jls_224_05_23-35.

qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 23

U N D E R S TA N D I N G L E A D E R S H I P
F O R C R O S S - C U LT U R A L
K N OW L E D G E M A N AG E M E N T

NHU T. B. NGUYEN AND KATSUHIRO UMEMOTO

This article examines the role of leadership in cross-cultural knowledge management (CCKM)
because both knowledge management and cross-cultural management are now regarded as popu-
lar topics in both academic and practical research in the age of globalization. We discuss the exist-
ing literature on the relationship between leadership and cross-cultural management as well as the
relationship between leadership and knowledge management to illustrate the importance of lead-
ership in each field. The concept of cross-cultural knowledge management—an ambiguous term—
will be presented from Nguyen, Umemoto, and Medeni’s (2007) work, establishing an expanded
role of cross-cultural management, which could be viewed as a subset of knowledge management.
To emphasize the impact of leadership on CCKM, we discuss the influence of leadership on each fac-
tor in the theoretical model of CCKM. Our understanding of the role of leadership in CCKM sug-
gests that international leaders should pay careful attention to managing fragmentation, integration,
and differentiation when they want to create and manage the cross-cultural knowledge of their em-
ployees.

Introduction with the age of globalization, leadership has been recog-

In an overview of leadership theory and research, nized as one of the most important resources for global
Chemers (2000) recognized that the historical analysis of settings (Adler, 2002; Dorfman, 2004; Fatehi, 2008; Gan-
leadership can be divided into four periods: the period of non & Newman, 2002; Hanges, Dorfman, Shteynberg,
Fiedler’s contingency model (1965, cited in Chemers, & Bates, 2006; Hartog & Dickson, 2004). Leadership
2000), the period of development and elaboration of has also been highlighted in the development of knowl-
contingency theories (1965–1975), the period of rec- edge management (KM), which is widely acknowledged
ognition of gender differences (1975–1985), and the pe- by both academic and practical researchers (Abdullah &
riod of transformational theories and theories about Othman, 2005; DeTienne, Dyer, Hoopes, & Harris,
cultural differences (from 1985 on). In this last period, 2004; Grisham, 2006; Huseman & Goodman, 1999;

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 2, Number 4, 2009

©2009 University of Phoenix
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI:10.1002/jls.20078 23
jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 24

Ichijo & Nonaka, 2007; Jennex & Olfman, 2005; culture is not synonymous with nation, and our defi-
Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2005; Politis, 2001). nitions of CCM emphasize not only the national level
Since the importance of leadership has been recog- of culture, but also levels such as organizational culture,
nized in the literature as one of the most important fac- professional culture, and group culture, to explain the
tors for both cross-cultural knowledge (CCM) and KM, interplay between various levels of culture that have
we attempt to contribute to the understanding of the been noted in some works (Bosche, 1993; Cameron &
role of leadership in cross-cultural knowledge manage- Quinn, 2006; Erez & Gati; Moran et al., 2007). At the
ment, which was proposed in Nguyen et al.’s (2007) individual level, culture refers to “cultural values as they
study as the combination of both CCM and KM. As are represented in the self ” (Erez & Gati, p. 589). Each
the term cross-cultural knowledge management is still rel- individual is nested in a group culture, which is also
atively new, it should be noted that until now, there embedded in an organizational culture. Each organiza-
have been few works on the influence of leadership on tional culture is created in a national culture that is
CCKM. We found only one working paper of Wu, nested within the global culture. We agree with Earley
Pauleen, and Yang (2008) on the effects of leadership and Singh (1995), who said that understanding the con-
and organizational culture on CCKM; this study looked text in which individuals and organizations operate and
at cases from Taiwan and New Zealand. function plays an important role in studies on CCM.
This article is organized into three main sections. The Understanding CCM at different levels can help us to
first section presents a review of the existing literature on avoid the difficulty of separating cultural and noncul-
the influence of leadership on CCM and KM, respec- tural variables (Yeganeh & Su, 2006) or of missing the
tively, to clarify the role of leadership in each. In the level of analysis in theory building, as well as in collect-
second section, we explain the concept and the theo- ing and analyzing data in cross-cultural studies (Hartog &
retical model of cross-cultural knowledge-management Dickson, 2004).
work, and establish an expanded role for CCM that To continue trying to define CCM, we refer to Adler
could be viewed as a subset of KM based on Nguyen (1983), who has described CCM as studies on the be-
et al.’s (2007) work. The importance of leadership in havior of people, as well as on the interaction of peo-
CCKM is emphasized by discussing the influence of ple from different countries working at the same
leadership on each factor of the process presented in the organization or in the same work environment. In
previous section. Finally, we discuss the contribution of Gannon and Newman’s (2002) Handbook of Cross-Cultural
this article, as well as some of its implications. Management, there is a framework of CCM, including
strategy; structure and interorganizational relationship;
human resource management across cultures; motiva-
Theoretical Background tion, rewards, and leadership behavior; interpersonal
INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP ON CROSS- processes; and corporate culture and values. Recently,
CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Fontaine (2007) has focused on six perspectives of
Prior to looking at the influence of leadership on cross- CCM, including the classical approach such as that used
cultural management, our understanding of CCM in Hofstede’s (2001) findings or Schwartz’s (1994) di-
should be explained because there are several different mensions; the anthropological approach focusing on
definitions of this confusing term. Finding an adequate ethnic groups; the psychological approach, explaining
definition of CCM is not an easy task: there exist more contextual factors such as national policies, organiza-
than 160 different definitions of culture (Pauleen, tional and individual factors; the stereotyping approach
2007). Some scholars have recognized that most cross- with a focus on stereotyping; the KM approach on cul-
cultural research has concentrated on the national level, ture as tacit knowledge based on Holden’s (2002)
such as investigating cross-cultural differences in proposition; and the system-thinking approach, which
national values, in organizational management, and makes assumptions based on system-thinking theories.
in implicit theories of social behavior (Erez & Gati, In this article, we will look at CCM with respect to these
2004). However, Bhagat and McQuaid (1982) noted that different issues. This means that culture may be seen as

24 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 25

the collective values, beliefs, language, and behaviors Adler (2002), culture is “the complex interaction of val-
(Evans et al., as cited in Hofmeister & Parker, 2003), ues, attitudes, and behaviors displayed by its members”
as well as the attitudes and actions of people in organ- (p. 17). Adler has explained that culture is normally ex-
izations (Adler, 2002). pressed by individuals through their values about life
As one of the first scholars who studied the interplay and about the world around them. The attitudes and
between leadership and organizational culture, Schein behaviors of individuals normally are influenced by
(1992) said that the study of leadership can be illumi- these values. This means that different cultures have dif-
nated by the analysis of culture because organizational ferent values, different attitudes, and different behav-
culture is the result of company founders, leaders of iors. This also explains why difficulties often occur
movements, institution builders, and social architects. between managers from one culture and employees
According to Schein, leadership creates, embeds, and from another culture (Hartog & Dickson, 2004; Shaw,
strengthens organizational culture. However, Schein 1990). As mentioned above, culture should be recog-
also pointed out that cultures, in turn, create the next nized at multiple levels. For example, the technical pro-
generation of leaders. This means that the complex in- fessional background of a manager sometimes causes
teractions between members in an organization based him to encounter difficulties in understanding the cul-
on their different historical experiences can lead cul- ture of his accountants.
ture into another direction. In addition, Baik (2003) Similar to Adler’s view, by examining the existing lit-
explored the fact that the relationships between ante- erature concerned with cross-cultural leadership,
cedents and issue leaders’ behavior are moderated by Dorfman (2004) also argued that cultural differences
organizational culture. Organizational culture was also influence leadership processes and the description of
recognized by Ashford et al. (as cited in Baik, 2003) as ideal leaders, through managerial attitudes, values, and
a contextual factor that influences leaders’ efforts beliefs. Dorfman also said that cultural differences have
effectively. a strong influence on the effectiveness of various be-
Also looking at the influence of leadership on cul- haviors. Regarding cultural differences, Fatehi (2008),
ture, Adler (2002) emphasized the influence of man- however, looked at the differences of norms, role ex-
ager’s beliefs, attitudes, and values on employees’ pectations, and traditions governing relations between
behavior. Referring to Douglas McGregor’s work, Adler various members of society. Based on two cultural di-
showed this influence as a cycle (see Figure 1). mensions, including acceptance of authority and deal-
The beliefs, attitudes, and values of managers depend ing with uncertainty, Fatehi discussed leadership
on their cultural background, because according to practices in Europe, the United States, and Japan to

Figure 1. Influence of manager’s beliefs, attitudes, and values

on employees’ behavior (Adapted from Adler, 2002)

Manager’s
Manager’s Employees’
Values, Beliefs,
Behavior Behavior
and Attitudes

Reinforces Manager’s Beliefs

Example:

Manager’s Manager’s Employees’

beliefs: Employees behavior: Tight behavior: Act as
can’t be trusted control systems “irresponsible kids”

Reinforces Manager’s Beliefs

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 25

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 26

suggest that international managers have to think about the leadership needs to manage cultural differences not
cultural differences among various regions of the world, only in national cultures, but also in group cultures,
despite the fact that there has not been any theory of professional cultures, and occupational cultures. This
leadership that covers all the values of different cultures. means that not only should leadership in multinational
However, Harris (2004) recognized that leadership is conpanies pay careful attention to cultural differences,
concerned with not only managing cultural differences, but that cultural differences can exist in any organiza-
but also with finding ways to foster cultural synergy, tion because each organization has different depart-
which is described as a dynamic process involving adapt- ments that create differences in cultures, and different
ing, learning, and creating an integrated solution. professions that create different professional cultures.
In another study of the role of leadership in culture, Second, understanding CCM in several fields leads lead-
Hanges et al. (2006) built a connectionist model of cul- ers to address their influence on employees’ behaviors,
ture and leadership by using cognitive categorization pro- attitudes, and beliefs (psychological aspects), and their
cesses and discrete schemas to explain the influence of impact on the interaction of people from different cul-
leadership’s behavior on the reactions and behavior tures working together (social aspects).
of followers from the interaction of leadership with
societal values and organizational culture. Hanges et al. INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP ON
also discussed three strategies for managing multina- KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
tional corporations, including assimilation, accommo- Similar to the relationship between CCM and leader-
dation, and integration. In the assimilation strategy, ship, numerous works from the existing literature have
leaders “select, educate, and socialize employees” (p. 29) highlighted the role of leadership in KM activities in
to convince them to adopt the leaders’ own perspective organizations.
by building a single organizational culture and leader- Prior to looking into the influence of leadership on
ship style. In the accommodation strategy, leaders have KM, we introduce a definition of knowledge in the con-
to recognize and understand employees’ differences by text of this article. Knowledge has regularly been used as
creating a climate for diversity. In the integration strat- a term distinct from data and information in the rele-
egy, leaders also encourage employees’ diverse views by vant literature on knowledge management (Baumard,
creating a climate of trust. Hartog and Dickson (2004) 1999; Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Dixon, 2000;
even explored how cultural differences may lead to dif- Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, as
ferences in approaching leadership. They explained that cited in Kohlbacher, 2007). Adding to this view, Choo
culture at both societal and organizational levels can (2006) proposed the transformation of information into
affect implicit leadership behavior and theories. They knowledge from two complementary dynamics. The
also showed the differences and similarities in the way first dynamic is “the structuring of data and informa-
people view effective leadership across many different tion that impose or reveal order and pattern” (p. 132).
cultures. The second is “the human acting on data and informa-
This section shows that there are several studies in tion that attributes senses and salience” (p. 132). Infor-
the literature that have emphasized the importance of mation becomes knowledge, according to Choo, “when
leadership in CCM. Prior to concluding this section, a human actor forms justified, true beliefs about the
we note that CCM in this study has been understood as world” (p. 133). Davenport and De Long (1998) and
cultural differences seen from different levels, such Kwan and Cheung (as cited in Balmisse, Meingan, &
as differences in national culture, organizational culture, Passerini, 2008) also said that information could not be
professional culture, or occupational culture. On the transformed into knowledge without an “individual
other hand, CCM can be studied in several fields such actor who adds value to information by creating knowl-
as in psychology, anthropology, or sociology (Bosche, edge” (p. 153). Adding to this viewpoint, some other
1993). Leadership can benefit from the understanding scholars (Adamides & Karacapilidis, 2006; Davenport &
of culture at multiple levels and its different issues. First, Jarvenpaa, as cited in Balmisse et al., 2008; Frank &
understanding culture at multiple levels suggests that Garnodi, 2005) recognized that the key difference

26 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 27

between information and knowledge is distinguished and commitment, and tools means communities of prac-
by the role played by the individual actors. Tsoukas and tice and infrastructure.
Vladimirou (2005) describe knowledge as “the individ- Knowledge management has been understood by
ual capability to draw distinctions, within a domain of Politis (2001) as skills and traits, and the impact of lead-
action, based on an appreciation of context or theory” ership on KM has been recognized via this under-
(p. 95). From this understanding of knowledge, they standing. Politis indicated that leadership styles
explained that organizational knowledge is the develop- influence human interaction and encourage participa-
ment of the members’ capability in an organization “to tive decision making, which are positively related to
draw distinctions in the process of carrying out their skills and traits. Leaders not only have influence on
work, in particular concrete contexts, by enacting sets of human interaction and decision making in organiza-
generalizations whose application depends on histori- tions, but also have the “ability to view the world dif-
cally evolved collective understandings” (p. 128). They ferently, to change people’s frame of reference”
looked into Bell’s definition of three concepts: knowl- (Huseman & Goodman, 1999). Huseman and
edge, information, and data, noting that the difference Goodman said that successful knowledge-creating
between knowledge and information is that knowledge organizations have leaders who have come to understand
includes values and beliefs, and relates to action. Then, the relationship between leadership and knowledge.
according to Bell (as cited in Tsoukas & Vladimirou, Also highlighting the importance of leadership for
2005), “knowledge is the capacity to exercise judgment knowledge management, Abdullah and Othman (2005)
of the significance of events and items, which comes recognized the role of leadership in knowledge man-
from a particular context and/or theory” (p. 120). This agement via organizational culture. The role of leader-
capacity depends on the competence of drawing dis- ship in organizational culture and the role of
tinctions of an individual as well as the location of that organizational culture in knowledge management have
individual, such as “a form of life, or a practice, or a been reviewed in order to show the strong influence of
horizon of meaning, or consensual domain” (p. 121). leadership on knowledge-management initiatives.
Based on the above understandings of knowledge, we Many other scholars saw leadership as one of the
define knowledge in the present article as the individ- most important factors for KM. For example, DeTienne
ual’s competence of adding values by exercising judg- et al. (2004) built a model of effective knowledge man-
ment and drawing distinctions of information from a agement in which leadership is one of the four factors
particular context. (including leadership, organizational culture, chief
We then review studies on the role of leadership in knowledge officers, and technology) to manage knowl-
KM and conclude that leadership has influences on KM edge effectively. Handzic and Zhou (2005) also said that
as well. Being a well-known scholar in the KM disci- leadership is one of the most important managerial in-
pline with the theory of The Knowledge-Creating Com- fluences on KM. They explained that strong leadership
pany in 1995, Nonaka and his colleagues (Toyama and guided the adoption of KM and managed knowledge
Konno), in 2002, developed the knowledge-creation resources for maximum benefits.
theory by emphasizing the role of leadership in the pro- In Ichijo and Nonaka’s (2007) latest book about
cess of creating knowledge. According to Nonaka, knowledge creation and management, one chapter on
Toyama, and Konno (2002), leadership contributes to the leadership challenge of knowledge-creating compa-
knowledge vision, develops knowledge assets, creates a nies also emphasizes the role of leadership in building
collaborative place, and promotes a continuous spiral and managing knowledge in organizations. Recently, by
of knowledge creation. Also, recognizing that KM in- reviewing the literature to provide a framework for as-
cludes knowledge identification, knowledge sharing, sessing KM and KM success factors and models, Jennex
and knowledge creation in Nonaka and Takeuchi’s point and Olfman (2005)’s work included leadership as one
of view, Grisham (2006) argued that leadership and of 12 success factors. This study was based on many pre-
tools are the foundations of KM. According to Grisham, vious works looking at KM and the factors that can in-
leadership means trust, communication, empathy/caring, fluence KM success. We agree with the conclusion of

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 27

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 28

Figure 2. Influence of leadership on KM and CCM differences, using awareness and understanding of
cultural differences to develop a new culture adept at
Leadership adjusting to new cultural environments. This new cul-
ture improves and enhances knowledge management
activities (p. 35).

Knowledge Cross-Cultural As these authors noted, this definition of CCKM

Management Management highlights the positive views of culture as well as the po-
tential of culture to be used as a knowledge-management
tool. They found not only a new way of understanding
CCKM, but also built a theoretical model of this rela-
tively new term by linking three perspectives of the or-
Anantatmula (2008) about the role of leadership in KM. ganizational culture theory of Martin (1992) and
The first role of leadership in KM, according to Anan- acculturation, as shown in Figure 3.
tatmula, is to build and open a transparent environment This theoretical model is composed of four stages.
(organizational/group culture) that could establish trust Fragmentation, the first stage, is described as the am-
among employees and also between employees and man- biguities and uncertainties of every individual when
agers in organizations by the clear and effective com- they encounter a new culture. The ambiguities and un-
munications of managers. Having such an environment certainties of this stage are explained as different inter-
encourages all members in organizations/groups to com- pretations of each individual. To avoid fragmentation,
municate with open dialogue, clearly and effectively. people tend to integrate into that new environment. As
When employees can share and create knowledge, or- a tool to reduce ambiguous and uncertain interpreta-
ganizations can implement KM successfully. The second tions and manifestations that are hidden in the first
role of leadership in KM is to practice strategic planning stage, integration is the second stage. Integration shows
and systems-thinking approaches. When employees un- the intentions and efforts to get harmony and homo-
derstand goals and routines, they are also impatient to geneity of each individual when he or she enters a new
accomplish the goals, as people always want to take on culture. However, according to Nguyen et al. (2007),
challenges and opportunities. the integration stage is not enough to establish adapta-
To summarize the two sections above, Figure 2 shows tion to a new environment. After the integration stage,
that leadership plays an important role in both CCM each individual recognizes the existence of differences
and KM.

Figure 3. A theoretical model of cross-cultural knowledge

Cross-Cultural Knowledge
management (adapted from Nguyen, Umemoto, &
Management
Medeni, 2007)
First, it should be noted that cross-cultural knowledge
management (CCKM) is a polysemantic term. Nguyen
et al. (2007) recognized that the term cross-cultural
knowledge management can be understood in two ways. Fragmentation Integration
In one sense, CCKM is used to describe knowledge
management in a cross-cultural environment. In an-
other sense, it may refer to the management of cross-
cultural knowledge. Using both the above
interpretations, CCKM has been defined by Nguyen,
Umemoto, and Medeni, as follows: Acculturation Differentiation

Cross-cultural knowledge management (CCKM) is

composed of a series of practices to recognize cultural

28 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 29

such as different cultures, backgrounds, educations, pro- KM, the question is raised whether leadership has any
fessions, and groups. Differentiation, the third stage, is role in CCKM. The purpose of this section is to sug-
the recognition of the separate and distinct values of gest answers to this question.
cultural differences. Nguyen et al. also said that the rec- Understanding CCKM based on Nguyen et al.’s
ognition of these differences helps every member in an (2007) work, the present study addresses the impact of
organization to create a new culture, which includes val- leadership on CCKM by using the literature of leader-
ues added from two or more cultures to adapt to the ship, which may explain the influence of leadership on
cross-cultural environment. They used the term accul- each factor of the theoretical model of CCKM described
turation to describe these adjustments and adaptations. in Figure 3. First, we discuss the impact of leadership
One of their explorations is the linkage between CCM on ambiguities and uncertainties in the fragmentation
and KM, using the spiral of cross-cultural knowledge stage of the theoretical model of CCKM. Leadership
to improve and enhance KM. To explain why cross- usually uses metaphors to create visions and values
cultural knowledge is a spiral from which KM can be through communication. These are described as verbal
improved and enhanced, they suggested that there are strategies (Charteris-Black, 2007). Charteris-Black ex-
two ways of understanding the impact of cross-cultural plained that personal, inner visions could be connected
knowledge on KM: the first way is to use new culture with outer social realities by using metaphor. He also
acquired from acculturation to contribute to KM in or- argued that using metaphors could not only avoid bar-
ganizations, and the second way is to examine the in- riers of religions and politics, but could also satisfy the
fluence of each perspective, such as fragmentation, psychoemotional needs of followers. Metaphor has been
integration, or differentiation, on the knowledge- defined by Charteris-Black as “a linguistic representa-
creation process. The second way has also been ex- tion that results from the shift in the use of a word or
plained by Nguyen (2007) by linking these perspectives phrase from a context or domain in which it is expected
to the SECI (socialization, externalization, combina- to occur to another context or domain where it is not
tion, and internalization) model built by Nonaka and expected to occur, thereby causing semantic tension”
Takeuchi (1995). This work is summarized in Figure 4. (p. 42). This definition implies a change in the sense of
words. This change is effective not only in communi-
cating leadership, as Charteris-Black described, but also
Understanding Leadership for CCKM in creating a network of new concepts (Nonaka, 1994).
Since leadership has an important role in both CCM Nonaka described metaphor as a typical method of
and KM, and CCKM is the combination of CCM and perception that can merge two different and distant

Figure 4. Interaction of knowledge management and cross-cultural management

CCKM

Fragmentation Integration

Acculturation Differentiation

Knowledge Cross-Cultural
Management Management

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 29

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 30

areas of experiences into one, and link contradictory short-run rules for new members from other countries,
things and ideas. Using metaphor then leads to creating other organizations, other departments, or other groups,
a new meaning, which can become a grand concept for to bring about their integration into the organization.
organizations, according to Nonaka. He also introduced With short-run rules, leadership can get feedback
chaos and fluctuations as other necessary conditions for quickly, which will help to establish rules and instruc-
knowledge creation in his famous SECI model of tions according to the requirements of change.
the knowledge-creation process. Nonaka said that chaos Returning to the role of leadership in CCKM, the
and fluctuation have often been used by top managers in impact of leadership on the integration of members in
Japanese companies as a purposeful use of ambiguities. organizations and of organizations in the age of
He explained that ambiguities can lead to a reflection or globalization has been discussed in both leadership stud-
questioning of values premises for top management. ies and management studies. Saying that leadership is
As has been pointed out above, fragmentation also in- the first requirement for change, Cox, Pearce, and Perry
cludes uncertainty when individuals enter a new cultural (2003) described five components of a model for cul-
environment. The importance of managing uncertainty tural change: leadership, research and measurement,
is also perceived by Hogg (2001) as a tool for maintain- education, alignment of management systems, and fol-
ing or strengthening leadership’s position. According to low-up. Leadership, according to Cox, should include
Hogg, leaders should have a clear prediction based on a management philosophy, vision, organization design,
prototype that closely matches with them when they personal involvement, communications strategy, and
raise uncertainty. However, at the level of national cul- strategic integration. Achieving strategic integration has
ture, uncertainty also depends on each nation (Hofstede, been pointed out by Cox as one of the most serious
2001). Hofstede divided countries into two types, coun- sources of successful results for diversity change in a
tries with high uncertainty avoidance and low company. Cox showed that the overall mission of the
uncertainty avoidance. People in countries with low un- organization is the first type of strategy integration. This
certainty avoidance accept uncertainty as an inherent means that the leadership has to explain the existing di-
aspect of life and take it in stride (Fatehi, 2008). When versity in an organization as organizational potential, as
working in these cultures, according to Fatehi, using diversity may also cause difficulties in task coordination
democratic-participative management is useful for lead- (Zenger & Lawrence, as cited in Tsai, 2005). Employees
ership, as subordinates can participate in the decision- and followers should understand the impact of prof-
making process when they have more autonomy and itability on diversity. To do that, leadership must take
freedom. Thus, to deal with uncertainty, Fatehi suggested the initiative to send the message with conviction.
that leadership give “subordinates enough direction and However, it should be noted that conviction cannot be
instruction to adequately perform their task” (p. 226). effective without trust. Lack of trust between leadership
This point has also been developed in Grote and and employees/followers in building-strategy integra-
Weichbrodt’s (2007) study on uncertainty management tion may cause failure for the expected result. Trust has
at the organizational level through flexible routines. This been recognized by many studies as an effective factor
study showed that too many tight rules can put indi- for leadership to build effective relationships among
viduals at a disadvantage for adapting to a new environ- members and units in an organization (Grisham, 2006;
ment. Managing uncertainty at the organizational level Hitt, Keats, & Yucel, 2003). In addition to trust, inte-
also has been discussed in Cyert and March’s work (as gration of members in an organization also depends on
cited in Hofstede, 2001), which recommended that or- their national cultures based on individualism or
ganizations should build decision rules based on short- collectivism. When their national culture is individual-
run reaction to short-run feedback, and impose plans istic, asking for their integration may take time. But if
that can be made self-confirming by some control de- individuals come from a collectivist culture, they can
vice. These rules and plans cannot depend on prediction easily integrate into the new organization.
of uncertain future events. This view can be applied to The influence of leadership on differentiation, the
leadership in managing uncertainty. Leadership may use next step of the CCKM process, can be discussed

30 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 31

through two main points. First, the role of leadership in Here, we argue that leadership has an important role: to
recognition of the importance of cultural differences will create and manage differentiation in organizations. It
be discussed. The recognition of cultural differences is should be noted again that, as in our explanation in the
“not the same as judging people from one culture to be first section regarding CCM, cultural differences can be
better or worse than those from other cultures” (Adler, understood at different levels, including the national level,
2002, p. 107). Adler discussed cultural blindness of man- the organizational level, the professional level, the occu-
agers with North American cultural norms, which en- pational level, and the group level. Leadership cannot cre-
courage managers to blind themselves to gender, race, ate different national cultures in an organization in the
sex, and ethnicity and judge employees only based on case that their organization is not a multinational com-
professional skills. According to Adler, the problem with pany. However, as CCM can include different professions,
cultural blindness is the confusion of the recognition different occupations, different departments, and different
of cultural differences with the judging of those differences. groups, we argue that CCM exists in any organization.
She also explained that judging cultural differences, even Creating cross-functional teams is also a way of creating
as good, may cause “inappropriate, offensive, racist, sex- diversity, and Parker (1994) noted that the diversity of
ist, and ethnocentric attitudes and behavior” (p. 107). cross-functional teams may create a new culture. Ways in
Further, Adler emphasized that understanding cultural which managers create diversity have also been reported by
differences may enable us not only to limit the problems Cox, et al. (2003), who divided leadership into two types,
caused by cultural diversity, but also to appreciate the appointed or emergent team leader and shared leadership.
opportunities of diversity. The opportunities of diver- Shared leadership has been explained as the team itself act-
sity have been recognized by Cox et al. (2003) as ing as leader. This means that every member in the group
potential performance and added values such as problem or organization has significant authority to participate in
solving, creativity and innovation, organizational flexi- decision making. This authority has been reported as a
bility, human talent, and marketing strategy. When Cox trend in the age of the complexity of technology, and given
discussed the problems of understanding real diversity, the need for enhancing mutual adjustment between dif-
he emphasized that employees feel “pressure to conform” ferent positions in organizations (Kruglianskas & Thamhain,
(p. 12) to existing organizational culture. This means as cited in Cox et al., 2003).
that when new employees go to a new organization or Bryant (2003) further noted that the characteristic of
group, they tend to modify their attitudes and behav- postmodern times is hyperdifferentiation. According to
iors to achieve acceptance of the majority of members Bryant, hyperdifferentiation may “bring alive contradic-
in that organization or group. This point can be referred tory tendencies” (p. 7), but de-differentiation may “in-
to as the integration stage of the above theoretical model volve bridging the relentless fragmentation of recursive
of CCKM. When we enter a new environment, we try specialism” (p. 7). Therefore, the role of leadership here
to integrate. This means that the integration stage of is not only to create diversity, but also to control the de-
CCKM model can be understood as a hidden aspect gree of differentiation. Differentiation can be a business
of cultural differences. The role of leadership when try- advantage for organizations, but also can create conflict.
ing to understand diversity or cultural differences has The measure of differentiation should be managed, as
been to start at the integration stage, not at the differ- the difference between collaboration and conflict is very
entiation stage. However, how can we understand the slight. Forcing the organization or group to integrate and
hidden attitudes and behavior of employees when they coordinate may increase differentiation (Day & Lance,
tend to modify or hide these hidden attitudes? Using 2004). The measure of both differentiation and integra-
trust is not enough, because some employees integrate tion should be well controlled, because they are consid-
into an organization, but try to hide their differences. ered as core components of complexity (Day & Halpin,
This means that, leadership uses not only trust, but also 2004). Day and Halpin argued that the complexity of
emphasizes their appreciation of differences. Explaining to thinking, acting, and interacting with others may create
employees that cultural differences can help an organization changes, including qualitative and quantitative changes,
develop may encourage them to express their differences. as foundations of growth (Day & Lance).

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 31

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 32

From the above reviews, we can summarize some spe- (2007) work on defining and building a theoretical
cific tasks of leadership when managing cross-cultural model of CCKM. Their understanding of CCKM
knowledge. guided us to think about the role of leadership in
• To manage the fragmentation process of CCKM CCKM since leadership has effects on both KM
process, leaders have to use two processes. First, and CCM. Understanding the impact of leadership on
leaders should use metaphors. Using metaphors CCKM is an important consideration for leaders to
may avoid barriers of cultural differences to create manage effectively cross-cultural knowledge of members
effective communications among members in in organizations, as well as to use their knowledge to
organizations and lead to creating a network of improve and enhance KM.
new concepts. Second, leaders should use short- This article also suggests that international managers
run rules, such as short-run reaction, or short-run should pay careful attention to manage fragmentation,
feedback. Using short-run rules is not only for integration, and differentiation. As we explained in the
the purpose of having flexible rules, but also to third section, ambiguity and uncertainty in fragmenta-
help leadership get feedback quickly to build or- tion may be created by leadership via metaphor, which
ganizational rules and instructions corresponding may avoid cultural differences in the first step when new
to the requirements of change. members enter an organization. But ambiguities and
uncertainties, on the contrary, may cause misunder-
• To improve and enhance integration in the pro-
standings and misinterpretations, which also block new-
cess of managing cross-cultural knowledge, lead-
comers from going to the integration stage. Despite
ers should build a transparent environment based
using trust for integration and creating diversity for dif-
on trust.
ferentiation, managers need to control it as well. Finally,
• To manage differentiation, leaders should explain managers should recognize and understand cultural dif-
to employees their appreciation of differences to ferences at different levels to create and manage differ-
encourage employees to express their differences. entiation in an organization. Managers should let
In addition, leadership can use a “shared leader- employees know about their appreciation of differences,
ship” strategy, which encourages every employee which may allow the expression of their employees’ hid-
in an organization to participate in decision mak- den attitudes and behaviors.
ing. When employees have significant authority, There are three limitations that we have to note in
they more easily express their differences. In this article. First, when discussing fragmentation, we pre-
case the organization has little cultural difference sented the idea of using metaphor, creating chaos and
(e.g., the organization is not a multinational fluctuations that may cause ambiguities and uncertain-
company), leadership may create cross-functional ties. On the other hand, we emphasized how to avoid
teams as a means of increasing differences. ambiguity and uncertainty. Why should leaders create
• As acculturation is a creation of the cross-cultural ambiguities and uncertainties and avoid them?
knowledge process (the result of fragmentation, Is this discussion contradictory? We think that ambigu-
integration, and differentiation stages). Thus our ities and uncertainties should be divided into two types:
argument that leadership has impacts on frag- ones that are useful and others that are harmful. How-
mentation, integration, and differentiation, leads ever, we didn’t reveal the aspects of useful ambiguities
to the conclusion that leadership has influences and uncertainties, especially for CCKM. Our future
on acculturation accordingly. work may investigate this point, as it may contribute to
explaining and understanding complexity, as well as ob-
Conclusion taining its benefits. This suggestion also promises a fu-
We discuss in this article the influence of leadership on ture study on developing dimensions and measurements
CCKM by examining the role of leadership in of fragmentation, integration, and differentiation, which
fragmentation, integration, and differentiation. In con- serve as factors in cross-cultural knowledge creation. The
clusion, we highlight the importance of Nguyen et al.’s second limitation of this article is that we examine only

32 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 33

one side of the relationship between leadership and frag- Bryant, J. (2003). The six dilemmas of collaboration: Interorganiza-
mentation, integration, and differentiation. The other tional relationships as drama. London: Wiley.
side of this relationship—how fragmentation, integra- Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and Chang-
tion, and differentiation influence leadership—is to be ing Organizational Culture: Based On The Competing Values
studied in future work. Not having testable propositions Framework. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
to prove the value of this work is the third limitation of Charteris-Black, J. (2007). The communication of leadership: The de-
the present article, since, as Whetton (1989) said, “Al- sign of leadership style. New York: Routledge.
though the researcher may be unable to adequately test
Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A func-
links, restrictions in methods do not invalidate the in- tional integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4,
herent causal nature of theory” (p. 491). We will attempt 27–43.
to validate this work in the future by looking at a series
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of
of selected international joint ventures (IJVs) in Viet-
shared leadership and distributed influence in the innovation pro-
nam (American-Vietnamese, Chinese-Vietnamese, cess: How shared leadership can enhance new product development
French-Vietnamese, and Japanese-Vietnamese IJVs) to team dynamics and effectiveness. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger
understand the role of leadership on CCKM through (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership
these cases studies. (pp. 48–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2004). Growing leaders for tomorrow:

References An introduction. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.),
Abdullah, N. & Othman, A. (2005). The influence of leadership on Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders
organizational culture and its effects on knowledge management ini- for tomorrow (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
tiatives. Paper presented at International Conference on Knowledge Day, D. V., & Lance, E. C. (2004). Understanding the develop-
Management (ICKM), 7–9th July 2005, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ment of leadership complexity through latent growth modeling. In
Retrieved 1 December 2007 from http://ickm.upm.edu.my/parallel D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader develop-
%20Session%201/NorHazana_THE%20INFLUENCE%20OF% ment for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow
20LEADERSHIP%20ON%20ORGANIZATIONAL%20CULT.doc (pp. 41–70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: The DeTienne, K. B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C., & Harris, S. (2004). To-
ostrich and the trend. Academy of Management Review, 8, ward a model of effective knowledge management and directions
226–232. for future research: Culture, leadership, and CKOs. Journal of Lead-
Adler, N. J. (2002). International Dimensions of Organizational Be- ership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 26–43.
havior (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western. Dorfman, P. W. (2004). International and cross-cultural leadership
Anantatmula, V. S. (2008). Knowledge management success: Roles research. In B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for in-
of management and leadership. In K. O’Sullivan (Ed.), Strategic ternational management research (2nd ed., pp. 265–355). Ann Arbor:
knowledge management in multinational organizations, The University of Michigan Press.
(pp. 299–310). New York: Information Science Reference. Earley, P. C. & Singh, H. (1995). International and intercultural
management research: What’s next? Academy of Management Jour-
Baik, K. (2003). Issue leadership theory and its implications in
nal. 38(2): 327–340.
global settings. In Mobley, W. H & Dorfman, R.W. (Eds), Advances
in Global Leadership (pp. 37–62). Oxford Elsevier. Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic multilevel model of culture:
From the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global
Balmisse, G., Meingan, D., & Passerini, K. (2008). Technology
culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 583–598.
trends in knowledge management tools. In K. O’Sullivan (Ed.),
Strategic knowledge management in multinational organizations Fatehi, K. (2008). Managing internationally: Succeeding in a cultur-
(pp. 152–166). New York: Information Science Reference. ally diverse world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bhagat, R. S., & McQuaid, S. J. (1982). Role of subjective culture Fontaine, R. (2007). Cross-cultural management: Six perspectives.
in organizations: A review and directions for future research. Jour- Cross-Cultural Management: An International Journal. 14(2):
nal of Applied Psychology, 67, 653–695. 125–135.

Bosche, M. (1993). Le management interculturel [Intercultural man- Gannon, J. M., & Newman, L. K. (2002). Handbook of cross-
agement]. Poitiers, France: Éditions Nathan. cultural management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 33

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 34

Grisham, T. (2006). Cross-cultural leadership. Unpublished doctoral dis- Moran, R, T., Harris, P. R. & Moran, S. V. (2007). Managing cultural
sertation. Royal Melbourne Institute, Technology University, Australia. differences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century, Seventh edi-
Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://adt.lib.rmit.edu.au/ tion. Oxford: Elsevier.
adt/uploads/approved/adt-VIT20061116.125205/ public/ 02whole.pdf
Nguyen, N. T. B. (2007). Knowledge management from organiza-
Grote, G., & Weichbrodt, J. C. (2007). Uncertainty management tional culture perspectives. Proceedings of the Second International
through flexible routines in a high-risk organization. Paper presented Conference on Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems
at the Second Annual Cambridge Conference on Regulation, In- (KICSS2007), Ishikawa, Japan, 9-13. JAIST Press.
spection, and Improvement: The End of Zero Risk Regulation: Risk
Nguyen, N. T. B., Umemoto, K., & Medeni, T. (2007). Towards a
Toleration in Regulatory Practice, Cambridge, England.
theoretical model of cross-cultural knowledge management. Jour-
Handzic, M., & Zhou, A. Z. (2005). Knowledge Management: An nal of Knowledge, Culture, and Change Management, 7(9), 33–40.
Integrative Approach. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
Hanges, P. J., Dorfman, P. W., Shteynberg, G., & Bates, A. L., III. creation. Organization Science. 5(1): 14–37.
(2006). Culture and leadership: A connectionist information- Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating com-
processing model. In W. H. Mobley, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Advances pany: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.
in global leadership (Vol. 4, pp. 7–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier. New York: Oxford Univeersity Press.
Harris, R. P. (2004). European leadership in cultural synergy. Eu- Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2002). SECI, Ba, and lead-
ropean Business Review, 16(4), 358–380. ership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. In S. Little,
P. Quitas, & T. Ray (Eds.), Managing knowledge: An essential reader
Hartog, D. N., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). Leadership and culture.
(pp. 41–67). London: Sage Publications.
In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The na-
ture of leadership (pp. 249–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Parker, M. G. (1994). Cross-functional teams: Working with allies,
enemies, and other strangers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & Yucel, E. (2003). Strategic leadership
in global business organizations: Building trust and social capital. In Pauleen, D. J. (2007). Cross-cultural perspectives on knowledge man-
W. H. Mobley & P. W. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in global leader- agement. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
ship (Vol. 3, pp. 9–36). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Politis, J. D. (2001). The relationships of various leadership styles to
Hofmeister, J., & Parker, S. (2003). Creating and sustaining bal- knowledge management. Leadership and Organization Development
ance in global business: A practitioner view. In W. H. Mobley & Journal, 22, 354–364.
P. W. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in global leadership ( Vol. 3,
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd
pp. 275–301). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, be- Shaw, J. B. (1990). A cognitive categorization model for the study
haviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). of intercultural management. Academy of Management Review, 15,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 257–266.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personal Tsai, S. F. (2005). Composite diversity, social capital, and group
and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200. knowledge sharing: A case narration. Knowledge Management Re-
search and Practice, 3, 218–228.
Holden L. N. (2002). Cross-Cultural Management: A Knowledge
Management Perspective. Harlow: Financial Times. Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2005). What is organizational
knowledge? In Little, S., & Ray, T. (Eds), Managing Knowledge: An
Huseman, R. C., & Goodman, J. P. (1999). Leading with knowl-
essential reader (pp. 85–106). London: Sage Publications.
edge: The nature of competition in the 21st century. London: Sage.
Whetton, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribu-
Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2007). Knowledge creation and management:
tion? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490–495.
New challenges for managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wu, L., Pauleen, D., & Yang, W. (2008). The effects of leadership and
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2005). Assessing knowledge man- organizational culture on cross-cultural knowledge management: Cases
agement success. International Journal of Knowledge Management, from Taiwan and New Zealand. Manuscript submitted for publication.
1(2), 33–49.
Yeganeh, H., & Su, Z. (2006). Conceptual foundations of cultural
Kohlbacher, F. (2007). International marketing in the network econ- management research. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Man-
omy: A knowledge-based approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. agement, 6, 361–376.

34 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

jls_224_05_23-35.qxd 2/5/09 12:13 PM Page 35

Nhu T. B. Nguyen is currently a doctoral student at the Graduate and Technology (JAIST), Japan. Katsuhiro Umemoto
School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science graduated from Kyushu University in 1975 with a BA in
and Technology (JAIST), Japan. She received a bachelor’s degree in economics. He has worked as a research associate for Ikujiro
international trade from Hanoi Foreign Trade University, Vietnam Nonaka at Hitotsubashi University and obtained his doctoral
(2001) and a master’s degree in international trade law from the degree in public policy from George Washington University in
University of Francois-Rabelais de Tours, France (2005). She has 1997. His current research interests include knowledge man-
been working for a French maritime company (CMA CGM) in agement in nonbusiness sectors such as public administration,
Vietnam for more than four years (2002–2006). Her research in- health care, social welfare, NPOs, and so forth. He was a
terests include cross-cultural management, knowledge management, member of the project for the Knowledge-Creating Company
cross-cultural knowledge management, organizational-culture per- that initiated the knowledge-management movement and has
spectives including a fragmentation, integration, and differentia- translated the book into Japanese. He has also translated
tion perspective. She can be reached at nhu.ntb@jaist.ac.jp. Davenport and Prusak’s Working Knowledge and Nancy
Dixon’s Common Knowledge, worldwide bestsellers in the
Katsuhiro Umemoto is a Professor in the Graduate School of field of knowledge management. He can be reached at
Knowledge Science of Japan Advanced Institute of Science ume@jaist.ac.jp.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 2 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 35