Book Review
Nigel Holden, (2002) Cross-cultural Management. A Knowledge Management Approach, Harlow:
Prentice Hall – Financial Times,
Nigel Holden introduces his book and argument with a couple of real-life “mini cases” on cross-cultural
situations in business which provide vivid examples of the widespread confusion and misperception of
intercultural issues. Convincingly, they show the need for a different approach to cross-cultural
management in research and practice. The aim of this book “is to reformulate the field of cross-cultural
management from a non-cultural standpoint” (p. 277) viewing culture as knowledge (p. 95) and “being
made up of relations, rather than as stable systems of form and substance” (p. 57).
Chapter two and three turn to the most popular and resistant paradigm of cross-cultural management
in use indebted originally to the theoretical framework of Hofstede, which, according to Holden, is still
followed and perpetuated by most writers and practitioners in the field. The major shortcoming of this
approach is that it does not depict and help understand the dynamic reality of cross-cultural interaction
in the era of globalisation, neither in business nor in other contexts. In short, it conceives of culture as
essence, as an entity defined by the nation state and by rather static systems of values and
assumptions. “The common reasoning is that it is possible, by surveying and systematising the
behaviour and stated attitudes of individual members, to penetrate and expose the core assumptions
and values of any culture. In this way it is possible to present cultures as objectively identifiable and
well-defined entities which may be compared.” (p. 29) Thus, the emphasis found in the literature lies
on cultural differences and on managing across cultural divides leading, at best, to an unnecessary
polarisation of countries and cultures. Not surprisingly, this approach is owed to an anthropological
perspective, which has been out of date for quite a while in the original field. The three first chapters
set the scene, “for a concept of cross-cultural management as the management of multiple cultures
within and among organizations, involving processes of knowledge transfer and organizational
learning.” (p. 58)
Holden proceeds with the theoretical and empirical basis of his research. In chapter four he introduces
knowledge management as a concept for international management. After discussion of the
characteristics of knowledge – such as tacit/explicit, the narrative mode, and types of knowledge – he
introduces the notion of the three main practices of knowledge work: acquisition (creation),
codification, and transfer and relates these practices to cross-cultural issues. The following chapter
explains the case study approach based on the concept of corporate knowledge histories, touches on
the problem of contextual knowledge and describes the methodology for gathering and analysing the
empirical data. Chapter six to ten are each dedicated to a particular case study in multinational
companies of different sizes, sectors and cultures of origin, yet all concerned with some issue of
knowledge management in an international corporate context. The cases in the respective chapters
describe:
1
(6) Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical company, concerned with the world-wide transfer of
corporate values and policy through facilitators
(7) The impact of the strong and culturally loaded corporate philosophy of Matsushita Electric on the
nowadays essential knowledge flow between affiliates and corporate headquarters
(8) The successful expansion and diversification strategy of LEGO through a global mindset striving on
strong general values and a culturally open mindset at headquarters
(9) The need for successful international teamwork recognized by the Swiss company Sulzer Infra and
promoted through the concept of “one winning team” in special seminars offered by their internal
training academy.
Although the chapters differ slightly according to the topic of investigation all chapters give a detailed
account of the company background, their entrepreneurial challenge, the findings to the concrete
question at stake and the research methodology applied. All cases give a strong impression of how
culture can only be depicted and understood in the actual interactions which are embedded in and
dependent on the wider and more specific contexts.
The following chapters are dedicated to the analysis and interpretation of the data by gradually
translating “thick” into “thin” – i.e. more decontextualised and graspable – knowledge of cross-cultural
management from a knowledge management perspective. The theoretical framework is deduced from
the empirical data and structured according to the main aspects of the knowledge management
approach. Chapter ten analyses the behaviour and experiences of the four informant companies
introducing the importance of interfaces, organisational learning, and networking as characteristic
features of analysis and tasks of cross-cultural knowledge management. Holden proposes “that crosscultural management is a kind of interactive translation which both facilitates and modulates the intraand inter-organizational transfer of knowledge, values and experience” (p. 225) and calls for specific
networking and communication skills which he names “participative competence”. Interaction and
knowledge being at the core of the approach, the concept of culture as well as cross-cultural
competence must be modified.
As stated in chapter eleven, culture is understood “as infinitely overlapping and perpetually
redistributable habitats of common knowledge and shared meanings” (p. 227), thus, giving major
importance to the acts of distribution, sharing and understanding. Interactive translation in this context
implies (a) a knowledge creating process by participation and exchange related to the translations of
others and (b) an individual act of sense-making by translating, i.e. transferring what is heard or
observed into one’s own frame of reference (p. 229) as an act of sense-making. Language plays a key
role in this process and in the corporate context of management fulfils the specific functions of
“descriptor of management tasks”, “network facilitator”, and “repository of company knowledge”.
Chapter twelve then deepens the notion of translation theory for the purpose of cross-cultural
knowledge transfer and specifies three domains of cultural knowledge. The objective of cultural
translation being to find “common cognitive ground” and the process of translation being an interactive
2
course of events, knowledge conversion becomes a twofold process of transferring (a) knowledge into
knowledge and (b) knowledge into behaviour.
A potential hindrance in the process is the “stickiness” of knowledge, i.e. “detaching knowledge from
its context and transferring it so that it does not lose its essential properties” (p. 250). A condition for
successful translation lies in the “absorptive capacity” of the recipients themselves (cognition and
attitudes) and of the framing conditions which include structural and behavioural factors that make
understanding possible. General cultural and specific cultural knowledge on the one hand and crosscultural know-how on the other hand are the three domains of cultural knowledge. While general and
specific cultural knowledge of one’s own as well as of the foreign culture are externally derived and
viewed as rather passive – mappable and explicit to different degrees – forms of knowledge crosscultural know-how – based on experience and human interactions – defines an “internally created
expertise for collaborative learning” (p. 259) therefore being rather tacit and unmappable. Since the
distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is difficult to draw and therefore not helpful to further a
pragmatic approach, Holden introduces and explains ambiguity, interference, and lack of equivalence
as critical factors of stickiness and accuracy in translation and relates them to communication theory.
The chapter closes highlighting the importance of atmosphere and concludes the analysis and
commentary of the case studies. The following and last chapter thirteen presents a review of the
argument and a redefinition of cross-cultural management as global knowledge work, stating also the
implications the knowledge management perspective has on research, training and managerial work.
Nigel Holden’s book is a passionate argument to re-evaluate the basic theoretical assumptions and
practical conclusions of the currently prevailing approach in cross-cultural (management) studies and
practice with its affinity for lists and rankings. With all respect to the originator of this school of thought
and research, globalisation since then has advanced and considerably changed the nature of crosscultural interaction in corporations and beyond. “Perhaps twenty years ago one could see the world
like that, but the business world at the outset of the millennium is mixing up people from all manner of
linguistic, (national) cultural, educational and professional backgrounds on a scale and with an
intensity unprecedented in human history” (p. 226). A paradigm shift has become necessary, indeed.
The strong persistence and diffuse resistance in the field might be Holden’s motivation to dedicate two
chapters to the criticism of what needs to be overcome and why. Yet, to support his argument and
direction, I might add that attempts do exist. The knowledge management perspective proposed by
Holden gives a powerful framework to continue and link different approaches in cross-cultural research
of diverse academic backgrounds.
The book picks up rhythm from chapter four on, when Holden introduces knowledge management and
presents his approach. The chapters on the case studies do more than just describe and analyse.
They give a vivid example of the methodology and power of narrative to convey multiple strands of
knowledge embedded in their specific contexts and the interactive nature of “meaning”. And an
excellent example of Holden’s ability to reflect the interactive dimension of the narrative approach in
3
his own writing style is the concluding key questions he poses to managers and facilitators on pp. 111
and 123.
Holden presents his theory in functional terms with the aim to formulate a pragmatic approach founded
on theoretical reflection, close enough to the actual reality of cross-cultural management to be
applicable as a guiding model. In the analysis of the empirical data he finds confirmation for his initial
discontent and the features for his theoretical approach. So, it is both necessary and understandable
that he does not go into the “spectres of epistemology and validity” (p. 254) nor discuss in depth the
theoretical background of “thin” and “thick knowledge” (p. 95) and the social constructionist approach
(p. 57). However, in other respects the pragmatic reduction is problematic, mainly regarding the
concept of “interactive translation” and available communication theories. With regard to the term
“translation”, I wonder whether at times it isn’t used synonymously with “sense making” and shouldn’t
be replaced by “interpretation” or “understanding”. This is reinforced by the statements that “everyone
has experience in this form of translation in everyday communication” (p. 226) be it “inside or between
languages” (p. 226) and the definition of “culture as infinitely overlapping and perpetually
redistributable habitats of common knowledge and shared meanings” (p. 227) which afford constant
evaluation and interpretation of cognizant and (inter)acting human beings. Here, “translation” is a
heuristic term for “sense making” in a general and universal sense.
Some epistemological thoughts are necessary (and available in philosophy, cognitive science and
psychology, I might add), to shed light on the process of “(radical!) interpretation” (Donald Davidson)
and to clarify among others the fine line between universalistic and culture relativistic claims. If the
“individual translates everything in terms of his or her frame of reference” (p. 229) and “the categories
used by the observer are themselves culturally determined” (p. 57), in the long run, we can’t avoid
tapping into concepts of cognitive processing nor having to face questions of validity without the need
to rely on outdated notions of “truth”. The term “translation” is also used in a twofold sense to mean the
conversion of knowledge into (new) knowledge and of knowledge into behaviour (p. 244), thus,
introducing a differentiation between “knowing what” from “knowing how”. The latter argument implies
an inherent connection of knowing and doing (though often experienced as a schism between theory
and practice) which needs to be outlined in a cross-culturally and epistemologically suitable theory of
action, equally paramount to support the concepts of “interactive translation” and “participative
competence”.
Introducing these areas of research in the further discussion of Holden’s approach, would also, as I
like to think, widen and deepen his approach. Firstly it would open the perspective for existing
communication theories (s.a. linguistic pragmatics and sociolinguistics) which do take a multipolar,
interactive and participative perspective on cross-cultural communication. Secondly it could stimulate
phenomenological research on the actual components and aspects of “participative competence” with
the objective to translate them into practical know-how and methodologies for practitioners and
managers in the cross-cultural field. For this we will also need to find common cognitive ground
between subject areas across academic divides.
4
I see these points not as a criticism of Holden’s book nor of his approach, rather as rich and promising
links for further and diverse research. As Holden himself puts it: “The models, which incorporate
‘culture-as-knowledge’ are new to cross-cultural management as an academic discipline and practice.
But there is no Hofstedian inviolability about them. They are to be challenged and improved” (p. 209).
As we know, such is the path of scientific discovery which Holden himself initiates and a professional
and generous stance of a scientific author. Holden has set out a concise and convincing framework
and as such an excellent example for “interactive translation” applied to research and scientific
discovery itself which certainly will stimulate discussion, reflection and pragmatic approaches that
grasp and support cross-cultural interactions in the 21st century.
Anette Hammerschmidt
5