ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTERDISCUSSION PAPER

No.181

Diversity in Managing Knowledge: A Cultural Approachby

Kavoos MOHANNAK*

k.mohannak@qut.edu.au
School of Management, Faculty of Business,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

February 2011

ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTERGRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICSNAGOYA UNIVERSITY*Visiting Fellow (form August 2010 to January 2011), Economic Research Centre, Graduate
School of Economics, Nagoya University.
*I would like to express my gratitude to Associate Professor Nobuhiko Nakaya who graciously
invited me to work on my research projects at the Economic Research Center. I also thankProfessor Kanai, the Director of the Center, and Dr Fujikawa for their support.

Diversity in Managing Knowledge:
A Cultural Approach

Abstract
This paper reviews diversity in knowledge management (KM) from a cultural perspective; it argues that
culturally embedded theories and practices influence the practice of knowledge management. It further
presents and analyses several case studies and in particular a case study of the Islamic culture focusing on
its traditional approach to both Islamic knowledge and management. The analysis of this case reveals thecultural challenges that emerge in the process of applying essentially Western management theories
within an Islamic culture with particular reference to knowledge management theories. The paper
concludes that the concept of knowledge management must take into account the diversity of national
culture in which the organization exists and that the concept of knowledge management will benefit froma diversity perspective rather than a universality perspective.

Key words: Knowledge management, cross cultural diversity, universalism, Islamic Culture, Islamic
Management and Knowledge

1. Introduction
There are considerable evidence supports the importance of culture in the success or
failure of knowledge management within organizations. Holden (2001) in particular isvery critical of those viewpoints that ignore cultural influence on knowledge
management. He points out that these viewpoints gives the impression that knowledge
management operates in a kind of unitary vacuum in which diversity in terms oflanguage, cultural and ethnic background are compressed into one independent variablewhich is pushed to the side. Pauleen and Murphy (2005) agree and state that knowledge
management models that exclude the influence of national and regional culture
seriously undercut their potential effectiveness particularly in global applications. They
further suggest that cultural bias exists in databases and in all business and innovationand that Western analytical assumptions about knowledge and information management,
dominates both information and knowledge management research and development.

1Therefore, research suggests that a key problem with knowledge management researchand literature is that it has been largely viewed through a Western or industrialised
nation lens and accordingly such findings may not be inter-culturally applicable (Zhu
2004). Managers and management alike are cultural products and all management
behaviour takes place in, and all management attitudes are rooted in, a specific culturalcontext and as such, knowledge cannot be understood outside of the cultural parametersthat condition its emergence and modes of reproduction (Weir & Hutchings 2005). Thisapplies alike to what is labelled as both “tacit” and “explicit” knowledge. Glisby andHolden (2003) and Holden (2002) further proffer that there is need to understand how
knowledge is constructed and constituted outside of Japan and the Western world.
The research also has shown that the adoption of knowledge management inorganizations largely depends on various national cultural characteristics. Thus, theimportance of the culture itself and cultural differences have become more crucial
especially for organizations operating in several countries, international markets or evenhaving employees from different cultures. Since knowledge management initiatives are
impeded mainly by culture (Benbya & Belbali 2005; DeTienne et al 2004; Hendriks
2004; Park et al 2004), having an organizational culture inconsistent with knowledge
management programs is realized by managers as an expanding problem (DeTienne etal 2004).
This paper contends that KM is embedded in cultural understanding and knowledge
processes and cannot be examined without a thorough understanding of the cultural
influences, which for example can be key drivers or inhibitors of knowledge sharing. In
this relation Koskiniemi emphasises the importance of culture in knowledge sharing asfollows ‘successful knowledge sharing is 90 percent cultural, 5 percent tools and 5
percent magic; all the technology and tools in the world will not make you aknowledge-based organization if you do not establish a culture that believes in sharing’(Greengard 1998:82).
This paper, therefore, argues that managing knowledge is embedded in cultural
understanding and institutional determinants and that knowledge management process
cannot be examined in isolation from locally situated meaning that arises from a rangeof diversified cultural and institutional influences. For this purpose the paper first
defines and introduces key theoretical concepts to illustrate their complexity and variety
of meanings and then describes various major studies that focus at cultural aspect of2

knowledge management. The paper also by looking at the specific case of Islamic
culture intends to illustrate the role of culture and offer an in depth discussion on thequestion of whether knowledge management is a universal concept or it will benefit
from a diversity perspective.
2. Theoretical Concepts & Definitions
The concepts ’knowledge’, ’knowledge management’ and ’culture’ are presented anddefined in this section from a theoretical and comparative point of view. The aim is toprovide a basis for discussion of knowledge and culture later in forthcoming sections.
2.1. Knowledge
Knowledge can be defined in various ways and within different perspectives. In fact, theacademic question of how knowledge should best be defined is a subject of a lively
epistemological debate. The complex nature of knowledge has been discussed
extensively in information technology (IT), strategic management, organizational theory
and knowledge management literature. One of the most quoted definitions ofknowledge within KM literature is by Nonaka (1994: 15): “knowledge is justified true
belief”. This definition is based on the approach of the Western philosophy introduced
by Plato in his work "Meno, Phaedo, and Theaetetus" . "Justified True" means that theknowledge claim needs to be based on evidence which objectively proves its
truthfulness and survive all tests which attempt to disprove it. "Belief" thereby meansthat the knowledge holder needs to believe in the truthfulness of the knowledge claim.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) adopt this definition whereas they state that their stress lies
on "justified belief" opposed to Western philosophy stressing the "truthfulness". As aresult, they see knowledge as a "dynamic human process of justifying personal belief
towards the truth" (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995: 58). However, according to the Eastern(Islamic Theological) perspective knowledge includes Wisdom and Ma’rifah or Gnosis(describing mystical intuitive knowledge, knowledge of spiritual truth as reachedthrough ecstatic experiences rather than revealed or rationally acquired). In this view
knowledge is considered to be derived from two sources: 'aql (mind) and 'ilm huduri (inthe sense of unmediated and direct knowledge acquired through mystic experience).
This will be further elaborated when discussing the case of Islamic culture and its
approach to knowledge.
Within the knowledge management literature, data, information, knowledge, wisdom3are also often separated when defining knowledge. Vance (1997) suggests thatknowledge is authenticated information and information is interpreted data. Davenportand Prusak (1998: 5) define data as “a set of discrete, objective facts about events” andinformation as a message with a sender and a receiver that is meant to have an impact
on the judgment and behavior of the receiver. They define knowledge as “a fluid mix offrame experiences, values, contextual information and expert insight that provides aframework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information”. Whenknowledge is accumulated over time, one can learn to understand patterns andprinciples in human action so that knowledge can be put in context, combined andapplied appropriately resulting in wisdom (Vance 1997). Bhatt (2001) also provides
distinction between knowledge and information. According to his view knowledge ismeaningful information. Knowledge is derived from information. The difference
between data and information is the organization and the difference between
information and knowledge is the interpretation.
Yet another view of defining knowledge is connecting it to understanding.
Chakravarthy et al (2003: 306) state that knowledge is defined by most authors “as atype or degree of understanding that exists at a point of time”. Chong and Pandya(2003) define knowledge as understanding that one gains through experience, reasoning,
intuition, and learning. According to this view we expand our knowledge when others
share their knowledge. New knowledge is born when we combine our knowledge withknowledge of others. Berger and Luckmann (1966), for example, see knowledge as a setof shared beliefs that are constructed through social interactions and embedded within
the social contexts in which knowledge is created. This definition emphasizes the social
dimension of knowledge: knowledge is created by people interacting and knowledge
always has a context.
Another important aspect on knowledge is the division of knowledge into explicit andtacit knowledge made widely known by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). They argue that
explicit knowledge is objective whereas tacit knowledge is subjective. Explicit
knowledge is knowledge of rationality and mind and it is sequential. Tacit knowledge isknowledge of experience and it is simultaneous, it is hard to be taken away from thetime and the place. Tacit knowledge also is more related to practice than explicit
knowledge that is more related to theory. Tacit knowledge is hard to express in words
and even more difficult to express in written form. It is a part of human values, attitudes,
motivation etc. It is mostly created through experience and practice. This means that4

tacit knowledge is difficult to share. Explicit knowledge is, however, closer to what canbe understood by information. It can easily be embodied in language or another code
system. Therefore it is also easier to transfer explicit knowledge than tacit knowledge(Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).
Perhaps all these different definitions reveal something about the nature of knowledge:
it is not easy to define unambiguously. As explained knowledge can be defined fromdifferent perspectives and has been the subject of a long debate among Western andEastern philosophers and social scientists. This is particularly important when studying
cultural perspectives of knowledge management, in which different approaches toknowledge should be considered.
2.2. Knowledge management
Knowledge management has been defined in the literature in various ways but withsome similarities. Overall various authors tend to define knowledge management as aprocess or set of activities within the organization. For example, OECD (2002: 6)
definition emphasizes that “Knowledge management involves any activity related to thecapture, use and sharing of knowledge by the organization”. According to Turner (2005)
the knowledge management in traditional organizations consists of three steps: variation,
selection and retention. New ideas are created within the function, the best of the ideas
are utilized and then the knowledge is stored in the function where it can easily bereused.
Within the process view of knowledge management, Liebowitz (2005: 1) describes
knowledge management as a value creation process: “knowledge management is theprocess of creating value from an organization’s intangible assets”. According to him
knowledge management includes sharing and leveraging knowledge both internally andexternally. Similarly Chakravarthy et al (2003: 306-316) state that knowledge
management has to include three processes in order for an organization to gain acompetitive advantage. These processes are to accumulate, protect and leverageknowledge. They suggest that “knowledge is accumulated when units within the firm or
the organization as a whole gain new knowledge”. The knowledge must be protected sothat the competitors do not get the company’s competitive advantage. The tacitness,complexity and specificity of an organization’s knowledge base help the organization to
defend its competitive advantage. Leveraging means using existing knowledge forcommercial purposes.
5Love, Fong and Irani (2005) also define knowledge management as a process ofacquiring, refining, storing, and sharing knowledge in an organization. Marshall, Prusak
and Shpilberg (1997) mention that there are at least seven things that can be done withknowledge in an organization. New knowledge can be created within the organization.
Knowledge can be accessed or transferred either formally or informally. It can be
represented enabling easier access or it can be embedded in processes and can beutilized. And finally, these different knowledge processes can be facilitated bydevelopment of culture that values, shares and uses knowledge.
On the whole it seems that different authors sometimes use different terms whendefining knowledge management processes but we can see that there are somesimilarities (see Table 1.).
Table 1. Knowledge management processes.
KM process

Terms used by authors

Creating / acquiring new

Variation (Turner 2005); accumulate (Chakravarthy et al 2003); acquiring (Love et al

knowledge

2005); creating (Marshall et al 1997)

Sharing knowledge

Sharing (Liebowitz 2005; Chakravarthy et al 2003; Love et al 2005); transferring andaccessing (Marshall 1997);

Utilizing knowledge

Leverage (Liebowitz 2005; Chakravarthy et al 2003); selection (Turner 2005); refining(Love et at. 2005); utilizing (Marshall et al 1997)

Storing knowledge

Retention (Turner 2005); storing (Love et al 2005); embedding in processes (Marshall etal. 1997)

2.3 Culture
Before we review cultural dimensions of KM, it is necessary to define culture as thisterm is used in many contexts carrying different meanings. Historically culture has been
defined in a number of different ways, either from sociological, philosophical,
anthropological or managerial perspective. Here we present some of the definitions thatare more relevant to the cross cultural and intercultural studies. Hofstede (1984: 51)
who had the one of the biggest influence on intercultural studies sees culture as "thecollective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one categoryof people from another". Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) in their critical study of culture
stating that: “Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior
acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of6human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture
consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may,on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning
elements of further action.” (Quoted in Holden 2002)
Culture also defined as “a pattern of basic assumptions -- invented, discovered, ordeveloped by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptationand internal integration - that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in
relation to those problems” (Schein 1985). Literature also suggests different
manifestation of culture. Long and Fahey (2000) notes that values, norms, and practices
are reflections of culture, while Hofstede et al (1990) categorize culture into values andpractices including symbols, heroes, and rituals. No matter how researchers define
culture, however, there is a common view that culture has at least two layers: the outerlayer and the core. The core of culture is value, which is described as a fairly stableemotional tendency to respond consistently to some specific object, situation, person or
category of people. It’s an invisible, unconscious, and embedded basic feeling that is
manifested in the outer visible layer of culture, such as attitudes and practices, and inalternatives of behaviors. The key role of culture in organizations is creating a
consensually validated system of beliefs and values which influences organizational
behavior.
Therefore, from these or other similar definitions (see, for example, Damen 1987;
Banks, Banks & McGee 2004), we can observe three important elements of culture:•••

Shared patterns of behavior, such as a greeting gesture (shaking hands orbowing) or day-to-day living patterns.
Traditional ideas, attitudes, such as the associations we build during our lives
and attach to entities surrounding us.
Values, which are broad tendencies for preferences of certain state of affairs toothers (good-evil, right-wrong, natural-unnatural).

Looking from an intercultural perspective, an individual who whishes to adapt toanother culture will probably not have much problems taking over certain patterns of
behaviors and after some time develop similar attitudes. But the core values a person
has which are formed by education from parents, teachers and other surroundings
during upbringing are very difficult to change. People are believed to acquire patterns of7

thinking, feeling, and acting, starting in early childhood and continuing throughout theirlife. These sources of mental programming ‘lie within the social environments in which
one grew up and collected one’s life experiences’ (Hofstede 1991: 4). Additionally,
these three elements do not only differ in how deep they are embedded in the humanmind but also in their visibility with patterns of behavior being most and values leastvisible. Culture can therefore be compared with an iceberg where only the smallest partis visible on the surface but the largest part lies hidden in the deep (see Figure 1). Hall
(1977) originally developed the iceberg analogy of culture. According to him if theculture of a society was the iceberg, then there are some aspects visible, above water,
but there is a larger portion hidden behind the surface.

Figure 1: The iceberg model of culture
Source: Google image

Another aspect of culture that is relevant from an intercultural perspective is the factthat groups of human beings sharing a culture does not necessarily comprise a whole
nation but can be any kind of community who share values, attitudes and patterns of
behavior such as a family, a religious organization, a company or a sport club. Hence,
one large culture can have many subcultures and one individual does therefore bydefinition belong to many cultures. Referring to Snowden's (2002) system definitions,the system of culture and the human being is complex and varied.
3. Studies of Social & Cultural Dimension of KM
3.1 Research Approaches to KM
There has been an increasing literature on knowledge management over the past8

decades, with a blend of practitioner and academic input and appeal. The literature now
reports four distinct stream of research to knowledge management. Initial explorationsof the knowledge management concept took a technological focus. In these works
knowledge management is defined as a technical issue to be managed by developing
Intranets and other IT facilities through which organizational members can capture,share, store, and retrieve data and information.
During 1990s, discussions recognised the increasing importance of knowledge tocompetitive advantage in organizations. In this stream of research KM theorists argued
that knowledge is the pre-eminent resource of the firm (Davenport & Prusak 1997;
Grant 1996; Spender 1996) and that the primary rational for the firm is the creation andapplication of knowledge (Bierly & Chakrabarti 1996; Conner & Prahalad 1996).
Among the questions addressed in this body of literature are: What knowledge exists inorganisations? Who holds that knowledge? How can we capture and/or share theknowledge? However, initial research and practice in this area focused on knowledgetransfer with academicians and practitioners identifying the necessity for international
businesses to transfer distinctive knowledge to their subsidiaries to build their own
competitive advantage and provide knowledge to the subsidiary employees and foreignbusiness partners.
Third stream of research in knowledge management has at its’ core a social dimension.
Decades after sociologists and psychologists have revealed a social construction
perspective (Berger & Luckmann 1967; Piaget 1972), the knowledge management
literature concludes that knowledge is socially constructed among communities ofworkers (Alavi & Leidner 2001; Lang 2001). Thus this discourse of KM has centeredon the social and behavioral dimensions of knowledge management. This has drawn
attention to individual and group behavior in knowledge sharing, and creation. It
broadened the focus from information technology and information management
architecture to manage knowledge, to the organizational and behavioral change required
to achieve knowledge management. This placed human resource management andorganization development as a central part of the solution alongside IT. In particular it
picked up on organizational learning and the learning organization concept, as a tool forknowledge management systems. As Carter & Scarbrough (2001: 220) point out “formany writers the intersection between knowledge management and human resource
management rests largely in the creation or management of learning processes. Human
resource management is especially concerned with learning at the level of both the9organization and the community”.
In more recent literature on KM, new approaches to knowledge management are
emerging (for example, Hutchings and Mohannak 2007; Metaxiotis et al 2005; Zhu
2004). These approaches expand on both the previous research by attending to issues ofculture and the social/behavioural dimension, through integration with businessstrategies and environments. As a consequence more serious attention has fallen on theimpact and contribution of organisation and national culture to knowledge management.
Recent research on intercultural KM has advocated that a key problem with much of the
KM research and literature is that it has been largely viewed through a Western orindustrialised nation lens and accordingly, such findings may not be inter-culturally
applicable. Sbarcea (2001) has maintained that KM outside the industrialised world is
not as ‘natural’ nor as self-evident, as they argue it is usually presented in mainstream
KM literature. Accordingly, Hutchings and Michailova (2003) state that it is importantto realise that in developing economies, people may not share the knowledge they
possess with others or tap into the collective corporate knowledge base as readily as
people in the Western world. Nonaka (1998) also maintains that efficient organisational
knowledge sharing depends on the willingness of individuals to identify the knowledge
they possess and share that knowledge if, and when, required.
Moreover, in this body of literature, Glisby and Holden (2003) have suggested that what
is assumed about KM in a Western industrialised context or in a Japanese context (onwhich the work of Nonaka and Takeuchi is based) may not necessarily be translated toother cultural settings where much more knowledge is held tacit. Further, an increasing
number of researchers are questioning the very belief in the assumption of the existenceof intra-organisational knowledge sharing. Hutchings (2005) has indeed purported thatan important limitation on the capacity of international organizations to achieveinternational competitiveness, has been problems not only with cross-culturalcommunication, but also an inability to harness cross-cultural knowledge sharing andmanagement learning through an inability to tap into tacit knowledge.
In fact these development of approaches to knowledge management in the literaturereflects the gradual integration of different disciplinary perspectives (from IT tobehavioral and cultural studies), and associated with that changing perspectives on thenature of knowledge and thus its management in an organizational setting (Alavi &Leidner, 2001).

10

3.2 Cultural Diversity in KM
As explained in cultural studies of KM the adoption of knowledge management inorganizations largely depends on various national cultural characteristics. Numerous
frameworks to assess the consequences of culture exist. In Table 2 five models ofnational cultures widely cited and utilized in the management literature and have beenused in KM studies are presented. This Table includes models proposed by Kluckhohn
and Strodtbeck (1951, 1961), Hall (1977, 1981), Hofstede (1980, 2001), Adler (1991)
and Trompenaars (2002) and each of them can be useful in understanding some aspectsof culture and highlight different aspects of societal beliefs, norms, and values.
Table 2: Comparison of the Models and Dimensions of National Culture
Discipline

Cultural dimensions

Kluckhohn,
Strodtbeck(1951, 1961)

anthropology•relationship with nature• relationship with people• relationship with time

• human activities• human natureHall(1977, 1981)

anthropology• context (low vs. high)• space (center of power vs.
community)

Hofstede(1980,2001)

organization
science• power distance (low vs. high)• uncertainty avoidance (low vs.
high)• individualism vs. collectivism• masculinity vs. femininity• long-term vs. short-termorientation

Adler(1991)

organization
science• human nature• relationship with nature• individualist vs. collectivist• human activity (being vs. doing)• space (private vs. public)• time (past vs. present vs. future)

Trompenaars(2002)

organization
science• universalism vs. particularism• individualism vs.
communitarianism• affective vs. neutral• specific vs. diffuse• achievement vs. ascription• time• internal vs. external• time (monochronic vs.
polychronic)• relationship (deal vs.
relationship-focused)

Source: Szabo et al (2010)

For example, Lucas (2006) employed Hofstede’s framework (2001) and argued culturaldifferences may create bottlenecks in knowledge transfer between multinational
subsidiaries and may either impede or eliminate the potential for successful knowledgetransfer. He found this is the case irrespective of which dimension of the cultural indexof Hofstede’s framework to be considered. Also Szabo et al (2010), based on theanalysis of Trompenaars’ (2002) national culture profiles, compared the national culture
profiles of Bulgaria, Hungary and Serbia in order to reveal the roots and reasons ofcultural and knowledge sharing differences of the three countries. In this relation,
Prusak et al (2006) have reported some cross-cultural continua which are useful for the11

purpose of KM. These continua (such as individualistic-holistic, short term-long term,high context-low context, public-private, shame-guilt, agency-destiny, directindirect,
tangible-intangible, low trust-high trust, local-cosmopolitan, universalist-particularist)
are based on national, regional and also organizational culture. These continua havebeen related to three categories of KM (Knowledge Development, Knowledge
Retention and Knowledge Transfer). The purpose of Prusak et al’s article is also topoint out the importance of recognition and appreciation of cultural differences in orderto improve and enhance KM activities.
In general, the role of culture within the KM literature has been studied in different
levels; national cultures, overall organizational culture and climate, organizational
subcultures, subunit cultures, and team climate (King 2007). Furthermore, some writers
argue for adaptation of KM practices verses standardization in international context (see,for example, Ang & Massingham 2007) and question the universality of the KM
concept. For example, Zhu (2004) in his study of cross-cultural aspect of KM questions
the perceived universalism of KM in arguing that there should be the development of an‘interactionist strategy of constructing, connecting and sharing cross-cultural contexts’.
Building on Cohen’s East-West schema (see Table 3), which he claims provides
insufficient discrimination about KM between and within these regions, Zhu (2004)
studied American, Chinese, European and Japanese approaches to KM (see Table 4).
While suggesting there are convergences between the KM styles employed in theseregions, such as the application of Brown’s ‘knowledge ecology’ (Brown & Duguid
1991; Cook & Brown 1999) to China (Zhu 2001) and to Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995)
Japanese style of knowledge creation, he argues still for varieties and divergence.
Table 3 Cohen’s U.S.–Japanese contrast on KM
West

East

Focus on Explicit Knowledge

Focus on Tacit Knowledge

Re-UseCreation

Knowledge Projects

Knowledge Cultures

Knowledge Markets

Knowledge communities

Management and Measurement

Nurturing and Love

Near-Term Gains

Long-Term Advantage

Source: Cohen (1998: 24)

12

Looking at the similarities and differences between various KM approaches studied by
Zhu (2004), we can see that in the US Knowledge Management is supported bytechnologies, with the help of the language of economy, while social factors, power andconflicts are paid less attention to. In Japan implicit knowledge is emphasized, while
technologies act just as means for its transfer and accumulation. The difference between
American and European approaches is that in the American style politics, power andconflicts tend to be seen as negative for organizational performance: “What tends todoom projects is fighting over who owns the knowledge, then the project is doomed”. In
the European approach such questions are not so important as well as issues of dividing
knowledge into implicit and explicit. According to Zhu (2004) in China KM approach iscentralized and integrated, it synthesizes technologies, human knowledge andinstitutional initiatives.
Table 4: Connecting and Contrasting KM Styles
Motto
Mentality
Ideal-type
Embodiment

AmericanJapanese

EuropeanChineseI succeed, therefore
I am
Performanism

I love, therefore I
amGroupism (de-)

I practise, therefore
I amConstructivism

I learn, therefore I am

Knowledge as
resource
Knowledge base

Knowledge as
relationshipKnowledge
company
Knowledge culture

Knowledge as
power
Knowledge agent

Knowledge as virtue
Knowledge life
Knowledge governance

Strategy

Explicit-objectified
knowledge
LeverageLong-termadvantage
Tacit-subjective
knowledge
Creation

Knowledge
discourse
Legitimacy
Situated-constructed
knowledge
Politicisation

Useful-workableknowledge
Integration

Process

Re-using

Converting

Enacting

Contextualising

Means

Rationality
Technology
Markets
Picking low
hanging fruit

Vision/emotion
Trust/careSocialisation
Nurturing an
originating ba

Identity/meaning
Participation
Negotiation
Stories in themakingWuli: material-technicalShili: psycho-cognitive
Renli: socio-political
The Master is free fromfour Negatives

Mechanism
Aim
Focus

Metaphor

Knowledge
economyNear-term gains

Pragmatism

Kingliness–sageliness

Source: Zhu (2004)

Diversity in managing knowledge is also well illustrated in several case studies fromdeveloping countries included in Hutchings and Mohannak (2007), in which a broad
range of issues in managing knowledge provided a view of totality and complexity ofthe various dimensions of knowledge management from cultural and institutional
perspectives. The case studies cover a wide range of countries in Africa, Asia, theMiddle East, Latin America as well as transition economies of the former socialist
13

countries in Eastern Europe. To illustrate the diversity a brief summary of these casestudies are included here.
KM in Transition Economies
Knowledge management in transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe havebeen explored by Fink, Holden, and Lehmann (2007) who undertake an historicalassessment of KM in Central and Eastern Europe. They suggest that there was, andcontinues to be, a ‘socialist-style of KM’ premised on crucial distinctions between
public and private, family and work, reliable and unreliable people. They maintain that,in such a system, communication channels were reduced to tacit knowledge transfer
embedded in the official political language in which transfer could only occur for those
who knew the context. They further suggest that translating modern concepts ofmanagement and human resource management have been problematic for reasons suchas language and interpretation as well as a legacy of a climate lacking in trust.
Kaminska-Labbe and Thomas (2007) have examined KM in Poland, with specificreference to the experience of three Polish organisations and their strategic adaptation
during economic transition in the post-Socialist era. They discuss the complexities
involved in building new competencies and the influence of the legislative environment
as well as political, social and economic change. They suggest that the case study
organisations reveal that in a post-rupture deconstructionist context, strategic renewal
requires new regulatory processes with greatly modified structures; lessons which they
maintain can be applied to other societies equally beset by rapid environmental changes.
Hutchings and Michailova (2007) have looked at knowledge sharing in Russia andChina through an exploration of the impact of cultural traditions and Communist
influences. They argue that, contrary to earlier research suggesting that people intransition economies such as Russia and China have a propensity not to shareknowledge, Russians and Chinese are actually more inclined to share knowledge thanpeople in Western, industrialised countries but that this willingness to share knowledge
is highly influenced by group membership. Moreover, they maintain that the extent towhich knowledge sharing is impeded or facilitated in Russia and China is determined byinterplay of both cultural and institutional factors
KM in Asia
Chen (2007) examines KM in Taiwan and argues that against a backdrop of declining
industries, increasing unemployment and movement of work and organizations to China,
14

a focus on knowledge, information and the management of knowledge is in theascendant. Chen discusses the development of Taiwanese multinationals in thesmall-medium enterprise sector and how they have relied on external knowledge
development. Importantly he highlights the Taiwanese government’s commitment toemphasizing innovation and how organizations are being encouraged to distribute andconstruct knowledge for the new knowledge worker economy.
Best and Kakkar (2007) have explored the Indian approach to KM. They argue that inanalyzing KM in the Indian context, consideration needs to be given not only to legal,
political and bureaucratic systems and processes, but also to recognition of cultural
impacts in a country that has been described as the most culturally diverse in the world.
In particular, Best and Kakkar argue that in this highly populated nation that hasvariations across religion, caste, language, and region, subtleties and variants of
behaviour linked to these cultural differences dramatically impact on the sharing or
managing of knowledge and information on an individual level. Moreover, they suggestthat cultural differences can be extremely emotive at times in a way that profoundly
affects the knowledge sharing process.
KM in Africa, Middle East and Latin America
Boolaky, Gungaphul and Weir (2007) locate their research of KM in Africa in thespecific environment of Mauritius and explore the development of this small island state
as a potential future knowledge hub. They examine how this ethnically diverse yetsocially cohesive nation has actually achieved widespread sharing and understanding ofsocial goals, supported by the inflow of foreigners and lessons learnt from them, ashared civic vision, and an entrepreneurial culture. They argue that Mauritius directly
and indirectly has created an environment conducive for knowledge development
because of its emphasis on lifelong learning and other human resource development
initiatives and growing the information technology sector. Yet, while other nations andregions examined in this volume grapple with how to achieve greater sharing of existingknowledge sharing, Mauritius is focused on growing knowledge and faces emerging
problems of a widening knowledge gap and how to sift, screen, sort, absorb andunderstand new information flows.
Weir (2007) considers the role of knowledge growth and KM against a background ofvarying levels of modernization in the Middle East and North Africa. As well as
discussing such issues as the influence of Islam and family business, Weir explores
economic and infrastructural issues hindering knowledge growth in some parts of the15

region in opposition to rapid industrialization in other parts. Importantly, Weir explores
traditional cultural practices which may hinder sharing of knowledge between the
Middle East and North Africa, and the international businesses dominated by the Westas well as the need to move away from constraining Western-focused views on the KM
discourse.
Calderón-Moncloa (2007) suggests that (as is the case in many regions of thedeveloping world), trying to establish a generic pattern for how knowledge is sharedand disseminated in Latin America is a highly difficult task, given the vast diversity andcomplexity of Latin American societies according to their disparate history, social
evolution and its present socio-economic situation. Nonetheless, he does identify factors
which he considers to be core to management in Latin America and which haveimportant ramifications for KM. He refers to ‘mafia’ values and organisational
feudalism or the existence of in-groups which has important implications for a distance
between managerial theory and practice. Moreover he argues that an anti-empowerment
culture and a focus on hiding mistakes contribute to a lack of knowledge sharing. Yet,he also proffers that what can be disadvantages can also be real advantages, as the tacit
use of knowledge can be transformed, where trust is maximized and the informality thatcharacterizes Latin American organizations can be utilized to create highly adaptive
organizations.
In sum, cultural case studies reviewed above presents a broad range of issues inmanaging knowledge and provide a view of diversity and complexity of the various
dimensions of knowledge management, especially from a cultural perspective. Eachcountry case studies presents a large range of issues on the KM landscape and illustrates
how cultural and institutional influences impact on KM. Thus, to investigate this further
in the next section a cultural approach to KM is adopted to analyze the Islamic approachto managing knowledge, as this area has been a neglected area of study within the KM
research.
4. The Case of Islamic Culture
The need for understanding an Islamic approach to knowledge management especiallyin terms of organizational setting is increasingly becoming more important these days.
For example, Mohamed et al (2008) cite H.H. Sheikh Muhammad Bin Rashid Al
Mokatoum (the ruler of the Dubai and vice president of UAE) as stating that there is adistinct need to build an ‘Arab model’ of KM, ‘that reflects Arab culture’ (p. 111).
16

Mohamed et al (2008) support this by stating that a complex mix of frameworks may benecessary, due to the large cultural differences between Arabic Islamic world andWestern cultures. Islam is not limited to Arab countries of course and is a universal
religion followed by over one billion people living in different areas in the world
belonging to different professions and walks of life. Culture and religion in the Islamic
world are very much interrelated. In any organization, Islam stresses cooperation andsense of collectiveness. Islam also encourages seeking, acquiring and practicing
knowledge, which is one of the main obligations of any Muslim. In fact, the very firstcommand in the Qur’an is strictly about knowledge. Due to this, in effect the Islamic
countries have for centuries been culturally, religiously and linguistically equipped forknowledge nourishment. From practical perspective, in any organization the individuals
may be contributing to the firm’s operation and growth but somehow, they may beworking in an environment that is not conducive to knowledge acquisition andapplication. Therefore, it is important an Islamic organization provides guidance andcomprehension for people to make a meaningful use of their knowledge.
For example within the Islamic organizations, cultural differences pertaining to trust
were highlighted by Weir and Hutchings (2005) who assert that within an Arab context,
managers are only likely to participate in knowledge sharing with individuals withwhom they have built up a firm relationship based on confidence and trust. This appears
to be logical when one considers historical Islamic Arab knowledge sharing practices,which are based on tribal knowledge passed down orally from each generation to family
and kinsmen (Mohamed et al 2008). Arabs have a tradition of sharing knowledge withthose to whom they are close and trust, rather than with strangers. This emphasis on
personal relationships may act a major hindrance in formal knowledge sharing within
Arab organizations, as the high proportion of temporary immigrant workers may makeit difficult for long term trusting relationships to be formed.
Therefore, culture can be a primary reason for preventing the communication anddisclosure of knowledge (McDermott and O’Dell 2001). There are also epistemologicaland metaphysical dissimilarities between the West and the Islamic world. These
differences can be attributed to various philosophical and cultural factors, which should
be identified in order to have an in depth understanding of the role of culture inmanaging knowledge within an Islamic organization. Hence in this section, firstly theimportance of knowledge within Islam will be highlighted and then an Islamic approachto management will be discussed in order to come up with some propositions about17Islamic style of knowledge management.
4.1 The knowledge culture of Islam
Originally the Qur'an was considered the main source of all knowledge and made it
obligatory for Muslims to study about nature and to interpret it rationally. Muslims were
inspired by the many verses of the Qur'an that invite believers to observe nature and to
study about it. The first revelation to Prophet Mohammad was a command from Allah(God) to read, write and gain knowledge.
The scientific character of knowledge manifested in the Qur'an is derived from its
concept of tawhid: the concept of one universe created by God. Scientific objectivity issecured by the realization that the will or the law of God is omnipresent in the
manifestation of the universe. The existence of God or the "revelation" of His will isapparent in the universe, referred to as His "created book" (kitab al-tadwini), as well as
in the Qur'an, where it is referred to as His "written book" (kitab al-takwini). In order toperceive the will of God, one must observe the structures and movements of theuniverse, discover their laws and principles, and study their interrelation.
Islam, therefore, calls all Muslims to seek knowledge. The Prophet Mohammad madeseeking knowledge an obligation upon every Muslim, and he explained that thesuperiority of the one who has knowledge over the one who merely worships is like thesuperiority of the moon over every other heavenly body. He said that the scholars are
the heirs of the Prophets and that the Prophets did not leave behind dinars and dirhams(i.e., money), rather their inheritance was knowledge, so whoever acquires it has gained
a great share. There is no branch of Muslim intellectual life, of Muslim religious andpolitical life, and of the daily life of the average Muslim that remains untouched by the
all pervasive attitude toward "knowledge". Knowledge in Islam should be pursued andpracticed with modesty and humility which leads to beauty and dignity, freedom andjustice (see, Kazi 1988).
In the Islamic theory of knowledge, the term used for knowledge in Arabic and Persianis 'ilm, which has a much wider connotation than its synonyms in English and other
Western languages. 'Knowledge' falls short of expressing all the aspects of 'ilm.
Knowledge in the Western world means information about something, divine or
corporeal, while 'ilm is an all-embracing term covering theory, action and education.
Rosenthal (1970), highlighting the importance of this term in Muslim civilization andIslam, says that it gives them a distinctive shape.
18

In fact there is no concept that has been operative as a determinant of the Muslim
civilization in all its aspects to the same extent as 'ilm. This term ('ilm) has in depth
meaning and wide incidence of use. For example, in the Islamic world, gnosis(ma'rifah) is differentiated from knowledge in the sense of acquisition of information
through a logical process. In the non-Islamic world dominated by the Greek tradition,hikmah (wisdom) is considered higher than knowledge. But in Islam 'ilm is not mere
knowledge. It is synonymous with gnosis (ma'rifah). Knowledge is considered to be
derived from two sources: 'aql (mind) and 'ilm huduri (in the sense of unmediated anddirect knowledge acquired through mystic experience) (see, Hejazi 1994).
In Islam 'ilm is not confined to the acquisition of knowledge only, but also embracessocio-political and moral aspects. The main purpose of acquiring knowledge is to bring
Muslims closer to God. It is not simply for the gratification of the mind or the senses. It
is not knowledge for the sake of knowledge or science. Knowledge accordingly must be
linked with values and goals. Knowledge is not mere information; it requires thebelievers to act upon their beliefs and commit themselves to the goals which Islam aims
at attaining. In brief, theory of knowledge in the Islamic perspective is not just a theoryof epistemology. It combines knowledge, insight, and social action as its ingredients.
The process of knowledge begins at an individual level. The individual imparts theknowledge to his immediate family, friends, and relatives. From there, the knowledge
disseminates to the community. In a practical sense, three fundamental steps are
involved in this knowledge process – seeking, practicing and sharing. Pursuit ofknowledge by each individual is the essential first step. Knowledge gained must also bepracticed. One cannot simply hold knowledge. It must also be shared and disseminated.
For example, in terms of traditional Islamic practices, Mohamed (2007) reports that thetribal system, which characterizes traditionally most of the Middle Eastern countries,
does not only form a mere community of practice, but is a connected community ofkinship. Hence, tribal knowledge by definition is an eternal knowledge that can betransferred from generation to generation through traditional, socially facilitated means
such as storytelling.
In short, the first and most crucial obligation for Muslims is to acquire knowledge andsecondly to practice and preach this knowledge. In fact, Islamic theory of knowledge
was responsible for blossoming of a culture of free inquiry and rational scientificthinking that also encompassed the spheres of both theory and practice.

19

4.2 Islamic approach to management
The Islamic approach to management is an emerging discipline, often referred to as
Islamic management, which looks at the management of organizations from theperspective of the Islamic sources of knowledge that should result in applications thatare compatible with the Islamic beliefs and practices. While nobody can claim that
Islam provides a comprehensive theory in management, nevertheless one cannot ignore
a set of general guidelines that could be applied to management. These guidelines canbe derived from Qur’an and the sayings and deeds of the prophet Mohammad. Since the
Qur’an is a comprehensive book that is concerned with all aspects of human life, theexistence of such guidelines is inevitable and natural. Chiefly concerned with theorganization of human activities and the regulation of individual and groupresponsibilities, these guidelines are aimed at the realization of individual and groupinterest, without prejudicing the other. Needless to say, Islam provides a very delicate
balance between the rights and duties of both individuals and groups (e.g., the state).
According to the Islamic doctrine, the individual has certain rights and freedoms that are
God-given and cannot be denied or violated.
A review of exiting literature on the subject indicates that it is a neglected and relatively
unexplored area of research. On the whole the picture that emerges of an Islamic
management style is one that offers Islamic perceptions and guidelines that could well
be applied to managing an organization based on Islamic principles. Muslim
management writers have discussed the role of Islam in relation to main management
functions within an organization including planning, organizing, leading and controlling(see, for instance, Jabnoun, 1994, 2008; Ahmad, 2006). Faridi (1997) also edited aseries of paper on the general Islamization of organizational behavior. Ali (2005) lookedat the Islamic perspective in relation to work ethics, group behavior, decision styles,
leadership and human resource processes. Areas that are often discussed are conflict
resolution (Jabnoun, 1994; Ahmad, 2006) and leadership. Generally, as Fontaine (2008)
mentioned, the themes that run through this literature include:z
the need for Muslims to adhere to religious values and principles at work;z
the need for social justice; andz
the need to compete successfully in a dynamic context.
For example, a recent book by Jabnoun (2008) covers the Islamic organizational
management culture by concentrating on ways of regulation, conception, values, belief
and philosophy of Islam. He provides detailed information that explains thoroughly
20

what is meant by the correct Islamic culture needed in order for an organization to excel
in its business through means that are acceptable and permitted by God. In addition, thisbook presents the long-term objectives that an organization should implement and how
these objectives may be linked to the effective strategic planning skills and actions thatare best encouraged by Islam in accomplishing targeted goals. According to Jabnoun(2008) Islam stands for strategic decision-making for both the short-term and long-term
benefits of the organization. The author suggests that tawakkul (trust) plays a major role
after due efforts have been undertaken by the management. To make proper use of
God-given resources it is inevitable that an organizational structure is necessity.
Article by Abuznaid (2006) also explores management issues from an Islamic
perspective. It is obvious from this article that a Moslem administrator is influenced
highly by Islamic teachings and principles. A summary of the main religious practices
and beliefs in Islam is given in this article. It is apparent from this article that a Moslem
administrator is more likely to be influenced in his thinking, behavior, and lifestyle byhis religious beliefs. From this article, it is apparent that Allah (God) names have a
direct interrelationship with management functions like planning, organizing, anddirecting. A Moslem manager, in fact, can use Allah supreme names as a guide to his
management style and action.
A recent article by Abbassi, Rehman & Bibi (2010) looks at an Islamic management
model; where leaders first surrender their authorities to ‘divine’ instructions and thengain knowledge and practices from those instructions for a holistic approach toorganizational management. According to them, Islamic management model furnishes
five approaches to address any situation at hand. Corporate leaders can have a variety ofoptions to lead and influence their partners, colleagues, customers, employees and otherstakeholders. These options range from participatory to consistency approach to
management. Furthermore according to the authors, Islamic management model, being
flexible, has the ability to adapt according to the circumstances for optimum
achievement of organizations and their people.
On the whole, as emphasized by Kazmi (2005), publications in this field mainly dealt
with ethics and values, organizational behavior, and human resource management. Laterworks show a movement towards the quantitative aspects of management. Kazmi(2005) also provides differences among the paradigms governing conventional andIslamic approaches to management (see Table 5). According to him the primary21

revealed knowledge source is the Holy Qur`an. This basic source is elaborated throughthe Ahadith - the traditions and the Sunnah - the actions of the Prophet. According toKazmi (2005) the purpose of an organization based on Islamic teaching are meant to begroups of people coming together for attaining the purpose of human existence.
However in conventional management organizations are meant to be groups of people
coming together to attain the organizational goals.
Table 5: Contrast between Islamic and conventional management
Conventional Management

Islamic Management

Purpose of Organization

Organizations are meant to begroups of people coming together toattain the organizational goals

Organizational Objectives

Organizational objectives are both
economic and non-economic innature and are subservient toorganizational interests
Ethics is relative and values arederived from multiple sources suchas upbringing, society, andexperiences. Ethics could be
relative as in utilitarian theory
Organizational control has tooperate in a way designed to alignhuman objectives with theorganizational objectives
The locus of control is external andlies in the realm of the organization

Organizations are meant to begroups of people coming together
for attaining the purpose of humanexistence.
Organizational objectives are both
economic and non-economic andare subservient to larger purpose ofhuman existence
The revealed knowledge and the
traditions of the Prophet constitutethe ultimate source of businessethics and personal values

Sources of Ethics and Values

Organizational Control

Locus of Control
Organizational Responsibility
and Accountability

Responsibility and accountability
vested in the chief executive whodele-gates it. Employees
controlled through organizational
systems to ensure responsibility andaccountability

Organizational control has tooperate in a way designed to makethe human being subservient to thewill of Allah
The locus of control is internal.
Each person is responsible andaccountable for his actions
Human being has choice, free will
and freedom of action therefore is
responsible and accountable for all
actions

Source: Adapted and modified from Kazmi (2005)

Furthermore, according to Kazmi (2005), in Islamic management organizational
objectives are both economic and non-economic and are subservient to larger purpose ofhuman existence. However in conventional management organizational objectives areboth economic and non-economic in nature and are subservient to organizational
interests. Also in conventional management ethics is relative and values are derived
from multiple sources such as upbringing, society, and experiences. Ethics could be
relative as in utilitarian theory. But in Islamic tradition the revealed knowledge and the
traditions of the Prophet constitute the ultimate source of business ethics and personalvalues. Accordingly organizational control has to operate in a way designed to make thehuman being subservient to the will of Allah. But in conventional management22

organizational control has to operate in a way designed to align human objectives withthe organizational objectives. In other words, in Islamic management the locus ofcontrol is internal and each person is responsible and accountable for his actions but inconventional management the locus of control is external and lies in the realm of theorganization. Finally Kazmi (2005), with regard to organizational responsibility andaccountability, asserts that in Islamic management human being has choice, free will
and freedom of action therefore is responsible and accountable for all actions. Howeverin conventional management, responsibility and accountability vested in the chief
executive who delegates it. Employees are being controlled through organizational
systems to ensure responsibility and accountability.
On the whole in an Islamic organization it appears that knowledge brings potential andability to improve performance and reputation, therefore there is a need for processes
and practices that translate knowledge into action for desired outcomes. This is evident
in the fact that there have been traditionally several means of communicating theprinciples of Islam to the employees. For example, group activities involving
discussions, speechmaking, and propagation of ideas have been practiced widely in
Islamic countries. Formal training programs too include several elements of sharing
Islamic knowledge. Therefore, in today’s global world, Muslims while building
organizations that follows the Islamic management model they should ensure thatknowledge acquisition and sharing are also encouraged within the organization.
5. Discussion: Universality vs Diversity
The country case-studies and in particular the case of Islamic culture included in thispaper show that some activities and institutions in the management process in generaland knowledge management in particular are more directly steered by local cultures. In
Islamic countries, for example, culture continues to affect seeking, practicing andsharing knowledge especially at individual and organizational levels. In this section,
therefore, we will discuss, despite the fact that Islam is a universal religion, whether
knowledge management (KM) as defined in the literature is a universal management
concept or as Zhu (2004) maintained it will benefit not from a universality perspective,
but from understanding of cross-cultural contexts, through which cultural differencesand diversity are important sources for building KM competency.
The idea that management institutions and practices are different across national borders23

is not new (Biggart & Guillen 1997; Kitschelt et al 1999; Whitley 1999; Aoki 2000;
Hall & Soskice 2001). However, how these different management institutions andcross-cultural differences influence KM has received limited research attention. For
example, diversity and differences in culture, and Hofstede (1980, 2001) shows that
there are significant differences between nations, can lead to differences between
national groups within the same organization, which can cause those groups to either
understand knowledge differently or have significant barriers to participating in the
sharing of knowledge. We must understand that culture is a unique component that is so
deeply imbedded into people’s lives that our ignorance of it usually leads to failures.
Nevertheless, despite evidence of similarities and varieties, it remains far from certain
whether KM is to become a universal concept. Despite growing overlaps and imitations,researches and practices in different cultural-institutional settings continue to obtainricher insights and know more and better about other cultures and through appreciating
different cultural diversity, not by melting them into a universal one. As Hoff puts it
incisively, ‘cultural clash between genuinely different points of view can be an
important basis for the development of knowledge’ (Hoff 1981: 87), which will happen
only when we are willing and capable to recognize, understand and value cross-cultural,and cross-institutional differences, however complex, ambiguous and inconsistent thedifferences might be.
In the last fifty years of Western thought, management and organization studies havegrown as academic disciplines, as well as the professional managers working within an
economic framework that favors competition. Hence as soon as something is recognized
as having some potential value or contribution to competitive advantage, it thenbecomes seen as a resource of the organization to be exploited - it becomes somethingwhich needs to be ‘managed’ and ‘owned’. By appending the word management to aconcept we are changing that concept – focusing it on an organizational context, toserve the ends of the manager. In the case of Islamic culture, as discussed, nature ofknowledge and knowing is not something that should be managed as it is the duty of
every Muslim and seeking knowledge an obligation upon every Muslim which doesn’tnecessarily needs to be managed.
Why consider management then? In fact, the Islamic countries now need managing theirknowledge more than at any previous time. A strategy for the most of Islamic countries
now is to narrow the knowledge gap with the Western countries by adopting a systemic
learning approach. This approach must reflect the needs of the Islamic countries to24transform their economy into a knowledge economy and their society into a knowledge
society. In reality, there is no specific prescription for building the ‘‘knowledge
society’’. However, the strategic importance of developing knowledge and managing it
has been commended by many organizations and research centers around the globe. As
emphasized this is only possible through the empowerment of individuals andapplication of culturally sensitive knowledge management tools. The aim should be todevise a KM strategy which is ideally suited and culturally sensitive to the local context.
At the organizational level, businesses operate in institutional environments, whereknowledge and intellectual capital are key factors in economic development andcompetitiveness. King and Ko (2001) maintain that at the organizational level theimpact of cultures on individuals can be thought of in terms of cognitive andpost-cognitive impacts and behavioral impacts. In fact, organizational-level cultures’relationships to KM have been addressed by DeLong and Fahey (2000) who posit fourways that organizational culture can influence KM:(1) Culture shapes assumptions about which knowledge is important.
(2) Culture mediates the relationships between organizational and individual
knowledge.
(3) Culture creates a context for social interaction.
(4) Culture shapes processes for the creation and adoption of new knowledge.
These observations suggest that various activities within organizational knowledge
processes can be influenced by local culture and institutions. Therefore, it is of utmost
importance to bear in mind that different people manage knowledge differently. Once
enterprises realise and embrace this fact, the knowledge of the employee will truly
become the knowledge and the most valuable asset of the enterprise. Therefore,knowledge management is the means, while building economic prosperity andcompetitive advantage and achievement of business goals are the ends.
However, as discussed before there are main differences between conventional andIslamic organization and between Western and Eastern cultures. In the case of managing
knowledge, for example, Davenport and Prusak (1998) maintained that the Westernculture organizations reward and raise the status of people who own knowledge. Hencepeople believe that knowledge is their special right and privilege, which should bepreserved at all costs. However, less individualistic cultures, such as Islamic culture, aremore open to knowledge sharing and less assertive cultures are easier to transform
25

(Cabrera & Cabrera 2002). These observations are consistent with the exiting KM
literature and cross-cultural management (e.g. Hofstede 2001; Nonaka & Takeuchi1995). Given these arguments, national culture could very well be a significant factor in
the managing knowledge. National culture influences the way that all people in asociety think, how they view their duties, collect information, respond to others, andexpress their feelings. So, it is reasonable to assume that national culture would
influence the way that KM can be best conducted, how KM outputs would be valued
and used, and the overall success of KM (King 2007).
On the other hand, the Islamic countries while developing their economy are struggling
to protect their national cultural identity, which is threatened by the predominance ofWestern cultural, information and media products. The protest against the ongoingprocess of commercialization of knowledge and information is actually a protest against
the exploitation of indigenous knowledge and culture, which is the heritage of thedeveloping countries’ national culture and institutions. Consequently, from the fourmain aspects of KM mentioned in the literature, i.e. social, managerial, technologicaland individual, the most prominent factor which affects KM in an Islamic setting seems
to be the social aspects. It appears that while collectivism prevails in many Islamic
countries, individualism prevails in developed and Western countries. However, in theIslamic economies, transfer of individual (tacit) knowledge is important and thisknowledge increases in utility when it becomes available to others in the society ororganization.
Therefore for knowledge to have value, it must include the elements of human context,
experience, and interpretation. Nonaka (1994) expands this view by stating thatknowledge is about meaning in the sense that it is context-specific. This implies thatusers of knowledge must understand and have experience with the context (surrounding
conditions, influences including culture) in which the knowledge is generated and used
for it to be meaningful. This suggests that for a culturally sensitive knowledge
management tools (e.g. knowledge repository) to be useful, it must also store thecultural context in which the knowledge was generated. The suggestion that knowledge
is influences by social culture argues against the idea that knowledge can be applied
universally. Local context is the collection of relevant conditions and surrounding
influences that make a situation unique and comprehensible to the users of theknowledge (Degler & Battle 2000). To create culturally sensitive knowledge
management systems, local context should be stored with knowledge and/or should be26

possessed by knowledge users.
When a system’s knowledge users are known, the knowledge that is captured is
captured to support specific activities. Culture is believed to influence the knowledge
related behaviors of individuals, teams, organizational units and overall organizations
because it importantly influences the determination of which knowledge it isappropriate to share, with whom and when. In fact knowledge management system(KMS) users are readily known when the KMS is built to support a specific team,project, or process, and the users are those involved with that team, project, and/or
process. These users tend to possess a high degree of shared cultural context ofunderstanding where context of understanding incorporates context and experience.
Hence, knowledge management systems (KMS) as well as other systems created to
improve an organization’s performance should use all possible information about
culture to escape mistakes due to lack of cultural awareness and understanding. Thismeans one of the main functions should be to capture diversity.
In terms of the importance of the cultural context and personal experience, Davenportand Prusak (1998) view knowledge as an evolving mix of framed experience, values,
contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating andincorporating new experiences and information. They found that in organizations,knowledge often becomes embedded in documents or repositories and in organizationalroutines, processes, practices, and norms. In a way, experience is what knowledge users
use to generate mental models of how to use or apply the knowledge (Degler & Battle
2000). Experience comes from the individual’s own experience with the knowledge
domain, other’s shared experience with the knowledge domain, and/or a collective
experience with the knowledge domain (Degler & Battle 2000). Combined, this meansthat knowledge users in teams, projects, or even processes understand the organizational
culture, the structure of organizational documents, organizational process, and how theorganization works and are able to use posted knowledge, even if it does not include
context, as they implicitly understand the context in which the knowledge was createdand have experience using this knowledge. On the other hand, when KMS users are notknown, it is not possible to assume these users possess a common context ofunderstanding or experience associated with the generation of the knowledge. Thismeans the KMS will have to capture this context and experience for users to be able toutilize the captured knowledge effectively.

27

To summarize, culture and context are issues that affect how we represent knowledge,
what we store for knowledge, and how we transfer and apply knowledge. It isn’trealistic to expect all users within the same organization with diverse workforce topossess the same cultural and context attributes, so KM tools and initiatives need torecognize these limitations and allow the differences. It should also be expected that theinitiators/designers/developers of knowledge management tools and systems will notbelong to the same culture of the expected users nor necessarily possess the context tounderstand how the expected users will transfer and use knowledge. Additionally, weneed to realize that knowledge contributors/knowledge sources may be of a different
culture than the knowledge users and that the knowledge users may not possess thesame context knowledge as the knowledge contributors/sources. Not only traditions butwhole schemes of thinking as well as understanding and interpreting theorder/classification of data/events/knowledge might be different. Knowledge
management tools are highly logical systems that only work properly when the logic of
its user is captured properly.
Therefore, knowledge and culture are indissolubly linked together in organizations.
Considerable evidence supports the importance of culture in the success or failure ofknowledge management. More generally, organizations seeking to implement
knowledge management initiatives in non-Western and even different Western cultures
must understand and pay specific attention to the dynamics of cultural behavior andvalues of the employees. An understanding of the nuances of cultural traditions isimportant before an institutional implementation is attempted. Organizational culture ishighly influenced by national culture and institutional change must take this into
account. Essentially practitioners have two main options either to try to apply a ‘bestpractice’ approach to knowledge management, changing the organization and behaviors
to fit, or to adopt a more contingent approach recognizing and embracing the national
culture and creating knowledge management strategies to fit the various culture.
It is argued here that the concept of knowledge management must take into account thediversity of national culture in which the organization exists. This is particularly
important when the management is being guided and driven by concepts imported fromanother culture. An understanding of national culture holds the potential to be a
powerful analytic tool with which to lay foundations for developing models andconcepts. Therefore, we stress the importance of investigating the culture andunderstanding context before we can expect to design a successful knowledge28management processes, systems and tools.
6. Concluding Remarks
The case studies discussed above presented a broad range of issues in managing
knowledge and provided a view of totality and complexity of the various dimensions ofknowledge management (KM), especially from a cultural perspective. Each country
case studies presents a large range of issues on the KM landscape and illustrates how
cultural and institutional influences impact on KM. Thus, it would be helpful in thissection to come up with some general concluding remarks.
The theme of this paper focused on the role of cultural diversity in KM. The reason
being that cultural diversity, as evidenced in the case studies, has a definite impact on
the work-related values and attitudes of employees and their support and understandingof KM. In this regard, it is possible to postulate that if cultural diversity impacts on thework-related attitudes and values of employees, it would also influence the degree towhich employees value knowledge and the manner in which they participate andsupport KM within the enterprise.
Surely, one of the common themes which brought up from case studies is that a manager
in a cross-cultural environment must address the cultural diversity of the workforce on
KM. It is therefore of the utmost importance that an understanding must be developedof the impact of cultural diversity on work-related attitudes and values and thus
ultimately also of the impact of cultural diversity on KM. Effective and efficient KM
will depend, to a large degree, on the ability of management and other stakeholders tocreate an environment in which cultural diversities or employees are taken into accountwhen KM processes are designed and implemented.
The case of Islamic culture also illustrated that role of institutions are important inunderstanding the social context. In a rapidly changing Islamic society, the performanceof socio-economic systems is increasingly determined by their institutional adjustment
capacity. To ensure a well-balanced adjustment process, it is important to understand thedeterminants of institutional change, which is deeply embedded in cultural practices.
The abilities to learn and foster personal experiences constitute the human side of‘Culture of Knowledge’ which is emphasized within Islamic culture and are key
elements of knowledge societies and institutional adjustment. As a result, all KM
activities need to be people-centered.
29

Finally it should be emphasized that although KM is often seen as a technological issue,
in practice, it is widely understood that technology is a relatively small part of any
successful KM program. This is because a tool can not be utilized without thecorresponding cultural and organizational practices. As discussed, without
understanding the people, the processes and the culture, knowledge cannot be managed
satisfactorily if they are not incorporated into the equation. In effect, information
technology is necessary for KM in any complex environment; but it is not sufficient.
Acknowledgement
Part of this paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Knowledge
Management in Organizations, Veszprem, Hungary, May 18-19, 2010.

7. References
Abbasi, A.S., K. U. Rehman & A. Bibi, (2010) “Islamic Management model”, African Journalof Business Management, 4(9): 1873-1882.
Abuznaid, S. (2006) “Islam and management: what can be learned?”, Thunderbird International
Business Review, 48(1): 125-139.
Adler, N.J. (1991) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.). Boston,
PWS-Kent Publishing Co.
Ahmad, K. (2006) Management from an Islamic Perspective, International Islamic University
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Alavi, M. & Leidner, D.E. (2001) “Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 107-136.
Ali, A. (2005) Islamic Perspectives on Management and Organization, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Ang, Z. & Massingham, P. (2007) “National culture and the standardization versus adaptationof knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2): 5-21.
Aoki, M. (2000) Information, Corporate Governance, and Institutional Diversity:
Competitiveness in Japan, the USA, and the Transitional Economies. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, England.
Banks, J.A., Banks, C., & McGee, A. (2004) Handbook of research on multicultural education(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Benbya, H. & Belbali, N.A. (2005) “Mechanisms for Knowledge Management Systems
Effectiveness: An Exploratory Analysis”, Knowledge and Process Management, 12(3):203–216.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: a treatise in the sociologyof knowledge, London, Penguin.
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin University
Books.
Best, S. & Kakkar, R. (2007) “Religion, caste, language and region: contributions to knowledge
management in India”. In: Hutchings, K. and Mohannak, K. (Eds.) Knowledge
Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach,111-131.
30

Bhatt, G.D. (2001) “Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction
between technologies, techniques, and people”. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1):68-75.
Bierly, P. & Chakrabarti, A. (1996) “Generic Knowledge Strategies in the US PharmaceuticalIndustry”, Strategic Management Journal, 17: 123-135.
Biggart N.W. & Cuillen, M.F. (1997) “Developing difference: social organisation and the riseof the auto industries of South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Argentina”, American
Sociological Review, 64: 722–747.
Boolaky, M., Gungaphul, M. & Weir, D. (2007) “Mauritius: towards a knowledge hub andsociety”. In: Hutchings, K. and Mohannak, K. (Eds.) Knowledge Management in
Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, 135-155.
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1991) “Organisational Learning and Communities of Practice:
Toward A Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation”, Organisation Science, 2:40-57.
Cabrera, A. & Cabrera, E.F. (2002) “Knowledge Sharing Dilemmas”, Organisation Studies,23(5): 687-710.
Calderon- Moncloa, L.F. (2007) “Latin America cultural values and their impact on knowledge
management”. In: Hutchings, K. and Mohannak, K. (Eds.) Knowledge Management in
Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, 173-189.
Carter, C., & Scarbrough, H. (2001) “Towards a second generation of KM? The people
management challenge”, Education & Training, 43(4/5): 215-224.
Chakravarthy, B., McEvily, S., Doz, Y. & D. Rau (2003) “Knowledge management andcompetitive advantage”, In: M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.) The Blackwell
Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 305-323, Blackwell
Publishing.
Chen, T.F. (2007) “Knowledge management among Taiwanese high-tech industries and SMEs”.
In: Hutchings, K. and Mohannak, K. (Eds.) Knowledge Management in Developing
Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, 93-110.
Chong, X. & Pandya, K.V. (2003) “Issues of knowledge management in public sector”,
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2): 25-33.
Cohen, D. (1998) “Toward a knowledge context: report on the first annual University ofCalifornia Berkeley forum on knowledge and the firm”, California Management Review,
40(3): 22–39.
Conner, K. & Prahalad, C. (1996) “A Resource-based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus
Opportunism”, Organisation Science, 7(5): 477-501.
Cook, S.D.N. & Brown, J.S. (1999) “Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between
Organisational Knowledge and Organisational Knowing”, Organisation Science, 10(4):381-400.
Damen, L. (1987) Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension on the Language Classroomm,
Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1997) Information Ecology: Mastering the Information andKnowledge Environment, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business School Press.
Degler, D. & Battle, L. (2000) “Knowledge management in pursuit of performance: The
challenge of context”, Performance Improvement, ISPI, 39(6).
DeLong, D. & Fahey, L. (2000) “Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management”,
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4): 113-127.
DeTienne, K.B., Dyer, G.., Hoopes, C. & Harris, S. (2004) “Toward a Model of Effective
Knowledge Management and Directions for Future Research: Culture, Leadership, andCKOs”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4): 26-43.
31

Faridi, F.R. (Ed.) (1997) “Islamic Principles of Business Organization and Management”,
Abdul Majeed & Co, Kuala Lumpur.
Fink, G., Holden, N. & Lehmann, M. (2007) “Survival by subversion in former socialist
economies: tacit knowledge exchange at the workplace”. In: Hutchings, K. and Mohannak,
K. (Eds.) Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A Cross-Cultural andInstitutional Approach, 35-51.
Fontaine, R. (2008) “Problem solving: an Islamic management approach”, Cross cultural
management: An International Journal, 15(3): 264-274.
Glisby, M. & Holden, N. (2003) “Contextual Constraints in Knowledge Management Theory:
The Cultural Embeddedness of Nonaka’s Knowledge-creating Company”, Knowledge andProcess Management, 10(1): 29-36.
Grant, R.M. (1996) “Prospecting in Dynamically Competitive Environments: Organisational
Capability as Knowledge Integration”, Organisation Science, 7(4): 375-388.
Greengard, S. (1998) “Storing, Shaping and Sharing Collective Wisdom”, Workforce, 77(10):82-88.
Hall P.A. & Soskice D. (Eds) (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations ofComparative Advantage, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hall, E.T. (1977) Beyond Culture, Anchor Press New York.
Hall, E.T. (1981) The Silent Language, Anchor Press, New York.
Hejazi, S.M.R. (1994) Knowledge by Presence (al-‘ilm al-huduri), A Master Degree Thesis,
Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Hendriks, P.H.J. (2004) “Assessing the Role of culture in Knowledge Sharing”, Proceedings ofFifth European Conference in Organization, Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities,
Innsbruck, Austria, 1-24.
Hoff A. (1981) “Multilectic methods of inquir”, Human Systems Management, 2: 83–94.
Hofstede G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, London.
Hofstede, G. (1980, 2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions
and Organizations across Nations, Thousand Oaks CA, Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1984) “National cultures and corporate cultures”, In: L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter(Eds.), Communication between Cultures. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.
Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, D. D. Ohayv, & G. Sanders (1990) “Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35(2): 286–316.
Holden, N. (2001) ‘‘Knowledge management: raising the specter of the cross-culturaldimension’’, Knowledge and Process Management, 8(3): 155-63.
Holden, N.J. (2002) Cross-cultural Management: A Knowledge Management Perspective,
Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Hutchings, K. & Mohannak, K. (Eds.) (2007) Knowledge Management in Developing
Economies: A Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hutchings, K. (2005) “Examining the Impacts of Institutional Change on Knowledge Sharing
and Management Learning in China: Some Challenges for International Managers”,
Thunderbird International Business Review, 47(4): 447-468.
Hutchings, K. and Michailova, S. (2007) “Re-examining knowledge sharing in an interculturalcontext: findings from the transition economies of China and Russia”. In: Hutchings, K.
and Mohannak, K. (Eds.) Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A
Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, 72-90.
Jabnoun, N. (1994) Islam and Management, Institute for Policy Research, Kuala Lumpur.
Jabnoun, N. (2008) Islam and Management, International Islamic Publishing House,
Kaminska-Labbe, R. & Thomas, C. (2007) “Fostering learning to build new competencies intimes of deconstruction: lessons from Polish ex-socialist firms”. In: Hutchings, K. and32

Mohannak, K. (Eds.) Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A
Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, 52-71.
Kazi, M.A. (1988) “The concept of scientific knowledge in Islam”, Journal of Islamic Academyof Sciences, 1(1): 7-9.
Kazmi, A. (2005) “Probable differences among the paradigms governing conventional andIslamic approaches to management”, International Journal of Management Concepts andPhilosophy, 1(4): 263-289.
King W.R., Ko D-G. (2001) “Evaluating knowledge management and the learningorganization”, Communications of the AIS, 5(14): 1–26.
King, W.R. (2007) “A research agenda for the relationships between culture and knowledge
management”, Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3): 226-236.
Kitschelt, H., Lange, P., Marks, G. & Stephens, J.D. (1999) Continuity and Change inContemporary Capitalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kluckhohn, C.K. (1951) “Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action”, In: T.
Parsons and E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action, Cambridge, MA,
Harvard University Press.
Kluckhohn, F.R. & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations, New York,
HarperCollins.
Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952) Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions.
Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology Papers 47.
Lang, J.C. (2001) “Managerial concerns in knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5 (1): 43-57.
Liebowitz, J. (2005) “Conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management”, In: P. E. D.
Love, P. S. W. Fong & Z. Irani (Eds.), Management of Knowledge in Project Environments,
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 1-18.
Love, P. E. D., Fong, P. S. W. & Irani, Z. (Eds.) (2005). Introduction. In: Management ofKnowledge in Project Environments, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, xiii-xvii.
Lucas, L.M. (2006) “The role of culture on knowledge transfer: the case of the multinational
corporation”, The Learning Organization, 13(3): 257-275.
Marshall, C., Prusak, L. & Shpillberg, D. (1997) “Financial risk and the need for superior
knowledge management”, In: Prusak L. (Ed.), Knowledge in Organizations, Boston,
Butterworth –Heinemann, 227-251.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001) “Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Sharing Knowledge”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1): 76-85.
Metaxiotis, K., Ergazakis, K., & Psarras, J. (2005) “Exploring the world of knowledge
management: agreements and disagreements in the academic/practitioner community”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (2): 6-18.
Mohamed, M. (2007) ‘‘The triad of paradigms in globalization, ICT, and knowledge
management interplay’’, VINE: Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 37(2):100-22.
Mohamed, M.S., O’Sullivan, K.J. & Ribiere, V. (2008) “A Paradigm Shift in the Arab Region
Knowledge Evolution”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(5): 107-220.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How JapaneseCompanies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994) “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, 5(1): 14-36.
Nonaka, I. (1998) Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Boston, Harvard
Business School Press.
OECD (2002) Knowledge Management Project, Report: Danish Pilot-Survey, Center for
Ledelse.
Park, H., Ribière, V. & Schulte, W. (2004) “Critical Attributes of Organizational Culture that33

Promote Knowledge Management Technology Implementation Success”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 8(3): 106-117.
Pauleen, D.J. & Murphy, P. (2005), ‘‘In praise of cultural bias’’, MIT Sloan Management
Review, 46(2).
Piaget, J. (1972) Psychology and epistemology: towards a theory of knowledge. Harmondsworth,Penguin.
Prusak, L., et al, (2006) “How Cultures Filter Knowledge and What Can Be Done About It”,
Working Knowledge Research Report, Babson Executive Education, Working Knowledge
Research Center, March.
Rosenthal, F. (1970, 1975, 1994) Knowledge Triumphant: The Concept of Knowledge inMedieval Islam, Leiden, Brill.
Sbarcea, K. (2001) “The Mystery of Knowledge Management”, New Zealand Management,
48(19): 33-36.
Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational culture and leadership, San Francisco, CA, Jossy-Bass Inc.
Snowden, D. (2002) "Complex Acts of Knowing; Paradox and Descriptive Self-awareness",
Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2): 1-14.
Spender, J-C. (1996) “Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of Firm”, Strategic
Management Journal, 17: 45-62.
Szabo, L. et al (2010) “Is Knowledge Shared the Same Way? A Comparison of the three
Central-Eastern European Countries’ National Culture and Knowledge Sharing”,
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Management in
Organizations, Veszprem, Hungary.
Trompenaars, F. (2002) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global
Business, London, Nicholas Brealey.
Vance, D. (1997) “Information knowledge and wisdom: The epistemic hierarchy andcomputer-based information systems,” Proceedings of the Third America’s Conference on
Information Systems, Indianapolis.
Weir, D. & Hutchings, K. (2005) “Cultural Embeddedness of Knowledge Sharing in China andthe Arab World”, Knowledge and Process Management, 12(2): 89-98.
Weir, D. & Hutchings, K. (2005) “Cultural Embeddedness of Knowledge Sharing in China andthe Arab World”, Knowledge and Process Management, 12(2): 89-98.
Weir, D. (2007) “Managing knowledge in the Middle East and North Africa”. In: Hutchings, K.
and Mohannak, K. (Eds.) Knowledge Management in Developing Economies: A
Cross-Cultural and Institutional Approach, 156-172.
Whitley, R. (1999) Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business
Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Zhu, Z. (2004) “Knowledge Management: Towards a Universal Concept or Cross-cultural
Contexts?”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 2(2): 67-79.

34