Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Leonard Barnett and Edward Carter
problems <strong>of</strong>ten not being reported and, when <strong>the</strong>y are, <strong>the</strong> communicator being censured. Staff’s
reluctance to express negative feelings extends to <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> negative information.
4.6 Status
Ascribed status permeates Thai culture and behavior. Phi-nong washes through inter-staff
relationships and interactions with customers. If <strong>the</strong> guest is high status, <strong>the</strong>y receive more
information and attention than low status. Staff’s favoring Western customers above Indians and
Arabs reflects <strong>the</strong> status ascribed to particular groups by <strong>the</strong> culture. Conversely, <strong>the</strong> employer’s high
status brand elicits considerable motivation and pride.
4.7 Relationships
Relationship development is a core intercultural competency. Due to high communitarianism and
particularism, strong relationships are a cornerstone <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> society and crucial in <strong>the</strong> local business
culture, with Thais preferring informal and personal relationship-based communication (Holmes and
Tangtongtavy 1997). Reflecting <strong>the</strong>ir own intercultural competence, all respondents understood this
and <strong>the</strong> consequences <strong>of</strong> not being able to establish strong relationships.
The staff are astute observers <strong>of</strong> relationships and communication, displaying high emotional
intelligence (Mayer and Salovey 1993) and are impressive relationship managers (Sammapan 1996),
a core competency in a particularist culture. This is illustrated in situations where personnel not
accepted into <strong>the</strong> in-group (e.g. Thais returning from overseas trying to change things, interculturally
incompetent foreign staff) are controlled, changed or ostracized through relationship management
and manipulating knowledge sharing. “They get really ‘screwed over’”. The importance <strong>of</strong> relationship
management, empathy and trust are accounted for by particularism, i.e. <strong>the</strong> particular persons and
relationships are more important than innovation.
5. Discussion - implications for knowledge management
This research identifies a number <strong>of</strong> cultural characteristics that affect KM. As Ardichvili et al. (2006)
note, KM and KM systems need to be tailored to <strong>the</strong> particular values and cultural preferences <strong>of</strong>
national employees, accounting for <strong>the</strong> range <strong>of</strong> cultural implications, emerging from this research and
<strong>the</strong> literature.
5.1 Status
A deep understanding <strong>of</strong> ascribed status and related concepts, such as high power distance
(H<strong>of</strong>stede 2001) and vertical cultures (Triandis 1995), is essential for <strong>the</strong> effective implementation <strong>of</strong>
KM systems in <strong>the</strong>se cultures.
As noted in this study, knowledge transfers between people from opposite cultures (ascribed vs.
achieved status, high vs. low power distance, etc.) are complicated by <strong>the</strong> varying ways in which each
manages knowledge. For example, in ascribed status societies, information flows overwhelmingly
from top to bottom, while in achieved status, <strong>the</strong> flow is multi-directional (Bhagat et al. 2002). Within a
high power distance culture, status will determine what knowledge is shared and <strong>the</strong> direction <strong>of</strong>
information flow. Knowledge transfer is problematical where content is tightly controlled by <strong>the</strong>
hierarchy, preventing employees accessing critical information (H<strong>of</strong>stede 2001). Adapting to open
online knowledge sharing systems may challenge upper management and <strong>the</strong>re is pressure on
employees to self-censor.
A subtle phenomenon, noted by Trompenaars (2001), is that, in an ascribed status organization,
superiors are expected to be expert and not display ignorance. Similarly, employees avoid revealing
superiors’ deficiencies and concede to <strong>the</strong>m, on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir status not <strong>the</strong>ir expertise. Just as
this phenomenon has contributed to some famous but tragic plane crashes, so it impedes innovation
and <strong>the</strong> open sharing and development <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competence in organizations.
5.2 Communitarianism
Members <strong>of</strong> communitarian or collectivist cultures share information and construct knowledge
differently to individualists. Bhagat et al. (2002) note that individualists identify each piece <strong>of</strong>
information, independent <strong>of</strong> its context, and give special importance to writing, while communitarians
71