Leonard Barnett and Edward Carter
6.1 Communitarianism Members of communitarian or collectivist cultures share information and construct knowledge differently to individualists. Bhagat et al. (2002) note that individualists identify each piece of information, independent of its context, and give special importance to writing, while communitarians perceive a message embedded in context and may disregard written information. Knowledge is more likely to be understood and shared by communitarians when accompanied by a human face and voice; e.g. obtaining information may be unsuccessful if relying on email or forms. A personal contact is often required.
6.2 In-groups and out-groups Communitarians are interdependent on other group members and Thais adroitly manipulate in- and out-group distinctions. Consequently, knowledge may be developed, learnt and shared between in-group members, it may not reach other staff. This exclusion reflects in-group loyalty and reluctance to ‘lose’ group knowledge. Similarly, out-group members intentionally exclude themselves from KM activities, if they perceive themselves as not belonging (Ardichvili et al 2006). This research found that Western customers received fuller knowledge sharing than Indians and Arabs. Ethnocentrism, when combined with ascribed status and particularism, throws up formidable knowledge barriers for certain out-groups.
6.3 Particularism Thais, being strongly particularist do business through informal and personal relationship-based communication (Holmes and Tangtongtavy 1997). Thai companies and sub-sections run on a family based model reflecting both communitarian and particularist values. Consequently, KM systems, which are impersonal, universalist and reliant on written rules, will be less successful than those that incorporate informal relationship management.
6.4 High and low context Managers reported considerable difficulty with the issue of high and low context communication. Words, emails and online verbal KM applications are more valued by low than high context staff. Interculturally competent KM needs to account for this cultural variation in rolling out KM systems.
6.5 Diversity and Face In a diverse, as opposed to specific, culture, the perception of work performance and personal regard is integral to self-esteem. Professional praise or criticism is taken personally (Miller 2005). Face is crucial in decisions made about communication, learning and knowledge sharing. For example, those from specific cultures perceive asking questions as valid inquiry and often face-enhancing behavior (Wenger et al. 2002). Diverse culture individuals avoid asking, especially in public, as it is not modest (Kurman 2003), betrays ignorance or embarrasses. It is a face-losing behavior. Asking questions may break communitarian principles or not be kreng jai (approx. consideration, self-effacement). Similarly, relaying negative and critical information is discouraged. Knowledge relating to performance, particularly appraisal or discipline, becomes very delicate when face is crucial. Criticism is avoided and incompetence covered up or ignored.
6.6 Uncertainty avoidance and external locus of control Managers expressed frustration with staff’s lack of proactivity and initiative, despite innumerable training courses, e.g. rigid adherence to procedures and unwillingness to accept promotion to senior positions. Uncertainty avoidance, preferring external control and reluctance to assume internal control provide significant obstacles to innovation and creativity in KM.
14