70–74, 81, 82, 91, 104, 123,
Cultural intelligence, 128, 129 159, 174
Cultural mapping, 11, 21, 22 Exploration, 4, 161
Cultural sensitivity, 139, 142 Exponential technologies, 1
Cultural value orientations theory, Externalization, 68, 70, 160
25, 27
Cultural values, 22, 24, 28, 55, 129
Culture, 45, 65, 107, 108, 160, 166 G
Culture creation, 9, 22, 57, 105 Generative learning, 171
Culture sensitive managers, 137 Geographically dispersed teams, 168,
169
Global Leadership and
D Organizational Effectiveness
Decision systems, 43, 74 (GLOBE), 27
Digital interactions, 137, 164–168, Global problems, 7
170, 177 Globalization, 6, 7, 55
Digital knowledge spaces, 171 Glocal, 2–4, 6–10, 12, 17, 54, 64,
Digital migrants, 1 66, 67, 104, 108, 113, 139,
Digital transformation, 4 142, 157, 164, 169, 181
Distributed team working, 169 Glocal companies, 158
Double-loop learning, 119, 120 Glocalization, 2, 6, 12, 17–31
E H
Economic development, 3 High-contextualization cultures, 172
Education, 3, 6, 107, 116, 119, 123, Hofstede’s model, 25, 29
134, 142, 170 Homophilic relations, 77, 145, 179
Embedded knowledge, 49 Horizontal approach to the
Embodied knowledge, 49 management of Web 2.0 tools,
Embrained knowledge, 48 173
Emic perspective, 11, 30, 131 Human behaviour, 42, 74, 125
Emotional display, 133 Human intelligence, 38, 70
Empathy, 121, 134 Human resources management
Encoded knowledge, 49 (HRM), 117, 119, 133, 136,
Encultured knowledge, 49 144, 172, 175, 177
Ethnic diversity, 110 Human resources practices, 119
Etic perspective, 11 Human resources strategies, 119
Index
193
I Knowledge based organizations, 66

Inclusive cultures, 133, 136 Knowledge combination, 162
Inclusive story-telling, 167 Knowledge conversion, 9, 10, 68,
Informal networks, 83–87, 92, 146, 70, 71, 81, 82, 161
171, 181 Knowledge creation, 4, 7, 10, 39, 44,
Information, 8, 12, 28, 37–39, 47, 50–52, 55, 57, 67, 78, 83,
42–44, 47, 55, 56, 70, 71, 73, 116, 120, 122
74, 76, 77, 85, 89, 91, 92, Knowledge driven organization, 104
92n3, 108, 109, 116, 118, Knowledge exploitation, 4
121, 130, 159, 164, 168, 169, Knowledge management (KM), 3,
173, 176, 179–181 11, 38, 46, 48, 70, 78–80,
Intercultural communication, 92, 109, 110, 117, 161, 172, 173,
110, 133, 134, 167, 171, 180 176, 177, 182n2
Intercultural competences, 114, 129, Knowledge sharing, 8, 10, 12, 13,
142, 165, 167, 177, 180, 181 48, 56, 57, 63, 65–69, 72,
Intercultural digital competencies, 76–78, 83–86, 88, 90–92,
114, 179–181 103, 104, 108–112, 114–129,
Intercultural knowledge sharing, 7, 131–135, 137, 139–143, 145,
9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 24, 31, 51, 157–182
52, 57, 63–92, 103–146, 157, Knowledge spaces, 8, 50–54, 69, 71,
170–173, 175, 176, 178, 181, 75, 87, 103, 109, 123–127,
182 171, 181
Internal communication, 121, 175, Knowledge transfer, 9, 55, 56, 78,
176 83, 85, 109, 129
Internalization, 68, 71, 91, 117, 161 Knowledge translation, 78–83,
Inter-organizational network, 83 141–146
Interpretation, 41, 82, 83 Knowledge-intensive factory, 4
Intuition, 8, 38, 74 Knowledge-oriented culture, 119
J L
Judgement, 42, 43, 50, 73, 74, 122 Language diversity, 143
Justified true belief, 39, 46 Lave, J., 45
Law of requisite variety, 11, 116, 121
Leadership, 27, 40, 76, 107, 117,
K 133, 137, 138, 140, 145, 163,
Knowledge, 37, 64, 104, 157 170, 178
Knowledge age, 1–6, 64 Linguistic competences, 143
Knowledge articulation, 80 Low-contextualization cultures, 172
194 Index
M Organizational emotions, 120

Machine learning, 4 Organizational entanglement, 127
Meta-identity, 172 Organizational identities, 20
Meta-linguistic competence, 143 Organizational isomorphism, 109
Meta-narratives, 167, 172 Organizational knowledge, 37–57,
Millennials, 1, 22, 180 66, 71, 76, 77, 83, 88, 121
Motivation, 81, 117, 118, 142 Organizational narratives, 83
Multicultural teams, 112, 114, Organizational networks, 10, 54,
130–135, 138–140, 157, 168 137
Multicultural work place, 134 Organizational routines, 39, 88
Multilevel cultural model, 20, 21 Organizational silos, 103
Multinational corporations (MNCs), Organizational spaces, 52, 53, 87,
3, 83 88, 114, 130, 135, 181
Multi-paradigmatic perspective, 12 Organizational synchronization, 175,
Multiple identity, 22, 30 179
Mutual recognition, 113, 136 Organizational trust, 120
N P
National cultures, 22, 29, 138, 140 Participative competence, 144
Network position, 110, 119 Participatory design, 173–175
Network society, 53 Particularistic cultures, 56
Neurosciences, 42, 43, 74 People management, 117, 119, 136
Person centric approach, 104
Philosophy, 2, 3, 38, 55, 67, 116,
O 159
Organizational ambiguity, 116 Phronesis, 50, 106
Organizational attractor, 181 Post-modern organization, 75
Organizational climate, 105, 107, Practice-based perspectives, 109
108, 119 Proxemics, 133
Organizational communication, 119,
133
Organizational connectivity, 123, R
124 Reflexivity, 120, 144, 173
Organizational culture, 17–23, 27, Resource-based view, 66
50, 56, 105, 112, 114, 120, Reverse mentoring, 180, 181
158, 170 Rituals, 18, 28, 48, 49, 65, 133
Index
195
S 113, 121, 123, 125, 144, 159,

Science-based design approach, 173, 160, 164, 174
174 Team identity, 169
SECI model, 68, 71 Theory of similarity/attraction, 130
Self-organizing processes, 19, 124 Theory U (Scharmer, O.), 106
Self-reflexivity, 144, 165, 173 Third cultures, 123, 134–136, 167,
Semi-closed clusters, 103 172
Semi-closed systems, 43–44 Total quality management (TQM),
Sense making, 44, 76, 83, 141 65
Small world networks, 86, 87, 141 Toyota production system, 65
Social construction, 45, 75 Training, 39, 48, 71, 117, 119, 122,
Social constructivism, 45 123, 127–130, 134, 140,
Social learning, 45, 180 142–144, 161, 165, 168, 180,
Social media, 1, 12, 69, 145, 157, 181
182 Trans-national networks, 85
Social networks, 10, 11, 53, 70, 71,
75, 85–88, 91, 103, 118, 121,
128, 159, 171, 173, 181, 182 U
Social practices, 18, 45, 46, 48, 51, Universal narrative structures, 166
73, 83 Universalistic cultures, 56
Social spaces, 52, 104, 125
Socialization, 49, 68, 69, 160
The spiral of knowledge, 71, 72 V
Story-telling, 49, 167 Verbal communication, 133
Structural holes, 85 Virtual teams, 168–170
Stupidity-based theory of Virtuals, 169
organization, 119
Symbols, 8, 18, 49, 66, 81, 166
Synchronicity, 126 W
Web 2.0, 159–164
Wenger, E., 45
T Wisdom, 8, 49, 50, 106, 116, 163
Tacit knowledge, 5, 39, 40, 43, 68,
70, 74, 78–81, 91, 104, 110,

Intercultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCS: Fabrizio Maimone

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Intercultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCS: Fabrizio Maimone

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FABRIZIO MAIMONE

ISBN 978-3-319-57296-3 ISBN 978-3-319-57297-0 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017950574

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover illustration: Prasit Photo / Moment /Getty Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

Some years ago, when I worked in Germany, I was invited by a company

stereotypes. When that happens on a large scale, as in the case of the

I would like to acknowledge Palgrave Macmillan’s support and, particu-

The members of the Humanistic Management Network and the

2 Culture, Glocalization, Complexity 17

3 Organizational Knowledge and Inter-­cultural Management 37

4 Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCs: Toward a

5 Toward an Integrated and Inclusive Approach to

6 An Integrated Approach to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing

Fig. 2.1 The multi-level model of MNE culture 23

Fig. 6.1 Mapping of Web 2.0 tools for different phases of

Table 2.1 The relationship between universal values and personal

1.1 The Rise of the Knowledge Age

© The Author(s) 2018 1

able to create and exploit glocal knowledge. It must also be considered

requires a shift toward a complex and long-term approach to global

1.2 The Glocal Dimension of Knowledge

particular (local) phenomena should be considered as the two faces of

Therefore, it could be argued that, in order to foster global knowledge,

culture (Holden, 2002). In other words, there is also an unconscious and

1.4 The Role of Social Networks

be made widely accessible and usable. It is argued that post-bureaucratic

1.5 The Role and Value of Diversity

For these reasons, it is critical to find out a new approach to knowledge

1.6 Aims of This Book

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1990). The multinational corporation as an

2.1 Organization as Culture(s)

© The Author(s) 2018 17

Schwartz (1992) proposed an analytical model based on universal val-

showed fragmented and conflictual cultural landscapes, which contra-

differentiation and ­ hybridism typical of complex organizations in

(a) The condition of the border inhabitants who experience multi-­

(c) The question of post-colonialism: Post-colonial countries like Brazil

More generally speaking, it is possible to assume that cultural change

Team values and

Fig. 2.1 The multi-level model of MNE culture

It is important to underline that this paper focuses on the analysis of

assumptions, mental and operational schemata, attitudes and behaviors.

1 . Power distance: measures the different attitudes to power inequality;

According to Hofstede (1993, p. 89), ‘Cultural differences on nations

The theory elaborated by Schwartz (1992, 2006) is characterized by six

1 . Values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect.

The values identified by Schwartz (Ib.) are: power, achievement, hedo-

Personal focus Openess to

Schwartz (2006), moreover, proposed the theory of cultural values ori-

The GLOBE Project researchers conceptualized a model composed of

1. Performance orientation: the extent to which an organization or soci-

The dimensions (Ib.) were built up by gathering information from

2.5 Toward an Emic Approach

Finally, the interpretative theorists argued against the functionalistic

useful to better understand how cultural differences impact on inter-­cultural

Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying organizational subcultures: An empirical

Malinowski, B. (1944). A scientific theory of culture. Chapel Hill, NC: University

3.1 Organizational Knowledge,

Paradoxically, the question What is knowledge? is one of the most diffi-

© The Author(s) 2018 37

2 Culture, Glocalization, Complexity 17

3 Organizational Knowledge and Inter-cultural Management 37

4 Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing in MNCs: Toward a

5 Toward an Integrated and Inclusive Approach to

6 An Integrated Approach to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing

Fig. 2.1 The multi-level model of MNE culture 23

1.1 The Rise of the Knowledge Age

1.2 The Glocal Dimension of Knowledge

1.4 The Role of Social Networks

1.5 The Role and Value of Diversity

1.6 Aims of This Book

2.1 Organization as Culture(s)

differentiation and hybridism typical of complex organizations in

(a) The condition of the border inhabitants who experience multi-

2.5 Toward an Emic Approach

useful to better understand how cultural differences impact on inter-cultural

3.1 Organizational Knowledge,

semi-automatic behaviours, such as driving a car, using a computer, and

The Cognitive Perspective

The Social Dimension of Knowledge

3.1.2 Organizational Knowledge

‘Ambiguity means that the possibility of rationality—clarifying means-ends

4.4 Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing

4.5 Informal Networks as Interlocks