Page 87 - Crossing Cultural Boundaries - Cees den Teuling

short term, but the results do not last for a long period. They collapse by implosion. As a mood, EI matters for the underlying research since starting from 1992, significant challenges have been processed in Russia, adjusted and incorporated during the transition period from a command-control economy based on the communist ideology, to a neo-capitalist “free-market” economy. As found in the East Europe Cultural Cluster (GLOBE) research, in general, but more specific for Russia, the respondents (managers) showed to be strongly connected to their cultural traits of group cohesion and directed to their (nucleus) family. As basic elements for successful leadership in Russia, they mostly count for team-oriented and transnational-charismatic leadership. Paternalistic leadership has some roots in Russian society, since in the FSU larger consultative institutions were embedded in the status-conscious Russian society (Bakacsi, Sandor & Victor, 2002). The concept of EI is not recognized and part of the underlying research framework model for this study.
As argued by Inkpen and Crossan (1995, p. 613) “The first ingredient of individual learning, the noticing of discrepancies, is more likely to arise since an individual has a complex belief system”. As a result, professionals with a higher level of belief systems should experience more discrepancies, than beginners with less complicated belief systems. Resolution, the second ingredient, is more likely to perceive in individuals where the relief system has some flexibility. The authors found that firms in a deteriorating position of competition in many situations had managers with the most rusted and traditional belief systems. The fact that these firms had competitive problems may be traced to an unwillingness to cast off or unlearn past practices. To share embedded knowledge, a transparent partner’s openness and willingness is crucial in the context of cooperation and KT. If the option to observe the level of knowledge and skills and to evaluate the existing discrepancies is not feasible, there is no motivation to be engaged in a learning process. At the same time, if the organisation is transparent and accessible, but the individual managers are reluctant to share the discrepancies and are not motivated to be open and able to be transparent, there is no ground for absorbing new skills (Gurkov, 1999).
Organisational climate and organisational structures are also influencing the effectiveness of KT (Lundvall, Rasmussen & Lorentz, 2008). To a certain extent, OC (OL included) is presented and discussed in a vast amount of literature, analysed and explored extensively, but mainly from the Anglo-Saxon perspectives (Chen & Huang, 2007). “Translation” is obligatory to avoid misdirection or even being meaningless for cultures with strong national traits, such as Japan, China, Russia and France.
85