See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/49956364

From group-based work to organisational learning: The role of

communication forms and knowledge sharing

Article  in  Knowledge Management Research & Practice · March 2011

DOI: 10.1057/kmrp.2011.4 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

39 556

2 authors, including:

Snejina Michailova
University of Auckland
147 PUBLICATIONS   5,930 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Microfoundations View project

Modern slavery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Snejina Michailova on 06 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


From group-based work to organisational
learning: the role of communication forms
and knowledge sharing
Snejina Michailova1 and
Elena Sidorova2
1
University of Auckland Business School,
New Zealand; 2OJSC Khabarovsk Oil Refinery,
Khabarovsk, Russia
Correspondence: S Michailova,
Department of Management and
International Busines, University of Auckland
Business School, Auckland, New Zealand.
Tel: þ 64 373 7599;
Fax: þ 64 9 373 7477;
E-mail: s.michailova@auckland.ac.nz
Received: 20 December 2009
Revised: 27 September 2010
9 November 2010
Accepted: 16 November 2010
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2011) 9, 73–83
& 2011 Operational Research Society. All rights reserved 1477–8238/11
www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp/
Abstract
This paper examines the role of group-based work as a knowledge sharing
mechanism in fostering organisational learning. Relying on insights from
communication research, the paper develops a set of propositions highlighting
the role of communication forms in mediating the effect of group-based work
on knowledge sharing. Our view on group-based work is grounded in the
philosophical perspective on organisational learning as occurring through
interaction. This perspective emphasises the role of communication as the
foundational basis for knowledge sharing and learning. Group-based work
structures communication and creates conditions for sharing knowledge
among organisational members. Drawing on cultural psychology research
that reveals that people from different cultures have different cognitive styles
and, thus, process and interpret information differently, the paper proposes a
link between cognitive styles and preferences for different communication
forms. It suggests that effectiveness of knowledge sharing in group-based work
depends on whether the latter supports culturally preferred communication
forms.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2011) 9, 73–83.
doi:10.1057/kmrp.2011.4
Keywords: group-based work; communication forms; knowledge sharing; knowledge
governance; cognitive style; organisational learning
Introduction
Organisational learning has been the object of enquiry for a long time and
by many disciplines. The recent increased focus on knowledge as a source
of competitive advantage, the introduction of the ‘learning organisation’
concept, and the emergence of the knowledge management discipline
have reinforced the long-standing interest in organisational learning and
brought about new perspectives on the phenomenon. Although it is well
recognised that knowledge management aims at accelerating organisa-
tional learning (Bennet, 2006), theoretical links between the two fields are
few and both streams of research seem to avoid the terminology used by
their counterpart (Vera & Crossan, 2003). In this paper, we explore some of
these links and theorise about organisational learning through the lens of
the knowledge governance approach. Both the organisational learning
literature and the knowledge governance literature use interaction as an
important unit of analysis (Foss, 2007a), rely on theoretical and practical
input from psychology and sociology (Foss, 2007b), and feature promi-
nently the process of knowledge sharing (Foss et al., 2010). Knowledge
74 From group-based work to organisational learning
sharing is viewed as the core of interaction in the
organisational learning literature and a necessary ante-
cedent to knowledge creation and absorptive capacity in
the knowledge governance literature.
Following these links, we seek to understand the role of
group-based work as a knowledge sharing mechanism in
fostering organisational learning. We analyse this role
from an information processing perspective. It is well
established that effectiveness of communication depends
on employees’ cultural background (Hofstede, 2001).
Substantial research exists on cultural issues of commu-
nication and knowledge-sharing in cross-cultural teams
(Chow et al. 2000; Vallaster, 2005). Less is known,
however, about the compatibility between group-based
work arrangements and cultural background of employ-
ees (or lack thereof) in a culturally homogeneous context.
To date, the impact of culture has been analysed from the
standpoint of differences in cultural values. Although
values do account for differences in communication, in
order to better understand psychological mechanisms
that underlie them, researchers increasingly operationa-
lise culture in cognitive terms (Sullivan & Weaver, 2000).
We side with this latter perspective and treat cultural
differences as differences in cognitive styles. How these
differences affect the processes of communication and
knowledge sharing remains relatively unexplored. Thus,
the research question we ask is: how do culture-specific
cognitive styles of employees engaged in group-based
work influence the capacity of such work to facilitate
knowledge sharing and organisational learning?
The paper is structured as follows. We start off by
outlining some key epistemological and ontological
assumptions about the nature of knowledge that underlie
theorising about organisational learning and knowledge
processes. This serves as the foundation for the proposed
theoretical model that explains 1) the role of group-based
work in organisational learning; 2) the mediating effect
of preferred communication forms on knowledge shar-
ing; and 3) the influence of cultural differences in cogni-
tive styles on the use of certain communication forms
and their moderating effect on the link between com-
munication forms and knowledge sharing. Next, drawing
on the literature of organisational learning, knowledge
governance and cultural psychology, we elaborate on the
concepts used in the theoretical model and advance
a set of propositions explaining the predicted relation-
ships. The paper concludes with a discussion of the main
theoretical findings of the study and its implications for
theory and practice.
Knowledge and learning: ontological and
epistemological considerations
Theorising in the domain of organisational learning
revolves around three fundamental questions: what is
knowledge? Where is it located? How is it generated? Two
main perspectives on the nature of knowledge view it as
either static or dynamic (Cook & Brown, 1999). Propo-
nents of the former view conceptualise knowledge as
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova
embrained in individual minds of organisational members
in the form of expertise and capabilities; embedded in
organisational routines, roles, and procedures; or encoded
in operations manuals, electronic repositories of know-
ledge (Blackler, 1995). Organisational learning theory
based on this view of knowledge is taken up with the
processes of converting individually held, often tacit,
knowledge into explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1998),
preserving it in organisational memory, and making it
available to other members of the organisation. Adher-
ents of the dynamic view of knowledge conceptualise it
as embodied or encultured in organisation-specific contexts
and practices (Blackler, 1995). According to this view,
organisational learning arises from participation in orga-
nisational practices and, thus, permeates every aspect of
organisational life. Cook and Brown (1999) conceptualise
this distinction in terms of epistemology of possession vs
epistemology of practice and posit that the phenomenon of
learning (in their terminology, knowing) is best inter-
preted through the epistemology of practice. Tsoukas
(1996) corroborates this view and suggests that in an
organisation – which is essentially a distributed knowledge
system – organisational learning is the result of
individuals’ engagement in social practices.
The ontological perspective on where and how know-
ledge is embedded in organisations frames the view of
organisational learning as either a collective or individual
phenomenon. In management studies, the two perspec-
tives have coexisted and organisational learning has been
studied at micro and macro levels of analysis. The micro-
level perspective on organisational learning, largely
grounded in general and educational psychology, main-
tains that learning is ‘a cognitive or behavioural activity
between an individual and his/her environment achieved
by study, observation, cognition, experience, practice and
developing effective mental models in the mind’ (Bennet
& Bennet, 2004, p. 441). Organisational learning is seen
as individual learning in the context of an organisation
(Weick & Westley, 1999), predicated on the ability and
willingness of organisational members to learn and access
knowledge from a variety of sources and convert it
into organisational knowledge. According to adult learn-
ing theory, organisational members, being self-directed
and autonomous learners, naturally and instinctively
engage in learning, and organisations are only as good at
learning as their individual members are (Confessore &
Kops, 1998). For learning to take place, managers try to
create environment favourable for learning and support
self-directedness of individual organisational members
(Confessore & Kops, 1998; Cho, 2002). Although theore-
tically sound, this ontological position does not provide a
clear answer as to how individual knowledge translates in
organisational knowledge and whether organisational
learning can be managed.
By contrast, the macro-level perspective focuses less on
cognition of individual organisational members and
more on managerial practices that need to be implemen-
ted in order to elevate learning to the level of the
 From group-based work to organisational learning
organisation. This perspective draws a demarcation line
between individual learning as a cognitive process and
organisational learning as a social process that occurs
through interaction among organisational members
(Bennet, 2006). Much of the literature that centers on
managing learning and knowledge processes sides with
this macro-level perspective and sees the organisation as
the locus of knowledge (Felin & Hesterly, 2007; Foss,
2007a). As a result, emphasis is placed on the role of
different supra-individual structures (e.g., routines) and
their primacy in determining learning outcomes (Felin &
Hesterly, 2007). The view that organisational structures
drive individual actions and behaviour of organisa-
tional members, however, has recently been subjected
to criticism on the ground that it leads to the neglect of
individual differences as critical determinants of organi-
sation-level outcomes (Felin & Hesterly, 2007).
One of the recent developments in the theory of
organisational learning is the recognition of the fact that
the collective–individual dichotomy is artificial in the
sense that learning at both macro and micro level is a
social process that occurs through interaction with the
environment (Bennet & Bennet, 2004). As noted by
Simon (1991), ‘individual learning in organisations is
very much a social, not a solitary, phenomenon’. This
conceptualisation of learning shifts to interaction as the
unit of analysis and lays the philosophical foundation for
the model we propose next.
Group-based work, knowledge sharing, and
organisational learning: a conceptual model
The conceptual model presented in Figure 1 is centred
on the idea that group-based work serves as a tool
for organisational learning. It does so by influencing
communication and knowledge sharing processes. The
model suggests that knowledge sharing in group-based
work is mediated through preferred communication
forms and the latter are influenced by cultural variations
in team members’ cognitive styles.
In what follows, we conduct a selective review of
related work and develop a set of propositions elucidating
the relationships proposed in the model.
Organisational learning through group-based
interaction and communication
The social nature of organisational learning has been
captured by social learning and social cognition theories
(Akgun et al., 2003; Jacobs & Coghlan, 2005), whose
origin can be traced back to cultural-historical activity
theory developed by the Russian psychologist Vygotsky.
Vygotskian idea that learning is a collective activity
embedded in the social context and realised through
participation in social practices (Gardiner et al., 1998),
originally proposed to analyse intellectual development
of children, was applied to the theory of learning
in general and organisational learning in particular
(Blackler, 1995; Boreham & Morgan, 2004).
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova 75
P2
Preferred
Group-
based
communication Knowledge P1 Organisational
forms in group- sharing learning
work based work
P3 P4
Cultural differences in
cognitive styles
Figure 1 Group-based work, knowledge sharing, and organi-
sational learning
Social learning theory emphasises the participatory
aspect of learning (Elkjaer, 2003; Jacobs & Coghlan,
2005). Through participation in organisation-specific
activities, organisational members engage in collective
thinking and sense-making enabling the organisation as
a whole to learn. Socio-cognitive theory emphasises
the role of interaction in mediating human cognitive
processes (Huber, 1991; Akgun et al., 2003) – knowledge
structures emerge from interaction among individuals.
Transformation of individual group members’ mental
models in the course of interaction is a prerequisite for
the collective understanding of a problem and joint
decision-making (Vallaster, 2005). It is not only the
learning process that is shared; knowledge that results
from social interaction is shared as well (Higgins, 2000)
and thus becomes organisational knowledge.
Social interaction – as a prerequisite for learning – is
accomplished through communication (Orlikowski &
Yates, 1994). From a functional viewpoint, communica-
tion serves as a means for information sharing and thus
creates conditions for organisational learning. Research
focusing on the implications of the use of different
communication media for knowledge sharing is a good
illustration of this theoretical perspective (e.g., Schwartz,
2007). The notion of media richness (Trevino et al.,
1987) is frequently invoked to explain different aspects
of organisational communication (e.g., Ardichvili et al.,
2006). From a relational perspective, the role of com-
munication in facilitating organisational learning is
not confined to enabling the flow of information;
rather, it mediates the process of participation in
practices of a work community, leads to the develop-
ment of a common language, shared identity, and shared
understandings (Boreham & Morgan, 2004; Jacobs &
Coghlan, 2005).
Yates and Orlikowski (1992) conceptualised commu-
nication in terms of communicative genres, that is,
‘typified communicative action[s] invoked in response
to a recurrent situation’ and emphasised that commu-
nication should be structured in a way that allows an
organisation to achieve a particular purpose. Different
genres, characterised by a specific structure and com-
munication medium, can be utilised for achieving a
particular objective. For example, for the purpose of
discussing the concept of a new product, organisational
members can gather for a meeting, discuss it via a
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
76 From group-based work to organisational learning
conference call, or engage in an online discussion. In the
context of organisational learning, the main purpose is to
facilitate the processes of knowledge sharing.
Group-based work as a knowledge sharing mechanism
While the organisational learning literature emphasises
that learning emerges from interaction and communica-
tion among group members and is embedded in broader
social processes of collective action, the knowledge
governance literature takes a different approach – it
analytically disentangles knowledge processes from the
web of social interactions. The knowledge governance
approach is an emerging attempt to think systemati-
cally about the intersection of knowledge and organisa-
tion, and conveys that knowledge processes can be
favourably influenced by choosing governance structures
and coordination mechanisms (contracts, directives,
reward schemes, incentives, trust, management styles,
organisational culture, etc.) (Michailova & Foss, 2009).
Thus, the term ‘governance mechanisms’ refers to the
specific apparatus, both formal (e.g.. goal setting, plan-
ning, directives, rules and regulations, residual rights of
control) and informal (e.g., trust, management styles,
organisational cultures, communication flows, and chan-
nels) that is deployed to influence organisational mem-
bers’ behaviours in relation to their engagement in
knowledge processes. Other governance mechanisms that
have been examined in the literature, particularly in
relation to promoting knowledge processes in project-
based organisations, are consensus-based hierarchy, hu-
man resource practices, and performance measures and
output control (Peltokorpi & Tsuyuki, 2006). Knowledge
governance scholars address these issues on the basis of
explicit assumptions about the individual motivation,
preferences, expectations, cognitive styles, etc. These
scholars trace the causal processes running from organi-
sation (macro) to individuals and their interaction
(micro) and explore how these micro-processes give rise
to organisation-level knowledge-related outcomes, that
is, organisation-level knowledge utilisation, sharing,
creation, etc. (Foss & Michailova, 2009). Similar to the
role interaction plays in organisational learning, knowl-
edge sharing is seen by knowledge governance theorists
as a key process through which collective wisdom is
created (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). Organisations deploy
a variety of knowledge governance mechanisms to
influence organisational members’ behaviour with regard
to their participation in knowledge processes (Michailova
& Foss, 2009). Different governance structures have
different influence on knowledge transfer and flows
(Choi et al., 2005).
An important assumption behind the organisational
learning literature is that learning takes place in collec-
tives of people, or groups (Wilson et al., 2007) that
support the social process of interaction among organisa-
tional members (Schilling & Kluge, 2008). From a
knowledge governance perspective, work arrangements
that allow people to work in groups serve as a potent
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova
facilitator of knowledge sharing. Following Cook &
Brown’s (1999) line of reasoning, group-based work
affords sharing of knowledge among organisational
members. Be it story telling among members of commu-
nities of practice (Brown & Duguid, 2000) or group
discussion among members based on brainstorming
or brain-writing (Paulus & Yang, 2000), the outcome
is the sharing of knowledge. In communities of practice,
less experienced members learn from experts in the
field (Ardichvili et al., 2006) and personal experiences
of individual community members merge to form a
comprehensive understanding of the business problem
at hand (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). In project teams,
expertise of team members specializing in different
fields is brought to bear in problem-solving and
joint decision-making (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007). Bearing
in mind the above arguments, we put forward the
following:
Proposition 1: Group-based work is a knowledge sharing
mechanism, which serves as a tool for
organisational learning
Communication forms as a mediator between group-
based work and knowledge sharing
Although researchers use different explanatory variables
to account for the capacity of group-based work to
facilitate knowledge sharing and organisational learning,
they largely agree that group-based work provides struc-
ture to social interaction among employees and thus
improves the quality and speed of communication
(Bennet & Bennet, 2004; Bennet, 2006). Research on
communication in group-based work has largely viewed
communication media as one of the most important
factors that impact on group’s effectiveness with regard to
knowledge sharing (Anderson et al., 2007). The richness
of communication media either constrains or facilitates
knowledge sharing behaviour in groups (Griffith & Neale,
2001; Rosen et al., 2007; Ardichvili, 2008).
Scholars have been concerned with analysing the role
of various contextual factors in examining the relation-
ship between communication media used for group
interaction and knowledge sharing outcomes. Alge et al.
(2003), for example, consider temporal scope, that is, ‘the
extent to which teams have a past or expect to have a
future together’ (p. 26), to be a critical factor in deciding
on the appropriateness of the use of lean communication
media for group interaction. Prior experience of working
together creates a shared interpretive context that
nullifies the deficiencies of lean communication media
and, as a result, online knowledge sharing leads to
effective decision-making. Developing rapport through
face-to-face communication prior to engaging in any
online collaboration is a strategy for overcoming the
limitations of technology (Grosse, 2002). Trevino et al.
(1990) highlight that message equivocality renders
electronic means of communication ineffective with
 From group-based work to organisational learning
regard to sharing information because of their failure to
transmit contextual cues.
However, there is a growing body of evidence that
technology-mediated communication among group
members may be as effective as traditional face-to-face
communication. Video-supported teams often perform,
as well as those whose members work via traditional face-
to-face meetings (Anderson et al., 2007). Online discus-
sion forums are no less supportive of effective exchange
of ideas than face-to-face discussions (Kuk, 2006). On
the other hand, telephone that provides a richer com-
munication media compared to e-mails and online
discussions (Yates & Orlikowski, 1992), is less effective
for supporting knowledge sharing as the necessity to
take turns interrupts the flow of communication and
hampers effective idea sharing (Rosen et al., 2007).
Computer-mediated communication is often more effec-
tive than communication via richer media as it allows to
overcome such limitations of oral discussions as produc-
tion blocking (Griffith & Neale, 2001) and groupthink
(Edwards et al., 2003), and increases the ability to process
complex information (Robert & Dennis, 2005). Online
communication also offers advantages in cross-cultural
contexts: when language is a barrier, an e-mail is often
preferred to a face-to-face conversation or a phone call
(Grosse, 2002).
The media richness argument has often been invoked
to explain barriers to effective communication and
knowledge sharing in different cultural settings. An
important variable used to explain differential success
of knowledge sharing is whether the degree of social
presence that a particular type of media enables matches
the one that is required by cultural values and norms
(Ardichvili et al., 2006). For example, cultural preferences
for face-to-face communication have been hypothesized
to create a barrier to effective participation in online
communities of practice (Ardichvili et al., 2006) and
virtual teams. However, an increasing number of studies
demonstrate that people from collectivist cultures such
as China and Russia (Naumov & Puffer, 2000), are as
effective in computer-mediated communication as their
western counterparts. Griffith & Neale’s study (2001)
provides evidence that the effect of communication
media on the ability of people from different cultures to
effectively engage in technology-mediated commu-
nication is not deterministic, and lean communication
media do not impede knowledge sharing as long as
people engaged in knowledge sharing have experience
with technology and their communication partners. This
finding is in line with the main tenets of channel
expansion theory, which posits that experience with
the communication media in question, the topic of the
message, the context in which communication takes
place and communication counterparts changes percep-
tions of media richness and improves effectiveness
of the use of lean communication media (Carlson &
Zmud, 1999). Research in the area of Technology
Mediated Learning also lends support to the contention
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova 77
that collectivist cultural orientation is not an obstacle to
effective technology-based communication. Hwang and
Kim’s (2007) research on psychological mechanisms that
underlie attitude to knowledge sharing reveals that
collectivist values are highly conducive to the deve-
lopment of affective commitment, which is a necessary
antecedent to positive attitude to knowledge sharing
by e-mail. An important conclusion that can be drawn
from these findings is that there are other factors that
account for differential success of knowledge sharing
in groups. In our study, we focus on investigating
the impact of one such factor, namely, the form of
communication.
A preferred communication form is ‘the primary form
of message concretisation’ (Tudjman, 1991, p. 237), that
is, a preferred way of codifying and processing informa-
tion and knowledge. It is generally recognised that there
are two main forms of communication: verbal and visual.
Both have been found to be important for knowledge
sharing. Visuals are necessary for knowledge sharing
because they enable linking seemingly unrelated ideas
in a coherent whole, invoke novel associations, and
foster multiple interpretations (Pounsford, 2007). Visual
presentation of information can be superior to verbal in
the sense that it can capture multidimensional pheno-
mena, a feature that linear exchange of information via
linguistic means lacks (Tudjman, 1991). Dori (2008)
supports this view, but emphasises that the value of
visuals is in their ability to reduce words’ ambiguity and
that the two forms of presenting information should be
combined in order to enhance understanding of complex
problems. Recent research on idea sharing in groups
via oral brainstorming and brain-writing provides
evidence that exchange of ideas in writing might be a
preferred mode of verbal expression because it helps to
overcome a number of psychological barriers to public
speaking, evaluation apprehension, and fear of down-
ward comparison (Paulus & Yang, 2000). Group members
have an opportunity to draw on a variety of communi-
cation forms to create conditions that are favourable
for knowledge sharing and so, it is a matter of choice
what communication forms are used in group-based
work. We therefore suggest the following:
Proposition 2: Preferred communication forms mediate the
relationship between group-based work and
knowledge sharing.
This does not imply that group-based work can or
should engage all available communication forms in
order to facilitate knowledge sharing. The fact that visual
and written forms of communication might be preferable
in certain situations does not negate the power of words
(Dori, 2008). Additionally, research demonstrates that
under certain circumstances, image, text, and sound
might reduce each other’s capacity to communicate a
meaning and foster deeper levels of understanding. For
example, in the context of learning from a text-dominated
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
78 From group-based work to organisational learning
environment, the presence of pictures can distract the
reader’s attention and hamper comprehension (Tavassoli
& Lee, 2003; Mendelson & Thorson, 2004). Tavassoli
and Lee (2003) investigated the impact of auditory and
visual elements on the quality of cognitive response to
a written advertisement and revealed that the distracting
effect of images was different depending on whether the
information was in Chinese or in English. This finding is
not surprising, though. According to the cultural psy-
chology perspective, the processes of obtaining, proces-
sing, and interpreting information differ across cultures.
As pointed out by Mohamed, O’Sullivan and Ribière
(2008), the wealth of knowledge that originates from
different cultures with dissimilar modes of thinking
reflects differences in knowledge production, synthesis,
and mobilisation. This is an issue we discuss next.
The impact of cultural differences in cognitive styles on
preferred communication forms
Although human beings share basic cognitive structures
and psychological mechanisms through which under-
standing of the world is constructed, human cognition
is not just a function of the biological activity of the
brain. Rather, cognition undergoes the process of
development through interaction of an individual with
his/her environment (Gardiner et al., 1998). Cognition is
understood as the ‘process of obtaining knowledge,
including perceiving, recognizing, reasoning, and jud-
ging’ (Gardiner et al., 1998, p. 80). Individual differences
in these processes are conceptualised as cognitive styles.
The notion of cognitive style is an individual-level
construct; however, cognitive styles are to a certain
extent shared by people with similar socio-cultural back-
ground. Being the product of interaction with the envi-
ronment, individual cognition is shaped by the process of
socialisation into a specific culture through communi-
cation and collective activity with other members of
this socio-cultural group (Gardiner et al., 1998; DeFillippi
& Ornstein, 2003). Although this perspective does not
refute individual variations in cognition, it argues that
culture is a powerful socialisation agent (Yamazaki, 2005).
Table 1 Impact of cognitive styles on information processing
Aspects of information processing
affected
Holistic Analytic
Pattern of cognitive organisation/ In wholes In parts
recognition of information
Mode of mental representation of
information
Attention to external stimuli
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova
As a result, people socialised into different cultures
develop different cognitive styles.
Cognitive style is a multidimensional construct.
Current research identifies more than 30 models of
cognitive style, each emphasising a particular dimension
(Riding & Rayner, 2005). Most often cultural differences
in cognitive styles are discussed in terms of differences
along the following three dimensions: holistic/analytic,
field-dependent/field-independent, and verbaliser/ima-
ger. The holistic-analytic dimension explains individual
variations in patterns of recognition of information
either as parts or as a whole (Miller, 1987; Kozhevnikov,
2007). The distinction between field-dependence and
field-independence refers to the ‘extent to which a person
is dependent versus independent in their organisation of
the surrounding perceptual field’ (Richardson & Turner,
2000, p. 255) and manifest itself in selective attention to
external stimuli. The verbaliser/imager dimension relates
to the extent to which mental representation of infor-
mation in the process of thinking occurs either verbally
or in mental pictures (Riding & Cheema, 1991; Riding &
Rayner, 2005). Table 1 summarises the impact of differen-
ces in cognitive styles on perception and information
processing.
Most researchers recognise the paramount role of
language in the formation of a particular cognitive style.
Allinson and Hayes (2000) cite findings of research
devoted to the study of cognitive styles of Japanese
people raised in the U.S.A. and Americans raised in Japan.
The use of English as a medium of communication by
Japanese people from early stages in life resulted in the
formation of an analytical cognitive style characteristic of
western society. Likewise, Americans who mastered the
Japanese language at an early age developed a holistic
type of cognition. Hofstede (2001) provides another
example of the link between language and cognition.
The holistic nature of cognition characteristic of repre-
sentatives of the Chinese culture is reflected in the
structure of the language: in Chinese hieroglyphic script,
there are more than 5,000 characters representing
different syllables, whereas in western languages, there
are usually around 30 letters, a fact that demonstrates
Dimensions of cognitive style
Verbaliser Imager Field-dependent Field-independent
Verbal Mental
pictures
Reliance on Reliance on
external frames internal frames
of reference of reference
 From group-based work to organisational learning Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova 79

cultural preferences with regard to generalisation and
abstraction. Research by Tudjman (1991) illustrates the
impact of language on the formation of cultural differ-
ences along the verbaliser/imager dimension. In the
Japanese language that uses syllabic (pictorial) script, the
dominant communication form is a visual, not a verbal
sign. As a result, thinking and processing of information
occurs primarily through mental imagery rather than
verbalisation.
Apart from language, there are other factors that
account for variations in cognitive styles. Cultural
patterns of socialisation, for example, the amount of
verbal communication between the mother and child
(Kim, 2002) or in schooling system (Singelis, 1994), lead
to differential importance of verbal facility vs non-verbal
receptivity in communication, and cultural variations in
preferences for verbalisation in the process of thinking.
The consequence is the formation of a distinct cognitive
style: verbaliser in the case of western cultures and imager
in eastern cultures. Mishra (2001), on the other hand,
points out that cognitive styles develop as a function of
the value placed by members of different societies on
different cognitive behaviours. In societies, where pre-
mium is placed on holistic problem-solving through
deliberation, people’s cognitive style will be different
from the cognitive style of people who are raised in a
society, which values quick analytical decisions. Yet,
another explanation is rooted in cultural differences in
the locus of causality. In the West, there is a tendency to
locate ‘causality of behaviour in the individual. In the
East, particularly in East Asia, the predominant tendency
is to locate causality in the whole context of behaviour’
(Bhagat et al., 2002, p. 216).
As is clear from the above discussion, culture exerts
profound influence on cognition and leads to formation
of different cognitive styles. Cognitive style is a relatively
stable pervasive individual characteristic that determines
an individual’s mode of cognitive functioning with
regard to obtaining and processing information (Barkhi,
2002; Riding & Rayner, 2005; Kozhevnikov, 2007). These
processes are the foundational basis of communication
since they determine what information is paid attention
to and how it is processed and made sense of (Erez,
1994; Hayes & Allinson, 1998; Bhagat et al., 2002). As we
illustrate in Table 2, cultural differences in cognitive
styles are likely to strongly influence communication. We
propose that this influence is primarily manifested in
culture-specific preferences for communication forms.
Individual differences along the holistic/analytic
dimension of cognitive style result in whether informa-
tion is best perceived when presented in small parts or in
bigger sequences. This has implications for the efficiency
of processing information depending on the amount and
structure of information the person needs to deal with.
Analysts prefer a linear approach, whereby information is
analysed and interpreted in a step-by-step manner;
holists, on the contrary, perceive information as a whole,
they are less concerned with detail and rely on synthesis
of information obtained from multiple sources (Hayes &
Allinson, 1998). Those endowed with an analytic cog-
nitive style ‘retain information to assimilate it after
significant scrutiny, whereas those using a holistic one
quickly assimilate information as part of a larger whole in
an associative sense’ (Bhagat et al., 2002, p.216).
The field-dependence/field-independence dimension
has implications for understanding variations in the
amount and type of contextual information a person
needs in order to understand a phenomenon and make
sense of the information presented. Empirical evidence
suggests that field-dependence strongly correlates with

Table 2 Impact of differences in cognitive styles on communication

Dimensions of cognitive style Effect on communication

Holistic Use of multiple sources of information

Use of associations
Preference for synthesis of information
Analytic Linear presentation of information in a structured way
Information analysis in a step-wise manner
Field-dependent Preference for multiple information inputs (including graphics and visuals)
Preference for systematic information
Contextualised knowledge valued
Field-independent Low dependence on contextual cues
Preference for verbal organisation of information
Low need for visualised information
Verbaliser Preference for verbalisation of information
Verbal facility
Imager Use of various means of information visualisation (diagrams, charts, drawings)
Preference for written presentation of information when dealing with complex cognitive tasks
Non-verbal receptivity

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

80 From group-based work to organisational learning
such cultural traits as femininity and collectivism,
whereas field-independence correlates with individual-
ism and masculinity (Hofstede, 2001; Kozhevnikov,
2007). Field-dependents strongly rely on external frames
of reference as guides in analysing information, they
prefer to deal with systemic information and value
contextualised knowledge. Field-dependents often take
a global approach to learning and require information to
be presented in a graphic form, for example, in the form
of concept maps (Lee & Boling, 2008). Field-indepen-
dents, on the contrary, rely on internal frames of
reference when interpreting information; they require
fewer contextual cues (Bhagat et al., 2002) and, thus, do
not need visual aids when dealing with cognitive tasks
(Lee & Boling, 2008).
The verbaliser/imager distinction is important to the
extent that it affects the relative importance of written vs
oral mode of communication as a preferred means of
information exchange as well as verbal vs visual form
of presenting information. Although important, findings
in this area need to be interpreted with caution. For
example, Tudjman (1991) demonstrates that represen-
tatives of the Japanese culture where a symbolic think-
ing style prevails rely on visualisation rather than verbal
presentation of information. As a result, information
is encoded and shared through pictorial means. This
enables non-linear presentation of information, in-
corporation of a variety of informational inputs, and
multiple interpretations. Those whose cognitive style
is characterised as symbolic prefer oral group commu-
nication to written messages because ‘what is said is
equally important as what is not said’ (Tudjman, 1991,
p. 239).
Additionally, differences in cognitive styles along the
verbaliser/imager dimension lead to considerable varia-
tions in the effectiveness of verbal information proces-
sing. Kim (2002) in his study of the effect of talking on
the performance of cognitive tasks among European
Americans and East Asian Americans found that talking
prevented subjects from the latter group from processing
cognitive information effectively. Similar conclusions
come from Tudjman (1991), who claims that in Japan
people refrain from oral discussion over complex cogni-
tive tasks. Based on the above arguments, we put forward
the following:
Proposition 3: In cultures whose members score high on
analytic, field-independence, and verbaliser
dimensions of cognitive style, verbal com-
munication is preferred to visual. In cultures
whose members score high on holistic, field-
dependence, and imager dimensions of
cognitive style, visual communication is
preferred to verbal.
These arguments do not imply that individuals who
prefer verbal communication are only able to effectively
engage in knowledge-sharing when provided with an
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova
opportunity to participate in face-to-face discussions, or
that those whose preferred communication form is visual
are able to share knowledge only via paper-based or
technology-mediated communication. We have already
mentioned that the use of different communication forms
can be made possible via different communication media.
For example, in Japan, visual organisation of information
is often an integral element of group face-to-face discus-
sions in an organisational setting (Tudjman, 1991).
Cultural differences in cognitive styles as a moderator
of the relationship between communication forms and
knowledge sharing
Researchers who view culture in cognitive terms have
primarily focused on investigating the impact of differ-
ences in cognition on the effectiveness of interpersonal
interaction and knowledge sharing in a multicultural
context (e.g., Vallaster, 2005). However, the fact that
inefficiency of knowledge processes might arise not from
culture-specific differences among employees engaged in
knowledge sharing, but from a cognitive incongruence
between the knowledge governance mechanisms and the
cultural background of organisational members has rarely
been explored.
The likelihood of a cognitive incongruence between
knowledge-sharing mechanisms and employees’, cultural
background becomes particularly salient when the for-
mer are borrowed rather than developed within the
organisation to fit the context and specific charac-
teristics of people whose behaviour they are intended
to direct. Knowledge sharing behaviour is not merely a
function of the managerial choice of knowledge sharing
mechanisms, and culture exerts a profound impact on
the way people share knowledge.
Central to the notion of cognitive compatibility is the
argument that organisational practices are not a-cultural.
Knowledge sharing mechanisms are socio-cultural arte-
facts that mediate collective learning (Engeström, 1999).
They embody cognitive and behavioural patterns deter-
mined by the cultural background of the people who
developed them (Yanow, 2000; Ardichvili et al., 2006)
and necessitate a particular behavioural response. It is
the arguments about what communication behaviour
group-based work triggers that lead to viewing it as an
effective tool for organisational learning. More specifi-
cally, we argued that group-based work serves as a tool
of organisational learning. It brings people together –
physically or virtually – and structures communication in
a way that facilitates knowledge sharing. Apart from
normative expectations associated with the functional
role of individuals in a group and a situational context
(Tsoukas, 1996), group members’ communication beha-
viour is influenced by their cultural background. As
suggested in proposition 3, employees’ cultural background
determines their predisposition towards the use of diff-
erent forms of communication. Following this line of
reasoning, we argue that there might be a potential misfit
between communication forms preferred by employees
 From group-based work to organisational learning
engaged in group-based work and the forms of commu-
nication supported by this work arrangement. As a result,
effectiveness of knowledge sharing among employees
whose knowledge sharing behaviour is governed by
group-based work depends on whether the latter supports
culturally preferred communication forms or not. We
therefore develop the following:
Proposition 4: Employees’ culture-specific predisposition to
use certain communication forms moderates
the relationship between group-based work
and knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing
will be more effective if group-based work
supports communication forms preferred by
employees.
Conclusion and implications
Our contribution can be summarised as follows. First, by
attributing knowledge sharing mechanisms the role of
tools of organisational learning, we establish a theoretical
link between the domains of organisational learning and
knowledge management. Second, by investigating cogni-
tive differences in information processing, we provide an
insight into the psychological micro-foundations of
knowledge sharing and ultimately, organisational learning.
The conceptual model and propositions put forward in
this paper are grounded in the view that communication
plays a paramount role in knowledge sharing and
organisational learning. Communication has long been
recognised as a critical factor in knowledge processes and
group interaction. Relying on insights from communica-
tion research we developed a set of propositions high-
lighting the role of communication forms in mediating
the effect of group-based work on knowledge sharing.
Drawing from cultural psychology research that reveals
that people from different cultures have different cogni-
tive styles and, as a result, process and interpret informa-
tion differently, we proposed a link between cognitive
styles and preferences of different communication forms.
This has important implications for effectiveness of
group-based work with regard to creating optimal
conditions for knowledge sharing. More specifically,
group-based work that relies on the use of a particular
communication form will have differential potential to
facilitate knowledge sharing in different cultural settings.
We conceptualised this idea through the notion of
cognitive compatibility between group-based work sup-
porting specific communication forms and cultural
background of employees whose knowledge sharing
References
AKGUN AE, LYNN GS and BYRNE JC (2003) Organisational learning: a
socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations 56(7), 839–868.
ALGE BJ, WIETHOFF C and KLEIN HJ (2003) When does the medium matter?
knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making
teams. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 91(1),
26–37.
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova 81
behaviour it governs. Finally, we linked group-based
work, knowledge sharing, and organisational learning.
Although we adopted an interactionist perspective on
organisational learning (Nooteboom, 2007) and the role
of knowledge sharing mechanisms in it, we only focused
on the information-processing aspect of communication
through which knowledge sharing occurs. We realise,
however, that knowledge sharing effectiveness depends
on many other factors, ranging from employees’ motiva-
tion to share or opt for knowledge-hoarding (Michailova
& Husted, 2003) to issues of establishing trust.
The proposed moderating effect of employees’ culture-
specific predispositions towards the use of certain com-
munication forms on the capacity of group-based work to
facilitate knowledge sharing has important practical impli-
cations. For knowledge governance mechanisms to be
effective as organisational learning tools, communication
forms used in group-based work should be compatible
with those preferred by employees involved in group
work. Alternatively, they will have to work towards
achieving this compatibility by means of either adapting
the practice or adapting their communication behaviour
in order to be able to use communication forms supported
by a given type of group-based work. Since there is limited
evidence that cognitive styles can change significantly in
the course of life (Hayes & Allinson, 1998), the latter
option is likely to fail. As a result, group-based work will
fail to achieve the goal of facilitating knowledge sharing
and organisational learning. Thus, when introducing
group-based work, management should ensure that the
communication forms on which this work is based are
compatible with those, which are preferred by members of
the organisation. The lack of attention to issues of compa-
tibility between knowledge management practices and
cultural background of employees involved in these
practices is a reflection of universalistic tendencies persis-
tent in the realm of knowledge management (Zhu, 2004).
However, as with the transfer of other management
practices from one cultural context to another (e.g.,
motivational techniques (Erez, 1994; Newman & Nollen,
1996)), cognitive incompatibility may render knowledge
management initiatives useless or even counter-produc-
tive. One way to address this issue is to provide employees
with greater discretion over the choice of the form of
communication to be used in group-based work and let
them fine-tune the proposed work arrangement to their
culture-specific communication needs. This should have a
positive effect on employees’ motivation to share knowl-
edge and ultimately lead to improved knowledge sharing
outcomes.
ALLINSON CW and HAYES J (2000) Cross-national differences in cognitive
style: implications for management. International Journal of Human
Resource Management 11(1), 161–170.
ANDERSON AH, MCEWAN R, BAL J and CARLETTA J (2007) Virtual team
meetings: an analysis of communication and context. Computers in
Human Behaviour 23(5), 2558–2580.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
82 From group-based work to organisational learning
ARDICHVILI A (2008) Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual commu-
nities of practice: motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in
Developing Human Resources 10(4), 541–554.
ARDICHVILI A, MAURER M, LI W, WENTLING T and STUEDEMANN R (2006)
Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities
of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management 10(1), 94–107.
BARKHI R (2002) Cognitive style may mitigate the impact of communica-
tion mode. Information & Management 39(8), 677–688.
BENNET A (2006) Setting the stage for exploration. VINE 36(1), 7–10.
BENNET A and BENNET D (2004) The partnership between organisational
learning and knowledge management. In Handbook on Knowledge
Management Vol. 1: Knowledge Matters (HOLSAPPLE CW, Ed),
pp 439–455, Springer, Berlin.
BHAGAT RS, KEDIA BL, HARVESTON PD and TRIANDIS HC (2002) Cultural
variations in the cross-border transfer of organisational knowledge: an
integrative framework. Academy of Management Review 27(2), 204–221.
BLACKLER F (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organisations: an
overview and interpretation. Organisation Studies 16(6), 1020–1046.
BOREHAM N and MORGAN C (2004) A socio-cultural analysis of organisa-
tional learning. Oxford Review of Education 30(3), 307–325.
BROWN JS and DUGUID P (2000) Balancing act: how to capture knowledge
without killing it. Harvard Business Review 78(3), 73–79.
CABRERA A and CABRERA EF (2002) Knowledge-sharing dilemmas.
Organisation Studies 23(5), 687–710.
CARLSON JR and ZMUD RW (1999) Channel expansion theory and the
experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of
Management Journal 42(2), 153–170.
CHO DY (2002) The connection between self-directed learning and the
learning organisation. Human Resource Development Quarterly 13(4),
467–470.
CHOI CJ, CHENG P, HILTON B and RUSSEL E (2005) Knowledge governance.
Journal of Knowledge Management 9(6), 67–75.
CHOW CW, DENG FJ and HO JL (2000) The openness of knowledge sharing
within organisations: a comparative study of the United States and the
people’s Republic of China. Journal of Management Accounting
Research 12, 65–95.
CONFESSORE SJ and KOPS WJ (1998) Self-directed learning and the learning
organisation: examining the connection between the individual and
the learning environment. Human Resource Development Quarterly
9(4), 365–375.
COOK SDN and BROWN JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative
dance between organisational knowledge and organisational know-
ing. Organisation Science 10(4), 381–400.
DEFILLIPPI R and ORNSTEIN S (2003) Psychological perspectives underlying
theories of organisational learning. In The Blackwell Handbook of
Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management (EASTERBY-SMITH M
and LYLES MA, Eds), pp 19–37, Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey.
DORI D (2008) Words from pictures for dual-channel processing. Association
for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM 51(5), 47–52.
EDWARDS JS, COLLIER PM and SHAW D (2003) Making a journey in
knowledge management strategy. Journal of Information and Knowl-
edge Management 2(2), 135–151.
ELKJAER B (2003) Social learning theory: learning as participation in social
processes. In The Blackwell Handbook of Organisational Learning
and Knowledge Management (EASTERBY-SMITH M and LYLES MA, Eds),
pp 38–53, Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey.
ENGESTRÖM Y (1999) Activity theory and individual and social trans-
formation. In Perspectives on Activity Theory (ENGESTRÖM Y,
MIETTINEN R and PUNAMAKI R-L, Eds), pp 19–38, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
EREZ M (1994) Work motivation from a cross-cultural perspective. In
Journeys into Cross-cultural Psychology: Selected Papers From the Eleventh
International Conference of the International Association for Cross-
Cultural Psychology Held in Liege, Belgium (BOUVY M, VAN DE VIJVER FJR,
BOSKI P and SCHMITZ P, Eds), pp 386–403, Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.
FELIN T and HESTERLY WS (2007) The knowledge-based view, nested
heterogeneity, and new value creation: philosophical considerations on
the locus of knowledge. Academy of Management Review 32(1), 195–218.
FOSS NJ (2007a) The emerging knowledge governance approach:
challenges and characteristics. Organisation 14(1), 29–52.
FOSS NJ (2007b) Knowledge governance in a dynamic global context:
the centre for strategic management and globalization at the
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova
copenhagen business school. European Management Review 4(3),
183–191.
FOSS NJ and MICHAILOVA S (2009) Knowledge governance: where are we?
And where are we heading? Knowledge Governance: Processes and
Perspectives (FOSS NJ and MICHAILOVA S, Eds), pp 272–288, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
FOSS NJ, HUSTED K and MICHAILOVA S (2010) Governing knowledge sharing
in organisations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and
research directions. Journal of Management Studies 47(3), 455–482.
GARDINER HW, MUTTER JD and KOSMITZKI C (1998) Lives Across Cultures:
Cross-cultural Human Development. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
GRIFFITH TL and NEALE MA (2001) Information processing in traditional,
hybrid, and virtual teams: from nascent knowledge to transactive
memory. Research in Organisational Behaviour 23, 379–421.
GROSSE CU (2002) Managing communication within virtual intercultural
teams. Business Communication Quarterly 65(4), 22–38.
HAYES J and ALLINSON CW (1998) Cognitive style and the theory and
practice of individual and collective learning in organisations. Human
Relations 51(7), 847–871.
HIGGINS TE (2000) Social cognition: learning about what matters in the
social world. European Journal of Social Psychology 30(1), 3–39.
HOFSTEDE GH (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviours, Institutions, and Organisations Across Nations, 2nd edn,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
HUBER G (1991) Organisational learning: the contributing processes and
the literatures. Organisation Science 2(1), 88–115.
HWANG Y and KIM DJ (2007) Understanding affective commitment,
collectivist culture, and social influence in relation to knowledge
sharing in technology mediated learning. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication 50(3), 232–248.
JACOBS C and COGHLAN D (2005) Sound from silence: on listening in
organisational learning. Human Relations 58(1), 115–138.
KIM HS (2002) We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the
effect of talking on thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
83(4), 828–842.
KOZHEVNIKOV M (2007) Cognitive styles in the context of modern
psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style.
Psychological Bulletin 133(3), 464–481.
KUK G (2006) Strategic interaction and knowledge sharing in the KDE
developer mailing list. Management Science 52(7), 1031–1043.
LEE J and BOLING E (2008) Information-Conveying approaches and
cognitive styles of mental modeling in a hypermedia-base learning
environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 59(4), 644–661.
MENDELSON AL and THORSON E (2004) How verbalisers and visualizers
process the newspaper environment. Journal of Communication 54(3),
474–491.
MICHAILOVA S and FOSS N (2009) Knowledge governance: themes and
questions. In Knowledge Governance: Processes and Perspectives (FOSS NJ
and MICHAILOVA S, Eds), pp 1–25, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
MICHAILOVA S and HUSTED K (2003) Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian
firms. California Management Review 45(3), 59–77.
MILLER A (1987) Cognitive styles: an integrated model. Educational
Psychology 7(4), 251–268.
MISHRA RC (2001) Cognition across cultures. In The Handbook of Culture
and Psychology (MATSUMOTO, D, Ed), pp 119–135, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
MOHAMED MS, O’SULLIVAN KJ and RIBIÈRE V (2008) A paradigm shift in the
Arab region knowledge evolution. Journal of Knowledge Management
12(5), 107–120.
NAUMOV AI and PUFFER SM (2000) Measuring russian culture using
hofstede’s dimensions. Applied Psychology: An International Review
49(4), 709–718.
NEWMAN KL and NOLLEN SD (1996) Culture and congruence: the fit
between management practices and national culture. Journal of
International Business Studies 27(4), 753–779.
NONAKA I (1998) The knowledge-creating company. In Harvard Business
Review on Knowledge Management (DRUCKER PF and GARVIN DA, Eds),
pp 21–45, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
NOOTEBOOM B (2007) Methodological interactionism: theory and
application to the firm and to the building of trust. Review of Austrian
Economics 20(2–3), 137–153.
 From group-based work to organisational learning
ORLIKOWSKI WJ and YATES J (1994) Genre repertoire: the structuring of
communicative practices in organisations. Administrative Science
Quarterly 39(4), 541–574.
PAULUS PB and YANG HC (2000) Idea generation in groups: a basis for
creativity in organisations. Organisational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes 82(1), 76–87.
PELTOKORPI V and TSUYUKI E (2006) Knowledge governance in a Japanese
project-based organisation. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice 4(1), 36–45.
POUNSFORD M (2007) Using storytelling, conversation and coaching to
engage. Strategic Communication Management 11(3), 32–35.
RICHARDSON JA and TURNER TE (2000) Field dependence revisited I:
intelligence. Educational Psychology 20(3), 255–270.
RIDING R and CHEEMA I (1991) Cognitive styles – an overview and
integration. Educational Psychology 11(3–4), 193–216.
RIDING R and RAYNER S (2005) Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies.
Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behaviour. David Fulton
Publishers, London.
ROBERT L P and DENNIS A R (2005) Paradox of richness: a cognitive model
of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
48(1), 10–21.
ROSEN B, FURST S and BLACKBURN R (2007) Overcoming barriers to
knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organisational Dynamics 36(3),
259–273.
SACKMANN SA and FRIESL M (2007) Exploring cultural impacts on
knowledge sharing behaviour in project teams – results from a
simulation study. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(6), 142–156.
SCHILLING J and KLUGE A (2008) Barriers to organisational learning: an
integration of theory and research. International Journal of Manage-
ment Reviews 10(3), 1–24.
SCHWARTZ DG (2007) Integrating knowledge transfer and computer-
mediated communication: categorizing barriers and possible
responses. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 5(4),
249–259.
SIMON HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organisational learning.
Organisation Science 2(1), 125–134.
SINGELIS TM (1994) Bridging the gap between culture and commu-
nication. In Journeys into Cross-cultural Psychology: Selected Papers
Form the Eleventh International Conference of the International Associa-
tion for Cross-Cultural Psychology Held in Liege, Belgium (BOUVY M, VAN
DE VIJVER FJR, BOSKI P and SCHMITZ P, Eds), pp 278–296, Swets and
Zeitlinger, Lisse.
About the Authors
Snejina Michailova, Ph.D. from Copenhagen Business
School, is Professor of International Business at the
University of Auckland, New Zealand. Her research areas
are International Management and Knowledge Manage-
ment. Her work has appeared in Academy of Management
Executive, Business Strategy Review, California Management
Review, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of World
Business, International Management, Management Interna-
tional Review, Long Range Planning, Management Learning,
Organizational Dynamics and other journals. She has
edited books on knowledge governance (Oxford Univer-
sity Press), HRM (Routledge), and research methodologies
(Palgrave Macmillan). She was Editor Europe of Journal of
World Business from 2001 to 2007 and is currently
View publication stats
Snejina Michailova and Elena Sidorova 83
SULLIVAN DP and WEAVER GR (2000) Cultural cognition in international
business research. Management International Review 40(3), 269–297.
TAVASSOLI NT and LEE YH (2003) The differential interaction of auditory
and visual advertising elements with Chinese and English. Journal of
Marketing Research 40(4), 468–480.
TREVINO LK, LENGEL RH and DAFT R (1987) Media symbolism, media
richness and media choice in organisations: a symbolic interactionist
perspective. Communication Research 14(5), 553–575.
TREVINO LK, LENGEL RH, BODENSTEINER W, GERLOFF EA and MUIR NK (1990)
The richness imperative and cognitive style: the role of individual
differences in media choice behaviour. Management Communication
Quarterly 4(2), 176–197.
TSOUKAS H (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a construc-
tionist approach. Strategic Management Journal 17(Winter), 11–25.
TUDJMAN M (1991) Culture and information society: the Japanese Way.
Information Processing & Management 27(2–3), 229–243.
VALLASTER C (2005) Cultural diversity and its impact on social interactive
processes: implications from an empirical study. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management 5(2), 139–162.
VERA D and CROSSAN MM (2003) Organisational learning and knowledge
management: toward an integrative framework. In The Blackwell
Handbook of Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management
(EASTERBY-SMITH M and LYLES MA, Eds), pp 122–141, Wiley-Blackwell,
New Jersey.
WEICK KE and WESTLEY F (1999) Organisational learning: affirming
an oxymoron. In Managing Organisations: Current Issues (CLEGG SR,
HARDY C and NORD WR, Eds), pp 190–209, Sage Publications, Oxford.
WENGER E and SNYDER W (2000) Communities of practice: the
organisational frontier. Harvard Business Review 78(1), 139–145.
WILSON JM, GOODMAN PS and CRONIN MA (2007) Group Learning.
Academy of Management Review 32(4), 1041–1059.
YAMAZAKI Y (2005) Learning styles and typologies of cultural differences:
a theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 29(5), 521–548.
YANOW D (2000) Seeing organisational learning: a ‘cultural’ view.
Organisation 7(2), 247–268.
YATES J and ORLIKOWSKI WJ (1992) Genres of organisational communica-
tion: a structurational approach to studying communication and
media. Academy of Management Review 17(2), 299–326.
ZHU Z (2004) Knowledge management: towards a universal concept or
cross-cultural contexts? Knowledge Management Research & Practice
2(2), 67–79.
Associate Editor of Critical Perspectives on International
Business and Senior Editor of Journal of Asia Business
Studies.
Elena Sidorova holds Bachelor and Master’s degrees from
University of Auckland, New Zealand, Far Eastern State
Transport University, and Khabarovsk State Pedagogical
University, Russia. Her professional background is in
education, linguistics and management. Along with her
business career, Elena is conducting research in the areas
of knowledge management and intercultural communi-
cation. She has published in Organisations and Markets in
Emerging Economies.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice