Nonaka and Takeuchi's book The Knowledge Creating Company is one of the most influential in the field of knowledge management. The famous SECI Model, representing the four modes of knowledge creation (socialization, externalization, combination and internalization) seems to have been accepted by the knowledge management community as universally valid in conception and in application. This paper argues that the model must be seen first and foremost as a product of the environment from which it emerged, namely Japan. It is contended that each of the four modes can only be understood with reference to their embeddedness in Japanese social and organizational culture and related value systems. Thus the model should be used with caution. It should be seen as a map rather than a model; or perhaps as a special kind of mirror, which allows us to see ourselves and our knowledge management practices in new ways for directing change.

Cross cultural management is often regarded as a discipline of international management focusing on cultural encounters between what are perceived as well-defined and homogeneous entities: the organization and the nation-state, and offering tools to handle cultural differences seen as sources of conflict or miscommunication. The authors argue that this approach is out of phase with the business world of today, with its transnational companies that face the challenges of the management of global knowledge networks and multicultural project teams, interacting and collaborating across boundaries using global communication technologies. The authors emphasize the need for an alternative approach which acknowledges the growing complexity of inter- and intra-organizational connections and identities, and offers theoretical concepts to think about organizations and multiple cultures in a globalizing business context.

Knowledge transfer is often likened to acts of translation. It is argued that translation is a very robust analogue of knowledge transfer and that theory provides insight into cross-cultural sharing processes. Three issues which affect the quality of translation and, hence, knowledge transfer are highlighted: ambiguity, interference (intrusion from one's own cultural background) and lack of equivalence. Other terms from translation science, which can serve as a useful reference for knowledge management experts, are discussed: translation as a networking activity, process and end-product quality, levels of accuracy and constraints on the production of good translations. A new concept is introduced to the knowledge management community; namely convertibility, which refers to the perceived utility of a knowledge source and the availability of domain experts to reveal its import to final users. Two models representing knowledge transfer as translation are presented, the second of which incorporates Nonaka's SECI model.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to supply insights into talent management (TM) in Russia in the light of Soviet experience and the contemporary officially sanctioned business‐antagonistic political culture.Design/methodology/approachA diachronic approach, whereby a key dictum of Karl Marx which underlays Soviet thinking and methods is contextualized and applied to post‐communist Russia, and TM practice in Russian firms and foreign firms in Russia is contrasted.FindingsA key finding is that there is seemingly greater value placed on Russian employees' talents by foreign companies. Six influential factors are identified which give Russian‐style TM a dysfunctional character: Russia's default position (i.e. instinctive gravitation to authoritarian rule), mistrust of institutions, entrenched “bossdom”, persistence of “Soviet mental software”, negative selection, and limited tradition of empowerment.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper highlights needs for: comparative empirical studies, contrasting Russian firms' and foreign firms' understanding and application of TM; investigation into the relationship of Russian‐style TM and career progression in Russian companies; and studies into contrasting ways of transferring TM concepts and practices by Western firms.Practical implicationsForeign firms must be prepared to engage with Russia's prevailing officially sanctioned business‐antagonistic, occasionally xenophobic political culture.Originality/valueThe paper demonstrates how engagement with contemporary Russia for management research purposes requires a deep appreciation of the Soviet period and the complexities of its legacy and judicious use of Russian‐language material adds credibility.

Practitioners and theorists of knowledge management are increasingly aware of the practice as an international activity, but the topic is seldom presented in its cross-cultural dimensions. This paper argues that knowledge management in the global economy is a form of crosscultural management, but points out that the literature is vague on how to handle culture in its wider international manifestations. Among other things it is suggested that the division of knowledge into tacit and explicit may have limited applicability when knowledge is to be leveraged cross-culturally. Researchers are cautioned about making use of still pervasive concepts of culture which are out of keeping with the workings of the knowledge economy. It is concluded that the key task of knowledge management is to foster and continually sophisticate collaborative cross-cultural learning. But the point to bear in mind is that the essence of the cross-cultural challenge is not about what to learn from each other, but how to learn.