analysis the effects of cultural intelligence on knowledge...

ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

633

FEBRUARY 2012 VOL 3, NO 10

Analysis the effects of Cultural Intelligence on Knowledge Management Practice

(Case study: Higher Education Institutions)

Amir Reza Alidoust Department of Management, International Branch of Hormozgan University, Gheshm, Iran

Mohammad Bagherzadeh Homaei

Department of Management, International Branch of Hormozgan University, Gheshm, Iran

Abstract Higher education institutions are a microcosm of the globalization that is occurring throughout the world. Effective leadership is critical to ensure that institutions are successful in accomplishing their missions toward a better knowledge management. In addition, cultural intelligence that is based on a multidimensional framework of intelligence is one of KM motivators. Cultural intelligence is conceptualized as four different intelligences residing within a person: meta cognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral and this study tries to appears relationships between these dimensions and KM practice. Based on our survey through two Iranian universities we found that there is a significant relationship between two variables. Moreover, meta cognitive intelligence is the most important motivator of KM and motivational is the last one. The last but not least, CI scores of students is really more that teachers scores in such institutions. Keywords: Cultural Intelligence (CI), Knowledge Management, Higher Education Institutions. Introduction Cultural intelligence is based on a multidimensional framework of intelligence. It is defined as “an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings…a multidimensional construct targeted at situations involving cross-cultural interactions arising from differences in race, ethnicity, and nationality” (Ang, et al., 2007, p. 336; see also Earley & Ang, 2003). Cultural intelligence is conceptualized as four different intelligences residing within a person: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral (Earley & Ang, 2003; Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). Metacognitive cultural intelligence “reflects the processes individuals use to acquire and understand cultural knowledge” (Ang et al., 2006, p. 101). Cognitive cultural intelligence is “general knowledge and knowledge structures about culture” (Ang et al., 2006, p. 101). Motivational cultural intelligence is “magnitude and direction of energy applied towards learning about and functioning in cross-cultural situations” (Ang et al., 2006, p. 101), and behavioral cultural intelligence “is the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions when interacting with people from different cultures” (Ang et al., 2006, p. 101). From the other hand, Davenport and Prusak (1998, p. 173) posited that knowledge management is effective only if treated as a “human-interaction exercise” with technology playing a “facilitative and supportive role.” Egbu (2000) noted the significance of the human factor by suggesting that 90% of a successful knowledge management initiative is people and 10% is technology. This notion is largely supported in the literature. For example,



634


Cavaleri, Seivert, and Lee (2005, p. 214) suggested that 80% of the funding for knowledge management initiatives should be allocated toward nontechnical human investments, and the other 20% toward technology investments. The literature is replete with examples of nontechnical investments, which can be attributed to three main factors: organizational culture and structure, and business processes (Yang & Chen, 2007). Understanding the continuum from tacit to explicit knowledge, social network strength and configuration may enhance current thinking and practice in knowledge creation, dissemination and/or transfer. Social networks—the sets of relations that link individuals and collectives—have implications for the speed and effectiveness with which knowledge is created and disseminated in organizations (Nelson, 2001; Nelson and Hsu, 2005). There are two fundamental dimensions of social networks: transactional content and configuration (Nelson, 2001). These in turn have both direct and indirect interactions on each other and on knowledge creation, dissemination, and/or transfer. When knowledge is at the tacit stage, it transfers through very rich channels requiring frequent face-to-face interaction, i.e., observation, imitation, and mentoring. This refers to Nonaka’s (1994) “socialization.” When physical artifacts, such as documents or databases, are involved, the artifact or physical setting must simultaneously be available to all parties. This demands both strong ties and a dense network configuration, which can be quite expensive to develop in terms of time and resources. Both the externalization and internalization knowledge creation processes require knowledge transformation from tacit to explicit or vice versa. Also, these two approaches are influenced by the nature and distribution of individual and collective networks. However, different from the socialization and combination approaches, internalization and externalization demand weak ties and a low density in network configuration that allows knowledge transformation to take place. In general, the stronger the tie, the easier it is for one actor to influence and convey complex, multifaceted information to another. Strong ties also promote commitment and solidarity between actors that are necessary for communication and coordination of large projects that require intensive knowledge sharing (Fukayama, 1995). At the same time, strong ties tend to be resistant to change. They stifle an innovation. A cultural revolution in various parts of an organization would likely be initiated by any transformation of knowledge or any facets of knowledge processes, such as the Dow Chemical’s evaluation process of intellectual property (Lynn, 1998). Departing from tie strength, team agility is another issue that is important to Nonaka’s four modes of knowledge creation. While developing different types of knowledge involving individuals, project teams, and departments, IBM emphasized “agility” in a team. Team agility refers to a cohesive team that is composed of a highly communicative group of people called “knowledge communities” (Huang, 1998). The more diversity in a team, the more agile is the team. Team agility leads to the generation of valuable tacit knowledge and an innovative learning environment. However, a knowledge community can’t produce knowledge effectively without a shared mission and/or clearly identified goals. The “sweet spot” was a knowledge community as a group or team that could share both tacit and explicit knowledge at IBM (Huang, 1998). Most views of KM recognize that it has both social and technological dimensions integrated with IT. KM also has broad aims involving organizational culture, transparency and agility of processes, and the infrastructure development of KM is harmonious with individual needs and organizational context. It is generally recognized that early KM initiatives focused too heavily on IT and missed opportunities to improve performance through the knowledge and enhancement of employee



635


networks (Parker et al., 2001). Practicing managers especially recognize that human relationships, their deployment, and configuration are critical to KM. For instance, the manager of a technical information center at Xerox emphasized that KM was not technology-driven but “people-driven” (Hickins, 1999). A case study of Xerox described 80 percent of KM systems that involved adapting to the social dynamics of the workplace. For Davenport and Prusak (1998), most KM projects had one of three emphases: 1) make knowledge visible and show the role of knowledge in an organization; 2) develop a knowledge-intensive culture by encouraging and aggregating behaviors, e.g., knowledge sharing; and 3) build a knowledge infrastructure -- not only a technical system, but a web of connections to encourage interaction and collaboration. Along with Alavi’s (1997) concept that KM should embrace both technology and social-cultural factors, Tiwana (2001) suggested two other emphases: 1) KM should focus on the flow of information; 2) KM was a foremost a management issue-- and technology was only an enhancer driven “by the right people in the right place to support knowledge management” (p. 12). A similar, but more individualistic perspective was expressed by Alavi et al. (2001). For them, KM involves enhancing an individual’s learning and understanding by providing more information to the individual. They also saw the role of IT as providing access to sources of knowledge rather than knowledge itself. Sources of knowledge are the nodes of a social network that create, acquire, or transfer the majority of information and/or knowledge. As mentioned in 2.3.3, ICMM included KM enablers and processes (Van Buren, 1999). He identified five KM processes: define, create, capture, share, and use. Too, he stated that these processes overlapped and reinforced each other. The nature of these KM processes involved different forms of activities and appeared in different functionalities, such as succession planning, market research, total quality management, reengineering, and strategic planning. Literature review Cultural Intelligence Meta cognitive cultural intelligence: Meta cognitive cultural intelligence involves making sense of one’s diverse cultural experiences and is “an individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness during cross-cultural interactions” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5). Meta cognition is a concept developed in the field of cognitive psychology, meaning thinking about thinking, or knowledge and mental thought processes about cognitive objects (Flavell, 1979). This concept can be further divided into two complementary components: meta cognitive knowledge and meta cognitive experience (Flavell, 1987). Meta cognitive knowledge refers to an individual’s acquired world knowledge that pertains to cognitive matters and reflects three broad categories of knowledge (Flavell, 1987). The “person” aspect of meta cognitive knowledge is the cognitions that an individual holds about people as thinking entities. Cognitions regarding people can be further delineated into intra individual meta cognition, a person’s belief about his own capabilities; inter individual meta cognition, a person’s belief about another person’s capabilities; and universal meta cognition, a person’s belief about capabilities found in all cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Peterson, 2004). In addition to the “person” aspect, there is a “task” aspect of meta cognitive knowledge. Task demands vary considerably according to situations and circumstances. The task aspect of meta cognitive knowledge focuses on how an individual makes decisions regarding the processing of different types of



636


information in various contexts (Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Peterson, 2004). For example, an individual whose native language is English will consider the “task” of learning a related language like French or Spanish to be easier than Mandarin or Cantonese Chinese. The final category of meta cognitive knowledge focuses on “strategy” variables. This category refers to the procedures an individual uses to accomplish some desired goal. Meta learning centers on how one considers various strategic options in learning how to learn (Earley & Ang, 2003; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Meta cognitive experience is the conscious experiences that are cognitive, affective, and derived from a cognitive activity. Meta cognitive experiences form the foundation of what to incorporate and also how to integrate relevant experiences to generate general mental schemas for future interactions (Earley & Ang, 2003). These experiences occur in everyday life and become easier to interpret with age and experience (Flavell, 1987). The meta cognitive framework proposed by Nelson and Narens (1995) was part of the foundational theoretical framework for the first facet of meta cognitive cultural intelligence. Earley and Ang (2003) summarized this theory by postulating that there are several basic elements, including “the model of the object itself represented at a metalevel, monitoring and control of flow between levels, and at least two separate but related levels of knowledge representing memory at multiple levels” (p. 104). The two key processes of control and monitoring are contingent upon the direction of the flow of information. Control refers to the flow of information from the metalevel to the object level; monitoring refers to the influence of the object level to the metalevel. Meta cognitive cultural intelligence reflects the mental processes that individuals use to understand cultural knowledge (Ang et al., 2007; Flavell, 1979). Meta cognitive cultural intelligence also involves the awareness of self and others using the framework of meta cognitive knowledge “person” aspect. It calls for individuals to consciously examine their own cultural assumptions and to be actively engaged in thinking and reflecting during the intercultural encounter to increase their cultural intelligence (Livermore, 2010). Being aware of self and others also calls for the ability to suspend judgment until further information becomes available (Triandis, 2006). Cognitive cultural intelligence: The second facet of cultural intelligence is cognitive cultural intelligence. Cognitive cultural intelligence “reflects knowledge of the norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures acquired from education and personal experiences” (Ang et al., 2007, p. 338; see also Earley & Ang, 2003). Cognitive cultural intelligence calls for the appreciation of the similarities found between various cultures and an understanding of how cultures are different (Brislin et al., 2006; Imai & Gelfand, 2010). The field of cultural anthropology has established a wide variation in cultures. However, researchers have also recognized that all cultures share a number of common features known as cultural universals (Murdock, 1987; Triandis, 1994). Cultural universals are shared by humanity as every culture has similar fundamental needs. Nine major categories of cultural universals have been proposed: material culture; arts, play and recreation; language and nonverbal communication; social organization; social control; conflict and warfare; economic organization; education; and world view (Cleaveland, Craven, & Danfelser, 1979). For example, the cultural universal of education encompasses how a society enables the transmission of knowledge from one generation to another (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). A culture can hold a formal view of education that emphasizes schools, books, and teachers as professionals, or an informal view of education in which wisdom is transmitted from extended family members, siblings, and parents (Livermore, 2010). Cultures can also differ in



637


educational methods (rote versus active learning), the importance of academic research versus conventional or sage wisdom, and the value of academic credentials compared to work experience (Livermore, 2010). Motivational cultural intelligence: The third facet of cultural intelligence is motivational cultural intelligence, which is defined as an individual’s “capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning in situations characterized by cultural differences” (Ang et al., 2007, p. 338). These motivational capacities regulate and provide agentic control of emotion, cognition, and behaviors that lead to effective intercultural encounters (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997). The theoretical base for motivational cultural intelligence is in the expectancy-value theory of motivation (DeNisi & Pritchard, 2006; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). This theory postulates that motivation of and degree of energy focused on a particular task is a function of two elements: (a) the “expectancy” component, which reflects the expectation of an individual of successfully accomplishing the task (Ang et al., 2007; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008); and (b) the “value” component, which reflects the value associated with successfully completing the task (Ang et al., 2007; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Motivational cultural intelligence is the extent to which one believes or expects that he or she is capable of interacting effectively with others from a different cultural background and his or her interest (or value) in engaging other cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003; Templer et al., 2006). The concept of self efficacy plays an integral role in the first element of expectancy in the expectancy-value theory of motivation. Self efficacy is defined as “a judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Self efficacy is viewed as an individual’s confidence in his ability to be culturally intelligent (Livermore, 2010). Self efficacy regarding intercultural effectiveness can be modified through four sources (Bandura, 1994; Earley & Ang, 2003). Authentic mastery experiences strengthen self efficacy as an individual perseveres through setbacks and obstacles but emerges stronger through successful intercultural interactions (Bandura, 1994; Earley & Ang, 2003). Vicarious experiences, in which an individual views the actions and successful intercultural task outcomes of someone who is similar to himself, also develops self efficacy (Bandura, 1994; Earley & Ang, 2003). Increasing one’s confidence can be a result of social persuasion; for example, an individual receives verbal encouragement from another regarding his cultural intelligence capabilities and the likelihood of efficacious intercultural experiences (Bandura, 1994; Earley & Ang, 2003). Behavioral cultural intelligence: The fourth facet of cultural intelligence, behavioral cultural intelligence, is an individual’s “capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and non verbal actions when interacting with people from different cultures” (Ang et al., 2007, p. 338). The metacognitive, cognitive, and motivational aspects of cultural intelligence must be complemented by appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions (Hall, 1959). It is impossible to access an individual’s latent thoughts, feelings, or motivation, which highlights the importance of culturally sensitive outward manifestations of vocal, facial, and other outward expressions (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003). Three core assumptions underlie the concept of behavioral cultural intelligence: (a) behaviors are overt or external actions as opposed to covert or internal behaviors (b) behaviors occur in the social context of interpersonal or interactional situations, and (c) behaviors are mindful, strategic, purposive, and motive-oriented contrasted with behaviors that are non-conscious, passive, and less agentic (Earley & Ang, 2003). The theoretic foundation for behavioral cultural intelligence is grounded in the self presentation and impression management theory (Earley & Ang, 2003; Goffman, 1959). This



638


theory postulates that “a basic motive of individuals in social situations is to present themselves to others in a favorable manner” (Earley & Ang, 2003, p. 181). Individuals must have the awareness of how they are being evaluated and perceived by others (Earley & Ang, 2003). Knowledge management Practice Davenport and Prusak (1997, 1998c) pointed out that increasing knowledge intensity and addressing cultural change are the most challenging issues in the KM processes in addition to making knowledge visible and building knowledge infrastructure. Consistent with IBM’s sweet spot development, Hansen and Oetinger (2001) introduced the next generation of T-shaped management. T-shaped management can help to cultivate a sharing environment to transfer knowledge from experts at the jobs, such as tacit knowledge. At the same time, T-shaped management follows hierarchies and organizational routines within a boundary of functionality where explicit knowledge flows. To explain further, a T-shaped management processes provides for sharing knowledge freely across the organization (the horizontal part of the “T”) while remaining individual business units perform organizational routines in a hierarchy function (the vertical part) (Hansen and Oetinger, 2001). In terms of tie strength, the horizontal part of the “T” is weak while the vertical part is strong. In terms of tacit versus explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge flows more freely in the horizontal part of “T” while explicit knowledge is more beneficial in the vertical part of the “T.” In a business context, a knowledge cycle is linked to the complexity and evolving nature of the marketplace. Hopefully, the reuse of knowledge and intellectual capital can improve response speed and encourage innovation for better outputs. Sometimes, however, an effective implicit knowledge transfer is crucial to the success of innovation-driven companies. Because of the nature of knowledge, KM embraces very specific drivers to each organization. It is totally determined by what knowledge is required, how it is assimilated and organized, who has permission to receive it, and where it is delivered. KM involves social, technological, and human aspects of an organization (Alavi et al., 2001; Tiwana, 2001). In addition to Nonaka’s (1994) knowledge processes that were studied intensively (Gold et al., 2001; Lee, 2003; Sabherwal et al., 2003; Saarenketoa et al., 2004), the task orientation of knowledge processes were also mentioned (Van Buren, 1999, Bontis, 1996). Roos, Roos, Dragonetti, and Edvinsson (1997) felt the Skandia IC report only offered a snapshot of a period of time while it followed a balance sheet approach to measure intangible assets. In other words, it cannot represent the dynamic flows of an organization. With an emphasis on users in a dynamic environment, KM processes in this research have been further narrowed down to KM processes capabilities. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) identified “dynamic capabilities” that analyzed the sources and methods of wealth creation in the environment of technological changes. Firms with dynamic capabilities have been able to demonstrate timely responsiveness, rapid and flexible product innovation. Zhang and Lado (2001) also recognized the importance of dynamic capabilities. Criticizing Barney’s rent-generating resources as a strategic necessity, they stated firms should go beyond a strategic necessity and focus on a firm’s dynamic capabilities. The capabilities are more likely to increase a firm’s potential to gain or sustain a competitive advantage via the facilitation of organizational competencies. KM processes are seen as organizational competencies. Four dimensions of network ties which influence a firm’s KM processes capability were identified by Parker, Prusak, and Borgatti (2001): 1) Knowledge: knowing what someone else knows when managers face a problem or opportunity; 2) Access: being able



639


to contact and secure useful information for an actor in a timely fashion; 3) Engagement: the expert understands the problem as experienced by the seeker and then adapts his or her knowledge to the needs of the person information; 4) Safety: ease in admitting a lack of knowledge. When we examine their typology in the light of tacit and/or explicit knowledge, it seems reasonable to predict that the different dimensions and their configuration will vary by the state of knowledge being developed. Bose (2002) conceptualized KM capabilities with an integrated picture that includes three layers (Figure 2.3): capability, structure, and organization. The capability layer shows a knowledge cycle. New knowledge is created and tagged; then, it is organized, stored using existing taxonomies and personal and/or environment profile information (from the structure layer). Retrieval and assimilation may lead to new knowledge or in turn feedback to reinforce organizational capability. Noticeably, personalization is particularly designed for users to know exactly where to go to find what they need for completing tasks at hand with a “single browser-based point of entry” (Bose, 2002, p. 42). The structure layer positions between the capability and organization layers. The structure reinforces the existing taxonomies and personal or environment profile to how knowledge should be processed. In other words, the organizational routines, policies, taxonomies, and personal or environmental profiling are embedded in the structure layer. The organization layer represents the responsible entities that develop and maintain the knowledge objects. While new knowledge is extracted by assimilation, it accumulates and feeds back to create and capture capability (Bose, 2002). There goes another new knowledge creation cycle. Bose (2002) not only extended the knowledge creation processes from Nonaka (1994, 2002) but also configured the organizational logistics to distribute and transform knowledge. The activities are sometimes at an individual level, group/team level, and/or department level. The dynamics were evident in Bose’s (2002) configuration because of the circular relationship between creation and assimilation. Additionally, constant interactions among three layers organization, structure and KM capability -- showed energetic dynamics in different movement at different levels. In addition to knowledge infrastructure, Gold et al. (2001) suggested knowledge processes are essential capabilities for organizational effectiveness. Knowledge infrastructure consists of culture, structure and technology that can be explained by structural capital that was illustrated in section 2.3.3. Knowledge processes are perceived as an enabler of the organization to capture, reconcile, and transfer knowledge in an efficient manner. Knowledge processes are acquisition-oriented, conversion-oriented, application-oriented and security-oriented (Gold et al., 2001). 3- Research Methodology and findings This research study utilizes qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis using a survey instrument and case study for primary data collection. Reliance on one method can create issues, for example qualitative research lacks rigid control, while quantitative methods may create pre-determined certainties. Many authors recommend both qualitative and quantitative methods to add context to research, offer an expanded view of the topics, and allow validation of findings through more than one methodology. The survey instrument analyzes the research model using formalized methodology, the case study includes interviews and system information and results. The qualitative and quantitative analysis results were triangulated to form discussion points and conclusion outputs. Our sample was selected among managers of firms in two universities and using two comprehensive questionnaires of KM & cultural



640


intelligence; we tried to find relationship between cultural intelligence dimensions and KM dimension. After distribution of questionnaires, 231 complete one returned. We show our finding in following tables.

Table1: data about respondents Frequency

percent level Frequency percent Sex

65% Male 49% B.A 37% Master 14% Ph.D 35% female

100% total 100% total

Table 2: Comparative analysis of students and teachers in CI

Mean Comparison Dimensions Citizens Mean

Managers Mean Mean D Statistic FD SIG

Decision

Meta cognitive 5.52 6.32 0.8 -2.653 101 0.002 Significant Difference

Cognitive 2.18 4.76 2.58 -1.726 101 0.000 Significant Difference

Motivational 4.02 5.01 0.99 -2.936 101 0.001 Significant Difference

Behavioral 3.16 4.44 1.28 -3.081 101 0.001 Significant Difference

Overall 2.87 4.47 1.6 -2.232 101 0.001 Significant Difference



641


Figure 1: Cultural Intelligence dimensions scores in statistical population

Figure 2: Knowledge management dimensions scores in statistical population



642


Table 3: relationship between dimensions of IC and dimensions of KM

Dimensions Meta cognitive Cognitive Motivational Behavioral Leadership and policy-making

0.098 0.276 0.287* 0.142

Measuring performance

0.354 0.187* 0.216* 0.376

Knowledge sharing 0.210 0.198 0.276 0.441**

Information systems infrastructures

0.181** 0.032* 0.198 0.276**

Benchmarking and training

0.023* 0.098 0.154 0.186*

Group work and empowerment

0.113* 0.054 0.265 -0.187*

*: it is significant at 0.01 level **: it is significant at 0.05 level

Table 4. The mean degree of importance and performance level constituents in knowledge

management from the perspective of the managers Knowledge

management dimensions

factor Mean of performance

Mean of importance

Relative mean of

performance

Relative mean of

importance

Leadership and policy-making

1. Having organizational support regarding the search for employee’s human values

4.13 5.78 0.30 0.86

2. Having a formal system which

allows the employees’ to share their opinions and viewpoints

3.18 5.11 0.11 0.57

3. Having policies which enhance the level of work life quality. 3.91 5.11 0.26 0.57

4. Commitment of Organization’s

Senior Management to knowledge management principles

2.63 4.33 0.00 0.24



643


5. Senior Management’s Support of

applicability of knowledge management

3.95 4.17 0.27 0.17

6. Senior Management’s Support of formal and informal relations 3.35 5.67 0.15 0.81

7. Allocating enough budget for

supporting knowledge management projects

3.22 5.56 0.12 0.76

8. Reviewing all the rules of organization regarding the implementation of knowledge management

3.23 5.00 0.12 0.52

Measuring performance

9. Effectiveness of performance assessment methods in the organization

3.78 4.56 0.23 0.33

10. Fairness of Personal or team

performance’s assessment methods’ in the organization

3.59 5.39 0.19 0.69

11. Having reward system for performance optimization 7.55 4.94 1.00 0.50

Knowledge sharing 12. sharing Knowledge with suppliers 5.44 3.83 0.57 0.02

13. gaining knowledge about customers 5.78 5.50 0.64 0.74

14. gaining knowledge regarding

special competencies and capabilities of the organization

5.25 6.00 0.53 0.95

Information systems

infrastructures 15. Information systems’ effectiveness 6.03 5.89 0.69 0.90

16. Information systems’ efficiency 5.36 4.72 0.55 0.40

17. Information systems’ state of being User-friendly (User-friendliness) 4.29 4.83 0.34 0.45

18. Applicability and apprehensibility of outputs 4.36 6.11 0.35 1.00

Benchmarking and training

19. Providing a guideline for the creation of a benchmark system 5.22 5.83 0.53 0.88

20. Supporting the implementation of a knowledge-based assessment

5.51 5.06 0.58 0.55



644


mechanism

21. Encouraging employees to

benchmark other organizations’ success models

3.56 4.44 0.19 0.29

22. Training knowledge management

principles to lower levels employees of the organization

3.78 5.78 0.23 0.86

Group work and

empowerment 23. Enhancing employees’ partnership 3.28 5.67 0.13 0.81

24. Encouraging employees for decision-making partnership 4.50 5.11 0.38 0.57

25. Reinforcing collaboration and cooperation spirit 4.83 3.78 0.45 0.00

26. Supporting group attitudes for problem-solving 5.72 4.11 0.63 0.14

27. Organization’s commitment to empowering the employees 4.69 5.11 0.42 0.57

Conclusion & Discussion Higher education organizations too like other fields in the social and natural sciences have been facing knowledge accumulation. Therefore, with the increase in the volume of information in organizations and the necessity to make use of them in decisions over the last two decades, a phenomenon has come into existence called the knowledge management (O’Brien et al, 2002, 97). This indicates the necessity for planning, organizing, leading, monitoring the organizational knowledge and also managing the process of knowledge acquisition in an efficient manner. Today, the organizations have found out that they will not survive unless they have a strategy to manage and evaluate the organizational knowledge. Therefore, strategies and cycles have been offered here for implementing knowledge management. In fact, over the past decades, most of the analyses have been made on knowledge management and intellectual capital in the public sector; however, there is currently a great interest in doing research on private and financial organizations such as the banking and insurance industries. Intellectual capital management has drawn a lot of attention due to the focus on the investment intensive centers and therefore, the authorities should enhance their roles for the national innovation because the most important inputs and outputs of these centers are tacit and only a small portion of them have been identified. As a result, the investment centers have been made to provide more transparent information for their stakeholders (Lev, 2000, 81). Therefore, this paper has tried to investigate knowledge management relationships with cultural intelligence and its major goal has been to identify the success and failure factors in knowledge management based on strategic management



645


practices. The results suggest that not all of the knowledge management factors require the same attention and that the main concern should be based on their importance and performance which can save organizations a lot of unnecessary costs. Thus, investing in the two factors that contribute to the efficiency of information systems and the senior management’s commitment to the principles of knowledge management can earn the organizations the most achievements in the short run. Moreover, meta cognitive intelligence is the most important motivator of KM and motivational is the last one. The last but not least, CI scores of students is really more that teachers scores in such institutions.



646


References Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N.

A. (2007). Cultural Intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management & Organization Review, 3(3), 335-371. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100-123. doi: 10.1177/1059601105275267

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L (1998). Working Knowledge. BA: Harvard Business School Press.

Egbu, C. (2000, September) Knowledge management in construction SMEs: Coping with the issue of structure, culture, commitment and motivation. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), Glasgow, Scotland.

Egbu, C., Gaskell, C., & Howes, J. (2001). The role of organisational culture and motivation in the effective utilisation of information technology for teamworking in construction. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), Salford, UK, 91–100.

Cavaleri, S., Seivert, S., & Lee, L. W. (2005). Knowledge leadership: The art and science of the knowledge-based organization. Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Nelson, R. E. (1997). Organizational Troubleshooting: Asking the Right Questions, Finding the Right Answers. Conn: Quorum Books.

Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 327-401.

Nonaka, I. (1994). Overlapping organization: A Japanese approach to managing the innovation process. California Management Review, 32 (3), 27-38.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1), 14-37.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 3-15). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 100-115.

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.



647


Murakami-Ramalho, E. (2008). Domestic practices in foreign lands: Lessons on

leadership for diversity in American international schools. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(1), 76-95.

Murakami-Ramalho, E., & Benham, M. (2010). Around the fishing net: Leadership dynamics for change in an American international school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(5), 625-643. doi: 10.1177/1741143210373736

Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 83-98. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001

Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & Macnab, B. (2006). Cultural intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve people's goals. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 40-55. doi: 10.1177/1059601105275262

DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance, appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management & Organization Review, 2(2), 253 - 277.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 1-6). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural adjustment. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 154-173. doi: 10.1177/1059601105275293

Hall, E. T. (1993). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.

Ko, Dong-Gil, Kirsch, Laurie J., and King, William R. (2005). Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1), 59-86.

Kotter, J. P. (1982). The General Managers. NY: Free Press. Kumar, Kuldeep (2001). Technology for supporting supply chain management:

Introduction. Communications of the ACM, 44 (6), 58-61 Lee, H., and Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and

organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20 (1), 179–228.

Levitt, B., and March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review Sociology, 14: 319-340.

Lewis, E., and Lippitt, J. (1999). Valuing intellectual assets. Journal of Legal Economics, 9, 31-48.

Liang, T.Y. (2000). The e-landscape: An unexplored goldmine of the new millennium. Human Systems Management, 19 (4), 229-236.



648


Limayem, M., and DeSanctis, G. (2000). Providing decisional guidance for multicriteria decision making in groups. Information Systems Research, 11 (4), 386-401.

Liu, P.L., Chen, W.C., and Tsai, C.H. (2004). An empirical study on the correlation between knowledge capability and competitiveness in Taiwan’s industries. Technovation, 24, 971-977.

Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent Variable Models. An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Analysis. NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lubit, R. (2001). Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to sustainable competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 29 (3), 164-179.

Lynn, L.E. (1998). The management of intellectual capital: the issues and the practice. Management accounting issues paper 16, Management Accounting Practices Handbook. Hamilton, Ontario: Society of Management Accountants of Canada.

McCormack, K., and Johnson, B. (2001). Business process orientation, supply chain management, and the e-corporation. IIE Solutions, 33 (10), 33-38.

Marinova, D. (2004). Actualizing innovation effort: the impact of market knowledge diffusion in a dynamic system of competition. Journal of Marketing, 68 (3), 1-20.

Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., and O’riscoll, T. M. (2002). Knowledge management in pursuit of performance: Insight from Nortel Networks. MIS Quarterly, 26 (3), 269-289.

May, C. (2002). Trouble in e-topia: Knowledge as intellectual property. Urban Studies, 39 (5), 1037-1049.

Maxwell, R. (2002). Smart patents; is your intellectual capital at risk? Forthought, Harvard Business Review, 80 (4), 18-19.

McDonald, M. L., and Westphal, J. D. (2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs' advice networks and firms' strategic responses to poor performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (1), 1-33.

Megna, P., and Klock, K. (1993). The impact of intangible capital on Tobin’s q in the semiconductor industry. AEA Proceedings Paper, 83, 265-269.

Miller, J. S. (2004). Building a better bounty: Litigation-stage remains for defeating patents. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19, 667-739.

Montgomery, C., and Wernerfelt, B. (1988). Diversification, Ricardian Rents and Tobin’s q. Rand J. of Economic, 19, 623-632.

Mykytyn, K., Bordoloi, B., Mckinney, V., & Bandyopadhyay, K. (2002). The role of software patents in sustaining IT-enabled competitive advantage: a call for research. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 59-82.

Mykytyn, P. P. Jr., Mykytyn, K. (2002). Computer software patents: A dilemma in competitive advantage IT research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 109-130.

Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-258.

Narayanan, V., Pinches, G., Kelm, K., and Lander, D. (2000). The influence of voluntary disclosed qualitative information. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (7), 707-722.

Nelson, R. E. (2001). On the shape of verbal networks in organizations. Organization Studies, 22(5), 797-823.



649


Nelson, R. E. (1997). Organizational Troubleshooting: Asking the Right Questions, Finding the Right Answers. Conn: Quorum Books.

Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 327-401.

O’Brien C, Hanka R, Buchan I, Healthfield H.managing information overload in the health sector. Management systems: theory and practice. London, Thomson learning, (2002).

Lev, B.. “Intangibles: management, measurement and reporting”, (2000). available at www.baruch-lev.com

analysis the effects of cultural intelligence on knowledge...

Documents