applicability of the seci model of knowledge creation in russian cultural context: theoretical...

& Research Article

Applicability of the SECI Model ofKnowledge Creation in Russian CulturalContext: Theoretical Analysis

Tatiana Andreeva* and Irina Ikhilchik

Graduate School of Management, St.Petersburg State University, Russian Federation

While the potential influence of national culture on the efficiency of knowledge management interventions has beenwidely accepted, the question of whether the knowledge management theories are influenced by culture receivedlittle attention. This paper aims to address this gap by analyzing SECI model of knowledge creation by Nonaka andTakeuchi in the context of Russian national culture. The model’s authors claim of its universal validity, and currentcriticism against this position is limited and controversial. Wemaintain that it is partly due to the fact that SECImodelin its original format resists empirical verification. Thus we propose a framework for operationalization of the SECImodel. We suggest that decomposing SECI model into three levels—basic cognitive processes, societal andorganizational conditions, and managerial tools—opens the ways for its empirical and cross-cultural investigation.Applying this framework to Russia, we develop a set of theoretical propositions regarding opportunities and limits ofSECI application in Russian cultural context. Finally we discuss theoretical and management implications of ouranalysis. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

The process of knowledge creation lies in the verycenter of contemporary discussion on the sources ofsustainable competitive advantage (Romer andKurtzman, 2004). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)proposed to conceptualize the process of knowl-edge creation in organizational settings by the SECImodel that represents the four modes of knowledgecreation. This model became very influential and itseems to have been accepted by the most part of theknowledge management community as universallyvalid in conception and in application (Von Kroghet al., 2000).

The implicit assumptions about cultural univers-ality of the management theories have beenseriously criticized during the last decades (e.g.,Hofstede, 1980; Boyacigiller and Adler, 1991).However, these claims have reached the knowledgemanagement discourse only very recently. Whilethe potential influence of culture on the efficiency ofknowledge management interventions has beenrecently accepted (e.g., Bhagat et al., 2002; Chuan

and Wen-Jung, 2005) there is a little discussionconcerning the underlying question—are thetheories andmodels of knowledge related processesinfluenced by culture? Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)repeatedly claim of the universal validity of theSECI model. However, few recent writings chal-lenged this idea of SECI culture-free universality(Glisby and Holden, 2003; Weir and Hutchings,2005). The situation is complicated by the fact thatSECI model in its original format resists empiricalverification (Gourlay, 2003). Therefore the potentialfor its’ critical analysis is limited by the lack ofempirical data that could support or refute its’ ideas.

The aim of this study is to extend the discussionabout the limits of applicability of the SECI modelby developing a framework for its’ empiricalverification and by analytically applying thisframework to one particular cultural context, thatof Russia. We suggest that Russia provides aninteresting field for such analysis. First, someknowledge management scholars (e.g., Nonakaand Takeuchi, 1995; Glisby and Holden, 2003)stress the Western–Eastern divide in the concep-tual tradition and management discourse, whileRussia represents another ‘‘world’’ that falls out(or in the middle) of this dichotomy. Second,though some research has been done on theapplicability of foreign management theories in

Knowledge and Process ManagementVolume 18 Number 1 pp 56–66 (2011)Published online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/kpm.351

*Correspondence to: Tatiana Andreeva, Organizational Behaviorand Human Resource Management Department; Co-director,Center for Global Strategy and Innovation; Graduate School ofManagement, St.Petersburg State University, Russian Federation.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Russia in general (Elenkov, 1998; Fey and Denison,2003; Andreeva, 2008), only a few of them discussthe knowledge management related issues, mainlyin the context of the knowledge transfer fromWestern countries to Russia (May et al., 2005).Third, the existing literature on knowledge man-agement issues in Russia focuses predominantlyon knowledge sharing issues (Michailova andHusted, 2003; Michailova and Hutchings, 2006)and thus addresses only a part of SECI model asknowledge creation is a wider concept. Thusdeeper understanding of the limits of applicabilityof the SECI model in Russia is important not onlyfrom the theoretical perspective, but also willcontribute to the development of the more efficientand effective knowledge management practicesboth in Russian companies and in Russian sub-sidiaries of international businesses.

To meet the goals stated above, this paper isstructured as follows. We start by providing anoverview of the literature on cultural issues inknowledge management followed by the reviewand analysis of the existing criticisms of theSECI model from a cross-cultural perspective.Next, we propose a framework that operationalizesthe SECI model through its’ decomposition intothree levels—basic cognitive processes, societal/organizational conditions, and management toolsthat are aimed to support each stage of themodel. Then we apply this framework to analyzethe Russian cultural context for knowledge creationand develop a set of propositions concerning theapplicability of the SECI model in Russia. Weconclude the paper with some implications for bothknowledge management theory and practice.

NATIONAL CULTURE ANDKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:LITERATURE ANALYSIS

The interrelationship between culture and knowl-edge management practice has only been recog-nized in the literature relatively recently. Research-ers have discussed two levels at which interactionsmay take place: that of national culture (e.g., Bhagatet al., 2002; Javidan et al., 2005; Ang and Massing-ham, 2007; Kohlbacher and Krahe, 2007) andanother of organizational culture (e.g., DeLongand Fahey, 2000; Kayworth and Leidner, 2004).Researchers have also stressed the need to integratemultiple layers of culture into the models ofknowledge management (King, 2007). However,for the sake of brevity, in this particular paper wefocus on the interrelationships between knowledgemanagement practices and national culture, definedas a set of basic shared practices and values thathelp human communities to find solutions to theproblems of external adaptation and internalintegration (Schein, 1992).

While the number of sources on culture-relatedissues in knowledge management is growing, themain focus of the extant research literature is oncross-cultural problems in knowledge sharing/transfer. Though these issues are undoubtedlytopical, such a focus, to our mind, has a numberof limitations. First, it typically treats culture as a‘‘problem’’ (a ‘‘barrier’’ as some authors put it (e.g.,DeLong and Fahey, 2000))—differences in cultureare typically presented as impediments to knowl-edge flows. The key shortcoming of such approachis that it prevents organizations from appreciatingculture as powerful organizational resource that canbe used to contribute to organizational success(Holden, 2002).

Second, knowledge creation has received muchless attention from cross-cultural perspective thanthe knowledge sharing process. Some research hasbeen conducted to investigate the influence ofnational culture on innovative activities (Shane,1993; Couto and Vieira, 2004). Though innovation isusually used as a wider concept that involves notonly creation of the new knowledge but also its’implementation in practice, we suggest that theconclusions of such research can be extended toknowledge creation issues. These authors concludethat cultures with particular characteristics (forexample, with high uncertainty avoidance) are lesssuccessful in innovative activities. If we accept theanthropological view of culture as of a relativelystable phenomenon (e.g., Hofstede, 2001), suchconclusion implies that some countries have‘‘innate’’ disadvantage in knowledge creation andwill be (always) lagging in innovations. We think itis too unrealistic as an argument, as the historicalevidence suggests that cultures still change (themost recent and vivid example to consider iscultural changes in former Soviet block countriese.g., Alexashin and Blenkinsopp, 2005; Wolduet al., 2006). Moreover, the SECI model itself(being developed by Japanese authors) and theinnovative success of Japanese companies challengethis ‘‘stigma’’ of high uncertainty avoidance, asJapan belongs to this particular cluster of countries.Thus more research on knowledge creation in thelight of national cultures is needed to provide uswith better understanding of the phenomena.

Third, and probably more important, the mostof the culture-related knowledge managementliterature leaves aside the fundamental questionof whether the models used to describe knowledge-related processes are themselves products ofparticular cultures. In fact, the dominatingapproach seeks to include culture in the proposedmodels as one of the factors of influence, and doesnot question the culture of the model itself. Beingover focused on culture-in-the-model approach,rather than on culture-of-the-model one, the dis-cipline of knowledge management has been devel-oping predominantly on the basis of the assumption

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Know. Process Mgmt. 18, 56–66 (2011)DOI: 10.1002/kpm

SECI Model of Knowledge Creation in Russia 57

that its’ models work independently of the specificculture in which they were developed or areimplemented despite the fact that managementtheorists have been warned of the risks of beingculturally blind a while ago (Boyacigiller and Adler,1991; Hofstede, 1996). Takeuchi has even referred toknowledge management as being the ‘‘most uni-versal management concept in history’’ (Takeuchi,2001, p.328). Only a few voices have been raised,and then only recently, which question the general-ity and applicability of the models themselves(Glisby and Holden, 2003; Zhu, 2004).

This paper aims to address these conceptual gapsby focusing on the models of knowledge creationand raising the question of the extent to whichsuch models are culturally determined (applying aculture-of-the-model approach). In particular, weaim to extend the works of Glisby and Holden(2003) and Weir and Hutchings (2005) by analyzingthe applicability of the SECI model in a Russiancultural context.

THE SECI MODEL AND ITSCROSS-CULTURAL APPLICABILITY

To discuss cultural embeddedness of the knowl-edge management discourse, we chose to focus onthe SECI model of the knowledge creation proposedby Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) as it represents oneof the most influential and widely cited models inthe field (Von Krogh et al., 2000). Developing thedistinction between tacit and explicit knowledgefirst proposed by Polanyi (1997), they suggested thatthe creation of new knowledge in organizations canbe modeled using a spiral model, involving fourknowledge conversion modes—Socialization,Externalization, Combination, and Internalization(and thus the model is abbreviated as SECI).

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) postulate thatknowledge creation is a social process, meaningthat knowledge in organizations is predominantlycreated in the process of interaction among people.The vision of knowledge creation as a social/interactive process creates an immediate link to thenotion of culture. Indeed, if knowledge is created inthe process of social interaction (Nonaka andTakeuchi, 1995), and if any social interaction is tosome extent governed by cultural rules and rituals(Schein, 1992), then culture should somehowinfluence knowledge creation processes. In thislight it is surprising that the SECI model waspromoted by its authors as a culturally universalconcept (e.g., Takeuchi, 2001). The model has beeninternationally accepted, usually without question-ing the cultural limits of its applicability, and only afew concerns have been raised recently with respectto whether the model can be successfully applied indifferent cultural contexts (Glisby and Holden,2003; Weir and Hutchings, 2005). We intend to

investigate in more detail the reasons for theseconcerns below.

The first stage of the model, socialization, impliesthe sharing of tacit knowledge, both internallyand externally. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)stress that employees must be willing to shareknowledge in order to ensure that socializationoccurs. Glisby and Holden (2003) further suggestthat the internal sharing of tacit knowledge isenabled by strong personal affiliation with andcommitment to the organization, cooperative atti-tudes between employees (rather than competitiveones) and a focus on developing close relationshipswith those who share the same fate (work for thesame organizations). However, all of these featuresare usually claimed to be distinctively Japanese. Asfor the external sharing of tacit knowledge, Glisbyand Holden claim that it is facilitated by theexistence of the networks of partners and closeinterrelationships between companies in the indus-try that characterize the Japanese cultural contextbut may not be present in other societies. ThusGlisby and Holden argue that the socializationmode of knowledge conversion is itself a deeplyJapanese process.

In contrast, Weir and Hutchings (2005) in theiranalysis of the applicability of the SECI model inChinese and Arab contexts suggest that networkingis a traditional and wide-spread practice both inChina and Arab world and thus conclude thatsocialization works quite effectively in these con-texts. However, Weir and Hutchings also mentionthat Chinese networks are mostly ‘‘short-distance’’ones, meaning that in organizational settings theyare mostly concentrated inside departments, ratherthan between departments, and even less likely toexist between organizations. In our view, this factimplies that external sharing of tacit knowledge islimited in Chinese cultural context as compared toJapanese one as Chinese networks allow less contactwith external partners. Therefore, contrary to theconclusion of the authors, we suggest that socializa-tion in Chinese context will not happen in the sameway, and, probably, not in the same scale, as inJapan.

The next stage of the SECI model, externalization,implies converting tacit knowledge into explicitknowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi stress that thisstage of the model is the most challenging and time-consuming stage, and emphasize the importance ofgroup commitment for its realization. However,many sources suggest that group orientation is aspecific feature of the Japanese culture (e.g.,Hofstede, 2001). In addition to this, Glisby andHolden (2003) suggest that Japanese organizationsexperience much less pressure from shareholdersthan their Western counterparts, and thus theysimply can spend their resources (including time)more freely to do things the way they want to do,which includes externalizing knowledge. Weir and


58 T. Andreeva and I. Ikhilchik

Hutchings (2005) report that in Chinese organiz-ations externalization evolves almost the same wayas in Japanese companies. However, they claim thatin the Arab culture externalization works notexactly the way it is supposed to according to theSECI model.

The third stage of the SECI model, combination,is also claimed to be supported by some typicallyJapanese practices, such as lack of interdepartmentalrivalry, polychronic task orientation, consultativedecision-making, purposeful overlap of functionalresponsibilities (‘‘organizational redundancy’’ (Non-aka and Takeuchi, 1995)), and a more secure contextfor free and open access to organizational informationdue to high personal commitment and relativelypermanent occupation (Glisby and Holden, 2003). Itis argued that all these factors tend to stimulatecombination of explicit knowledge across organiz-ation, both vertically and horizontally.

Both China and Arab world, according to Weirand Hutchings (2005), are characterized by muchmore concentrated authority and decision-makingin comparison to Japan. Yet they suggest that thestrong family spirit prevailing in Arab business stillallows for the opinions of ‘‘younger’’ members to betaken into account, while, in contrast, no mechan-isms to compensate for such authoritarian manage-ment style exist in China. As a result, Weir andHutchings conclude that combination can take placeefficiently in Arab context but either does not takeplace or do so inefficiently in China. Despite this,they further argue that that efficient combination ofknowledge has no special roots in distinctiveJapanese features and management practices andmay be universally applicable.We consider that thisconclusion is somewhat controversial. We wouldsuggest that observations by Weir and Hutchings,on the contrary, prove the limited applicability ofcombination in non-Japanese context.

The last stage of SECI, internalization, involvesconverting explicit knowledge into tacit throughdirect experience. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)stress the importance of the practice of rotationto support it. Glisby andHolden (2003) suggest that,plus to intensive rotation, such typical Japanesepractices as the focus on developing generalistsrather than specialists in one narrow domain, andwide acceptance of learning-by-doing (or exper-imental learning) all together create a context forefficient internalization.

Weir andHutchings (2005) report that in the Arabcontext job rotation is considered to be a good tool,but that it is not widespread. Moreover, it istypically not aimed at changing the employee’scompetences significantly or broadening them, sothe focus is still on the development of the deeperexpertise in the specialist’s field. In China jobrotation is quite a new and unfamiliar techniquethat is notwidely used as people do not like crossingdepartmental and functional boundaries in their

work. Added to this, Weir and Hutchings suggestthat Chinese cultural context features a significantaversion to making mistakes or taking actions thathave a significant risk of failure. It can be arguedthat such a context inhibits both job rotation andactivities related to learning-by-doing. Thus, it canbe argued that Weir and Hutchins are in agreementwith Glisby and Holden (2003) that the depiction ofinternalization proposed in the SECImodel does nothave universal application.

To summarize, Glisby and Holden (2003) claimthat each of the four modes of SECI model are verymuch rooted in Japanese culture and thus themodelhas very limited implications outside of theJapanese reality. In contrast, Weir and Hutchings(2005) argue that their study proves that SECImodel can be applied successfully in non-Japanesecontexts.

It is clearly a salient question to enquire why theexisting research literature on the cultural roots andcross-cultural applicability of SECImodel presents acontradictory picture? One of the factors that mayexplain this situation is that these authors groundtheir reasoning in the secondary data, generalizingfrom their own experience and prior research onvarious aspects of the cultures under discussion. Inother words, in the academic sense, they engage indeveloping hypotheses rather than presentingempirically verified conclusions. Interestingly, inthis manner they have a similar approach to thatutilized by Nonaka and Takeuchi when the latterpresent the SECI model: they also appeal tonumerous examples from corporate practice yetdo not provide any primary field data collectedwiththe purpose of verifying the model itself (Gourlay,2003). Thus both arguments ‘‘pro’’ and ‘‘con’’ in theliterature that addresses the SECI model lacksystemic empirical testing and verification. Someauthors (Rice and Rice, 2002; Gourlay, 2003) suggestthat such paradox is fostered by the fact that theSECI model itself is formulated in philosophicalterms and hence defies specific operationalization,and, consequently cannot be empirically tested. Wewould therefore suggest that the next step ingaining a better understanding of the limits of theapplicability of this model should involve aninvestigation as to how it can be operationalizedin such a manner that will open the way to thecollection of empirical data on the implementationof the model in different cultural contexts and thusthe empirical testing of the model. We propose oursolution to this problem in the next section.

SECI DECOMPOSITION

We suggest that in order to develop a valid cross-cultural analysis it is necessary to distinguishbetween the following elements of the SECI model:(1) cognitive processes (conversion of tacit and



explicit knowledge), (2) societal and organizationalconditions, and (3) management tools that, accord-ing to Nonaka and Takeuchi, facilitate the abovementioned cognitive processes and channel themaccording to organizational objectives. We proposeto distinguish between conditions and tools basedon the level of their liability to managerial inter-vention. While application of tools depends mainlyon the free will and decision of the particularmanager, the conditions evolve as a result ofinfluence of multiple factors, with managerialactions being just one among them (and sometimesminor ones). For example, job rotation as organiz-ational practice falls into ‘‘tools’’ category, and highcommitment of employees to organization refersrather to ‘‘conditions.’’ Of course, this distinction issomewhat arbitrary—in the example above, on theone hand, the introduction and efficient applicationof job rotation depends not only on managerialdecisions but also on environmental and culturalfactors, while on the other hand, employees’commitment can be increased or severely depletedby the actions of a manager(s). However, we believethat such separation between management toolsand social and organizational conditions is usefulfor the purposes of our analysis.

We propose that the basic cognitive processes ofknowledge conversion—transformations betweentacit and explicit knowledge—are natural mentalprocesses of any human being. We accept thatdepending on its cultural background, humanmindmay feel more comfortable with some of theseprocesses as compared to other. For example,consider the influence of the existence of a high/low context culture1 (Hall, 1959) on the preferencesfor cognitive processes. In the US companies (lowcontext culture) both managers and employeesprefer organizational culture to be explainedthrough images and presentations, whereas in mostRussian companies (high context culture) organiz-ational culture is just ‘‘absorbed’’ by employeesduring their work without additional explicitexplanations. Moreover, many Russian employeesperceive explicit explanations of organizationalculture as artificial and irritating. Nonaka andTakeuchi (1995) themselves cite similar example,suggesting that Japanese feel more comfortabledealing with tacit knowledge, while Westernersprefer to work with and reason with explicitknowledge. However, all of them, Russians andAmericans, Japanese and Westerners, deal withboth types of knowledge, and thus we argue that all

of four basic cognitive processes in SECI modelhappen to human beings irrespectively of theirculture.

SECI model implies a certain order in which thesefour cognitive processes occur: socialization, exter-nalization, combination, and internalization (cap-tured in the model’s title). Some authors disagreewith this view and argue that these cognitiveprocesses may evolve simultaneously or in thedifferent order (Gourlay, 2003; Zhu, 2004). We agreewith these criticisms, however, we believe that theorder of the cognitive processes does not mattermuch for cross-cultural analysis from the practical/managerial point of view, because supportingconditions do not become activated in specificand sequenced time slots but rather co-exist at thesame time, and most of the managerial toolstechnically cannot be implemented just for a specialtime period to support particular stage of SECI andthen ceased. Therefore it appears reasonable todiscuss cross-cultural aspects of all supportingconditions and managerial tools simultaneouslyand not in a particular order. That is why in ourfurther analysis we leave aside the debate on thesequence of the cognitive processes.

Having adopted this three-level framework, wecarefully reviewed the work of Nonaka andTakeuchi. We also revisited Glisby and Holden’sanalysis, in order to identify the conditions andtools which are relevant to the SECI model. Theresults of our analysis are presented in the Table 1.

While Glisby and Holden (2003) claim that somemodes of SECI model are totally Japanese-specific,we suggest a more fine-grained approach using ourthree-level framework. We propose that on the levelof the cognitive processes the model is culturallyuniversal, as it refers to the basic mental processesthat are present in and utilized by all human beings.We argue, however, that organizational and societalconditions and managerial tools that enable andsupport these cognitive processes may well beculturally contingent. In the following section wewill explore if conditions and tools that are presentin the Nonaka and Takeuchi model are relevant to aRussian cultural context.

SECI CONDITIONS AND TOOLS INRUSSIAN CULTURAL CONTEXT

Our analysis rests on existing research on Russianmanagement and culture and the generalizedexperience of the authors as management research-ers and business consultants to Russian companies.We take societal and organizational conditions,inherent in SECImodel, andmanagerial tools aimedto support SECI modes (all summarized in Table 1),and investigate whether they exist in a Russiancultural context.

1High and low context concept is primarily concerned with theway in which information is transmitted. As Hall explained it,‘‘. . .high context transactions feature pre-programmed infor-mation that is in the receiver and in the setting,with onlyminimalinformation in the transmittedmessage. Low context transactionsare the reverse. Most of the information must be in the trans-mitted message in order to make up for what is missing in thecontext’’ (Hall, 1976, p. 101).



Let us first address the societal and organizationalconditions inherent in SECI model. While Nonakaand Takeuchi’s ideas are heavily based on theassumption that individuals are willing to shareknowledge, both internally and externally, this seemsnot to be the case in Russia (Michailova andHusted,2003; Michailova and Hutchings, 2006). Ever moretelling, Michailova and Husted label Russianorganizations as inherently hostile to knowledgesharing (Michailova and Husted, 2003). It can beargued that one of the key reasons for this relates toa deeply held belief that knowledge is (individual)power and thus should not be shared unlessnecessary, and/or unless appropriate benefits arereceived.

Another condition to which Nonaka and Takeuchirefer is high employees’ commitment to the organiz-ation. Russian employees typically show medium tolow commitment to their organizations (e.g., Mayet al., 1998). This trend is a result of decades ofeconomic instability and drastic changes both onsocietal and organizational levels, when mass lay-offs, serious salary payment delays and significantreductions of wages were very common (Gurkovand Zelenova, 2007).

The next condition inherent to SECI relates tothe dominance of cooperation between employeesover the competition between them, both on theindividual and on interdepartmental level. Thoughthe situation regarding this may differ betweenvarious Russian companies, on average, on theinterdepartmental level they typically stronglycompetitive (e.g., Fey et al., 1999). Within unitsone can observe different situations, either compe-tition or co-operation, and it is difficult to make any

generalization about which of them is morecommon.

With respect to the condition of the intensity ofnetworking with external partners, it differs in Russiaamong different industries, but usually is not verystrong. The competitive attitudes and an obsessionwith the privacy of information in many casesprevents Russian companies from building relation-ships with external partners. In some industriessimilar types of cooperative networks existedduring the times of planned economy, but mostof the links were destroyed during and after thereforms that took place after the collapse of theSoviet Union.

Russian companies tend to differ significantlyfrom their Japanese counterparts with respect to theprevailing attitude to mistakes. Usually fear is thedominant attitude of Russian employees rather thatacceptance. For example, delegation of responsi-bilities typically does not work well in manyRussian companies—middle managers frequentlyprefer not to act at all in order to avoid mistakes(Shekshnia, 1994; Kets De Vries, 2000).

Yet one more SECI condition to which Nonakaand Takeuchi refer is collectivism and strong grouporientation. Describing Russia along this criteriondoes not have an unambiguous answer. ThoughRussia is often believed to have collectivisticmentality, it might be the result of the point ofcomparison: some research positions Russia in themiddle of the individualism—collectivism scale(Ralston et al., 1997; Hofstede, 2001). Thus althoughbeing more collectivistic than USA, Russia appearsto bemore individualistic than Japan. Some findingseven indicate a trend for increasing individualism

Table 1 Conditions and tools for SECI stages (Japanese cultural context)

Stage of SECI Societal/organizational conditions Managerial tools

Socialization Individuals are willing to share knowledge,both internally and externally

Job design allows sharing experience,observation, imitation

High employees’ commitment/loyalty MentoringCooperation between employees (rather thancompetition)Organizations are parts of wide networks ofpartners

Externalization High group commitment Wide usage of metaphors, analogies andmodelsin explanations

Little external control (little pressure fromshareholders)

Open dialog of employees with each other andmanagersCommunities of practice

Combination No inter-departmental rivalry Purposeful overlap of functional responsibilities(redundancy)

High employees’ commitment/loyalty (no riskof informational abuse)

Free access to corporate information (as a policyand via usage of information technologies anddata bases)

Polychronic/synchronous orientation Consultative decision-makingInternalization Little fear of mistakes Policies that allow intensive/frequent

learning-by-doingRotation between functionsGeneralistic job descriptions



in Russia (Veiga et al., 1995). Other researchersreport an unusual combination of individualisticand collectivistic attitudes (Holt et al., 1994). One ofthe explanations lies in the distinction betweeninstitutional and in-group collectivism (see Houseet al., 2004): Russians tend to be collectivistic on thelevel of small groups, while as soon as they exit their‘‘inner circle,’’ they can demonstrate more indivi-dualistic behavior.

Yet, there are some societal and organizationalconditions that are similar in Russian and Japanesecontext. Like Japanese firms, most of Russianorganizations are subject to moderately low externalcontrol: themajority of Russian companies have veryconcentrated ownership, even in companies thathave a large number of shareholders the latter havevery limited possibilities with respect to exertingpressure. Another similarity between Russian andJapanese cultural contexts concerns polychronic timeorientation, which characterizes both of them.

We will now turn to managerial tools that aremeant to support the stages of the SECI model, andsee if they have a potential for wide application inRussian companies. Mentoring was a commonpractice during Soviet times, and still used today,but usually in much more limited sense comparedto what Nonaka and Takeuchi suggest. Mostcompanies limit mentoring to the probationaryperiod for a new employee, and the mentor’sresponsibilities concern mainly explaining generalorganizational policies rather than the intensivesharing experience and teaching through obser-vation and imitation. While some managers recog-nize the potential of the ‘‘deeper’’ type of mentor-ing, they typically face problems involving mentorsin such a process, due to time pressure as potentialmentors have to complete their routine tasks, aswellas reticence due to the competitive environment inorganizations. Moreover, drastic economic changeswith mass lay-offs have made senior employees(potential mentors) reluctant to share their knowl-edge and experience due to the fear of beingdismissed and replaced by younger employees (e.g.,Andreeva, 2009).

With respect to the cultural contingencies for theapplication of such a managerial tool as the usage ofmetaphors, analogies, and models in explanations, onepotential explanation is to link to the uncertaintyavoidance dimension of culture (Hofstede, 2001;House et al., 2004). It could be hypothesized thatmetaphors would be more accepted in low uncer-tainty avoidance societies, as they involve a lot ofambiguity. However, the SECI model itself contra-dicts this idea, as Japan has a very high uncertaintyavoidance score (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004),and yet Nonaka and Takeuchi, drawing upon theexperience of Japanese companies, argue thatJapanese culture results in the widespread use ofmetaphors. We suggest that this situation providesan excellent example of what has been termed a

cultural paradox (Osland and Bird, 2000). In ouropinion such paradoxes provide a vivid illustrationthat one needs a more fine-grained approach toanalysis of the cultural issues in knowledgemanagement rather than just relying on the assessedposition of a culture along some culture dimensionor other.

We would also argue that the level of theacceptance of metaphors in organizational settingscan be linked to whether the context of the culture ishigh or low (Hall, 1959) and to the structure of thelanguage used in particular culture. Thus people inhigh context cultures (with Russia and Japanbeing among them) are used to derive meaningsnot only from the direct verbal message, but alsofrom multiple contextual factors. Thus, the contentof communication can have multiple interpret-ations, and people are quite comfortable withsuch potential ambiguity. We believe that meta-phors are perceived and interpreted in the similarway and are thus reasonably accepted in highcontext cultures (to which Russia belongs). More-over, the Russian language is characterized byflexible word sequence and is very rich in adjectivesand adverbs. Thus we hypothesize that metaphorsare likely to be widely used and accepted in Russianorganizations.

Consultative decision-making as a part of leadershipstyle is a tool that supports SECI model. However,many studies suggest that such type of leadershipis not widely practiced by Russian managers(Ardichvili et al., 1998; Kets De Vries, 2000)—bothdue to the historical heritage of the leaders(Shekshnia, 2004) and due to attitudes of thefollowers (Fey et al., 1999).

The next managerial tool proposed by Nonakaand Takeuchi—open dialog of employees with eachother and managers—also seems to be problematic inRussian companies. One of the reasons for this isthat there is often significant tension betweenmanagers and employees in many Russian organ-izations (e.g., May et al., 1998). Another reasonrelates to the attitude to information and knowledgethat we have alreadymentioned above—that is theyare regarded as a source of power and thereforeshould only be shared out of necessity or for verygood reasons (Michailova and Husted, 2003). Thelack of incentive or opportunity to engage in opendialog is reinforced by the existence of high powerdistance and relatively authoritarian leadershipstyles. These conditions, along with the prevalenceof top–down communications and the situationwhere employees, on the one hand, do not have a lotof opportunities for discussions with senior man-agement, and on the other hand, they are notmotivated to take such opportunities when theyarise, further inhibit open dialog.

Many of the issues discussed above influencepotential of application in Russian companies ofyet another SECI tool—free access to corporate



information (as a policy and via the usage ofinformation technologies and databases). Not onlyare Russian employees reluctant to share infor-mation. Russian companies are also well known fortheir obsession with secrecy with respect to anykind of information related to their business and areluctance to share such information either intern-ally or externally. Thus we suggest that the keybarrier to implementation of the free access ofemployees to internal information in Russian compa-nies lies in the attitudes of Russian managers.

The development and application of job designthat allows sharing experience, observation, and imita-tion, also does not seem to be very easy to achieve inRussian companies, as it requires acceptance ofmistakes (that is not the case in many Russiancompanies as we have already mentioned) as wellas enough time for experimentation. The latter canbe difficult to negotiate with managers due to thedominating focus on the short-term results (Feyet al., 1999). The same reasoning applies to anotherSECI-supporting tool, policies that allow intensivelearning-by-doing.

Employees’ rotation between functions can poten-tially be used in Russian companies, and some bigcompanies have already started using this practice.Yet we would suggest that employees may bereluctant to accept such job rotations, partly due tothe fear of making mistakes, partly due to thestrength of the in-group ties, and also partly as aresult of the competitive relations between depart-ments.

Nonaka and Takeuchi view communities ofpractice as a useful tool to support knowledgecreation. Taking into account specifics of Russiancollectivism that we described above we wouldargue that communities of practice in Russianorganizations will tend to be focused withindepartments or functions, and special efforts shouldbe made to help them to cross the borders of small‘‘in-groups.’’

The extent to which Russian companies make useof the purposeful overlap of functional responsibilities(redundancy) is contentious. On the one hand,many Russian companies de facto have such overlap.However, such overlap typically has not beenestablished intentionally, it has developed naturallywith the growth of the company due to the lack ofattention of the managers to the organizationalstructure. The unintentional nature of such redun-dancy together with highly competitive environ-ment inside the company usually leads to manyconflicts both on interpersonal and interdepart-mental level. Thus, in order to optimize organiz-ational processes, reduce costs and diminish con-flicts, many Russian managers in fact seek toeliminate such redundancy. We see very similarsituation with respect to the use of generalized jobdescriptions by Russian organizations—while manyRussian organizations de facto use them, they are

usually perceived by employees as a result ofmismanagement and potential source of conflicts.

Table 2 presents the summary of our analysis. Itdemonstrates that, unlike in Glisby and Holden’s(2003) Japan–West comparison, there are bothdifferences and similarities between Russian andJapanese contexts, in terms of existence of societaland organizational conditions that support SECIbasic cognitive processes, and with respect to theapplicability of managerial tools that enable them.However, one can see that the differences heavilyoutweigh the similarities. Moreover, we wouldargue that the differences in conditions are moregrave than the differences in tools, because, aswe proposed above, the managers’ potential tochange conditions is much more limited.

Let us now consider what we may conclude fromour analysis. Can SECI model be applied in theRussian cultural context or not? Based on our ideathat the cognitive processes themselves are cultu-rally universal, we believe that four knowledgeconversion modes of SECI can be applied to aRussian context. However, taken into account thespecific aspects of the Russian context, we proposethat in order to support the smooth functioning ofthese modes, the set of tools that Russian managersneed to implement is likely to differ significantlyfrom those promoted by Nonaka and Takeuchi. Thetools that a Russian manager might need to applyare likely to be focused both on leveraging theconditions and tools that are similar to Japan, andon compensating the differences. What particularset of actions can fit best Russian-based companiesto support knowledge creation is an interestingquestion for further research. However, based onour analysis, some ideas and hypotheses can beformulated.

First, it is important to stress that, according toNonaka and Takeuchi, the four conversion modeshappen at different levels in the organization(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). While socializationmainly takes place in pairs or small groups,externalization evolves in small groups or insideorganizational units, and combination takesplace between the units, on the level of the wholeorganization. Thus, taking into account thepeculiarities of Russian group orientation (highin-group collectivism along with rather individua-listic behavior demonstrated in bigger commu-nities), we suggest that socialization in Russiancompanies is likely to run more smoothly, whilemore efforts from managers are needed to supportcombination.

Second, we hypothesize that attitude towardsknowledge as power can be surmounted with thehelp of the relevant and well-thought remunerationsystem. Michailova and Husted (2003) suggest thatin (Russian) organizations, hostile to knowledge-sharing, negative rewards (punishment) can be veryuseful. However, we have some doubts whether



such approach is always an efficient way ofimproving knowledge creation.

Next, we suggest that onemore attitude needs to beeliminated—that is that knowledge should essen-tially be kept secret and access to it be severelyrestricted. As this attitude is mainly held by Russianmanagers, the peoplewho are key decision-makers intheir organizations, it is likely that such attitude canonly really be changed by some forces external toorganization, i.e., at the institutional level throughmanagement education and management literaturethat promotes the value of sharing information andknowledge. Interventions at an institutional level canalso help to change the attitudes towards knowledgeexchange with external parties.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have examined the potential andthe limits of applicability of the SECI model ofknowledge creation in a Russian context. We havereviewed existing critical analyses of the applica-bility of the SECI model to different culturalcontexts and have concluded that while there wassome agreement on the idea that model was rootedin Japanese culture, the question to which extentand how it could be applied in other culturalcontexts was still open. We have suggested thede-composing the model into three levels—basic cognitive processes, societal and organiz-ational conditions, and managerial tools—opensthe ways for more fine-grained and groundedcross-cultural analysis. We have applied this three-level framework to undertake a comparative

analysis of the Japanese and Russian culturalcontexts through the lens of the SECI model andidentified a number of differences and similaritiesbetween these two countries with respect to theexistence of societal and organizational conditionsand applicability of managerial tools. Based on thisanalysis we have developed a number of prop-ositions regarding opportunities and limits relatingto the application of the SECI model in Russiancultural context.

We suggest that our analysis provides severaldistinct contributions to the contemporary dis-course on knowledge management. First, it extendsexisting academic discussion of the applicability ofthe SECI model to various cultural contexts andthus challenges the mainstream assumptions aboutthe universalism of this model. In our view, thedeeper apprehension of the cultural roots and limitsof applicability of basic knowledge managementconcepts will enrich both the understanding of thephenomenon of knowledge creation and use inorganizations, and improve the effectiveness andefficiency of knowledge management interventionsthrough the use of a wider and culturally-appro-priate repertoire of tools.

Second, the decomposition of the SECI model thatwe have developed in this paper may serve as a firmfoundation for empirical research on the SECImodel. It has been noted above that the SECI modelis very difficult to empirically test or validate (Riceand Rice, 2002). We suggest that the re-framing ofthe SECI model into three levels, as we proposed,opens doors to empirical research as it providespossibilities for operationalization of the model’svariables.

Table 2 Comparison of Russian and Japanese cultural contexts through SECI lenses

SECI elements Similarities Differences

Basic cognitiveprocesses

Four knowledge conversion modes n/a

Societal andorganizationalconditions

Level of external control (pressure fromshareholders)

Natural willingness of individuals to share knowledge

Polychronic/synchronous orientation Level of employees’ commitment/loyaltyGroup orientation� Cooperative versus competitive attitudes (both in

individual and interdepartmental level)Organizational involvement in extensive networksAttitude to mistakes

Managerialtools

Usage of metaphors, analogies and modelsin explanations

Job design allows sharing experience, observation, andimitation

Mentoring� Open dialog of employees with each other andmanagersCommunities of practicePurposeful overlap of functional responsibilitiesFree access to corporate informationLeadership and decision-making stylePolicies that allow intensive/frequent learning-by-doingRotation between functionsGeneralistic job descriptions

�indicates limited similarity.



Third, the analytical three-level framework wehave developed can be used both for the analysis ofSECI model’s applicability and for development ofpractical recommendations as to how to increase itsefficiency and effectiveness in different culturalcontexts. Fourth, it suggests how the SECI frame-work should be adapted to a particular (Russian)culture and thus may increase efficiency of knowl-edge management initiatives in Russian-basedcompanies. Thus it might be useful both for Russianmanagers and for international businesses thatcurrently have, or plan to establish, subsidiaryoperations in Russia.

The last contribution that we consider our workprovides is linked not to the knowledge manage-ment discourse but rather to the discourse onculture in management sciences. We believe thattreating culture from the culture-of-the-model pointof view helps to overcome the negative connotationsto culture as a barrier or inhibitor (Holden, 2002).Using the approach we have advocated culturecan be viewed as a filter or lense rather than abarrier.

We have addressed gaps in previous research onthe SECI knowledge creation model and itsapplicability across cultures, however, our analysisis, of course, still subject to some limitations. First,this paper is conceptual and thus further researchthat will generate empirical data on the actualapplicability and limitations of the SECI model andmanagerial recommendations derived from it isstrongly needed. Future research could both focuson Russian cultural context and apply our frame-work to other cultural settings.

Second, we focused on the level of nationalculture in our discussion. Moreover, for thepurposes of our analysis we treated both Russianand Japanese national cultures as homogenous.Such an approach certainly simplifies reality. Evenon the level of national culture both countries arequite diverse. In addition to this, knowledgecreation as a social process is likely to be affectedby multiple cultural spheres of influence, includ-ing, for example, industrial, organizational, pro-fessional, and functional cultures (Schneider andBarsoux, 2001). Future research may valuablyaddress cultural heterogeneity and interplaybetween different layers of culture.

REFERENCES

Alexashin Y, Blenkinsopp J. 2005. Changes in Russianmanagerial values: a test of the convergence hypoth-esis? International Journal of Human ResourceManagement16(3): 427–444.

Andreeva T. 2008. Can organizational change be plannedand controlled? Evidence from Russian companies.Human Resource Development International 11(2): 119–134.

Andreeva T. 2009. Knowledge exchange as a successfactor. An example of the OAO Mekhanobr-TekhnikaResearch Corporation. Case study, ECCH registrationno. 909-001-1.

Ang Z, Massingham P. 2007. National culture and thestandardization versus adaptation of knowledgemanagement. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(2):5–21.

Ardichvili A, Cardozo RN, Gasparishvili A. 1998. Leader-ship styles and management practices of russianentrepreneurs: implications for transferability ofWestern HRD interventions. Human Resource Develop-ment Quarterly 9(2): 145–155.

Bhagat RS, Kedia BL, Harveston PD, Triandis HC. 2002.Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer oforganizational knowledge: an integrative framework.Academy of Management Review 27(2): 204–221.

Boyacigiller NA, Adler NJ. 1991. The parochial dinosaur:organizational science in a global context. Academy ofManagement Review 16(2): 262–290.

Chuan L, Wen-Jung Ch. 2005. The effects of internalmarketing and organizational culture on knowledgemanagement in the information technology industry.International Journal of Management 22(4): 661–672.

Couto JP, Vieira JC. 2004. National culture and researchand development activities. Multinational BusinessReview 12(1): 19–35.

DeLong DW, Fahey L. 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriersto knowledge management. Academy of ManagementExecutive 14(4): 113–127.

Elenkov DS. 1998. Can American management conceptswork in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study.California Management Review 40(4): 133–156.

Fey CF, Denison D. 2003. Organizational culture andeffectiveness: can American theory be applied in Rus-sia? Organization Science 14(6): 686–706.

Fey CF, Nordahl C, Zatterstrom H. 1999. Organizationalculture in Russia: the secret to success. Business Horizons42(6): 47–55.

Glisby M, Holden N. 2003. Contextual constraints inknowledge management theory: the cultural embedd-edness of Nonaka’s knowledge-creating company.Knowledge & Process Management 10(1): 29–36.

Gourlay S. 2003. The SECI model of knowledge creation:some empirical shortcomings. Paper for the 4thEuropean Conference on Knowledge Management, Oxford,England. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/sngourlay/PDFs/Gourlay%202004%20SECI.pdf; accessed on October 16,2009.

Gurkov I, Zelenova O. 2007. Human resource manage-ment in Russia. http://www.gurkov.ru/publ_html/publik/2006/GURKOV_ZELENOVA-FIN.pdf;accessed on October 16, 2009.

Hall ET. 1959. The Silent Language. Doubleday: New York.Hall ET. 1976. Beyond Culture. Anchor Press: Garden City,

N.Y.Hofstede G. 1980. Motivation, leadership and organiz-

ation: do American theories apply abroad? Organiz-ational Dynamics 9(1): 42–63.

Hofstede G. 1996. An American in paris: the influence ofnationality on organization theories. Organization Stu-dies 17(3): 525–537.

Hofstede G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: ComparingValues, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organisations AcrossNations (2nd edition). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Holden NJ. 2002. Cross-cultural management: a knowledgemanagement perspective. Prentice Hall: Harlow, UK.

Holt DH, Ralston DA, Terpstra RH. 1994. Constraints oncapitalism in Russia: the managerial psyche, socialinfrastructure, and ideology. California ManagementReview 36(3): 124–141.



House J, Hanges PJ, JavidanM,Dorfman P, Gupta V. 2004.Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Studyof 62 Societies. Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks.

Javidan M, Stahl GK, Brodbeck F, Wilderom C. 2005.Cross-border transfer of knowledge: cultural lessonsfrom Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Executive19(2): 59–76.

Kayworth T, Leidner D. 2004. Organizational cultureas a knowledge resource. In Handbook on KnowledgeManagement 1: Knowledge Matters. Holsapple CW, (ed.).Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg; 235–252.

Kets De Vries M. 2000. A journey into the ‘‘Wild East’’:leadership style and organizational practices in Russia.Organizational Dynamics 28(4): 67–82.

King WR. 2007. A research agenda for the relationshipsbetween culture and knowledge management. Knowl-edge & Process Management 14(3): 226–236.

Kohlbacher F, Krahe M. 2007. Knowledge creation andtransfer in a cross-cultural context—empirical evidencefrom Tyco Flow Control. Knowledge & Process Manage-ment 14(3): 169–181.

May R, Young CB, Ledgerwood D. 1998. Lessons fromRussian human resource management experience.European Management Journal 16(4): 447–459.

May RC, Puffer SM, McCarthy DJ. 2005. Transferringmanagement knowledge to Russia: a culturally basedapproach. Academy of Management Executive 19(2): 24–35.

Michailova S, Husted K. 2003. Knowledge-sharing hosti-lity in Russian firms. California Management Review45(3): 59–77.

Michailova S, Hutchings K. 2006. National cultural influ-ences on knowledge sharing: A comparison of Chinaand Russia. Journal of Management Studies 43(3): 383–405.

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge-creating Com-pany: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics ofInnovation. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.

Osland JS, Bird A. 2000. Beyond sophisticated stereotyp-ing: cultural sense-making in context. Academy of Man-agement Executive 14(1): 65–80.

Polanyi M. 1997. Tacit knowledge. In Knowledge in Organ-izations, Prusak L (ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann:Boston; 135–146.

Ralston DA, Holt DH, Terpstra RH, Yu KC. 1997. Theimpact of national culture and economic ideology onmanagerial work values: a study of the United States,Russia, Japan and China. Journal of International BusinessStudies 28(1): 177–207.

Rice J, Rice B. 2002. The Applicability of the SECIModel toMulti-Organizational Endeavours: An IntegrativeFramework. International Journal of Organizational Beha-viour 9(6): 671–682.

Romer PM, (interviewed by J. Kurtzman). 2004. TheKnowledge Economy. In Handbook on Knowledge Man-agement 1: Knowledge Matters, Chapter 1. HolsappleCW, (ed.). Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg; 73–87.

Schein E. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership.Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schneider S, Barsoux JS. 2003. Managing Across Cultures.Prentice Hall: Harlow, UK.

Shane S. 1993. Cultural influences on national rates ofinnovation. Journal of Business Venturing 8(1): 59–74.

Shekshnia S. 1994. Managing people in Russia: challengesfor foreign investors. European Management Journal12(3): 298–305.

Shekshnia S. 2004. The Three Faces of Peter the Great –Leadership Lessons from the St. Petersburg’s Founder.INSEAD working papers.

Takeuchi H. 2001. Towards a universal concept of knowl-edge management. In Managing Industrial Knowledge,Nonaka I, Teece D (eds). Sage: London; 315–329.

Veiga JF, Yanouzas JN, Buchholtz AK. 1995. Emergingcultural values in Russia: what will tomorrow bring?Business Horizons July–August: 20–27.

Von KroghG, Ichijo K, Nonaka I. 2000. Enabling KnowledgeCreation. Oxford University Press: New York.

Weir D, Hutchings K. 2005. Cultural embeddedness andcontextual constraints: knowledge sharing in Chineseand Arab cultures. Knowledge & Process Management12(2): 89–98.

Woldu HG, Budhwar PS, Parkes C. 2006. A cross-nationalcomparison of cultural value orientations of Indian,Polish, Russian and American employees. InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management 17(6): 1076–1094.

Zhu Z. 2004. Knowledge management: towards a uni-versal concept or cross-cultural contexts? KnowledgeManagement Research & Practice 2(2): 67–79.



applicability of the seci model of knowledge creation in russian cultural context: theoretical...

Documents