Knowledge Sharing in a Cross-Cultural Team: The Case of an IT-Based Services Company

Authors: Jawad Ul Hasan Jhann09@student.lnu.se Hasan Raza Janjua hracb09@student.lnu.se Supervisor: Miranda KajtaziSemester: Spring 2011Course code: 4IK00E

Acknowledgement

First of all we are thankful to ALLAH Almighty, who made it possible for us to complete this thesis. Many people contributed to this thesis in the form of supervision, comments, advice, support and cooperation. We would like to thank them for their help and support. We especially want to thank our supervisor Ms. Miranda Kajtazi, for her guidance and supervision. Her comments and dialogues motivated us to pursue our research aims. Her deep knowledge helped us to understand research process and methods. Her commitment eliminated the barriers that stood in our way, which made this thesis easier for us.We wish to express sincere thanks and appreciation to our teacher and examiner Prof. Anita Mirijamdotter for her suggestions, guidance and positive criticism. Special thanks to our teacher Dr. Jan Aidemark, who cultivated our interest in knowledge sharing, the main focus of this thesis.Our special thanks go to Sogeti, the esteemed organization that provided us with the opportunity to collect data. We are thankful and appreciative of Sogeti employees, who participated in interviews, gave us their valuable time and helped us to understand the addressed topic in depth. We know it might not have been very comfortable for them, but their generosity and fortitude were indescribable and made this research process run smoothly.Also special thanks to Waseem Raza Janjua and Raheel Javeed for motivation and help in this thesis. Last but not least we would like to thank our parents and families for their encouragement and continuous support throughout this thesis.

Hasan & Jawad

Linnaeus UniversityVäxjö, Sweden, June 2011

2

Abstract

Due to the globalization in the world economy, most multinational organizations have changed the way they conduct business. This change also influenced the structure and working of IT services-providing companies. Due to the contemporary phenomenon of the world being seen as a global village, today organizations have access to a wider talent pool. Different multinational IT services-providing companies follow global software development models, while some of these also call people onshore from distant offices to work on different projects. In this scenario, cross-cultural teams are formed to work together and to fulfill clients’ requirements. The objective of this study is to identify cultural differences that affect the knowledge sharing process in IT services-providing companies. In this study, we present the case of a Swedish IT services-providing company that has extended operations into India. Our intention is to understand employees’ views about their work experience in a cross-cultural team. In this context, the study employs a qualitative approach, which helps to elucidate the role of national culture dimensions on an individual’s behavior within the workplace, as well as the impact national culture dimensions have on knowledge sharing processes. Six cross-cultural team members, who have the experience of working in a cross-cultural environment, were interviewed utilizing a semi-structured interview model. Data collection also includes two and half days of data collected during the observation of a cross-cultural team. The collected data helps to effectively clarify in-depth views about the concerns employees have while working within cross-cultural teams. The data collected was analyzed by applying hermeneutics, through which we mapped the answers to the theory of Hofstede on culture. The latter served as the indicator to focus on cultural dimensions that have decisive influence on knowledge sharing in cross-cultural environments. We conclude by highlighting several specific cultural factors that may affect knowledge sharing in cross-cultural environments.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 2

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. 5

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... 5

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 6

1.1 RELATED WORK ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 PROBLEM AREA ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTION ..................................................................................... 9 1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATION ............................................................................................................ 10 1.5 TARGET AUDIENCE ................................................................................................................. 10 1.6 DISPOSITION ........................................................................................................................ 10

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 12

2.1 COMMUNICATION ................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 CULTURAL DIMENSIONS ............................................................................................................ 13

2.2.1 Power distance (PD) ................................................................................................. 14 2.2.2 Individualism vs. collectivism ................................................................................... 16 2.2.3 Uncertainty avoidance ............................................................................................. 17 2.2.4 Masculinity vs. femininity ........................................................................................ 17 2.2.5 Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation ................................................... 18

2.3 KNOWLEDGE SHARING .............................................................................................................. 19 2.3.1 Socialization ............................................................................................................. 22 2.3.2 Externalization ......................................................................................................... 23 2.3.3 Combination ............................................................................................................. 24 2.3.4 Internalization .......................................................................................................... 24

2.4 COMBINING COMMUNICATION, CULTURE DIMENSIONS AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING ............................................ 25

3. METHODOLOGY – THE RESEARCH PROCESS .................................................................... 28

3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 28 3.2 QUALITATIVE METHOD VALIDITY .................................................................................................. 28 3.3 APPROACH AND DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................ 29 3.4 DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 31 3.5 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ......................................................................................................... 31 3.6 ETHICAL ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... 32

4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 33

4.1 COMPANY DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 33 4.2 INTERVIEW FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 34 4.3 OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 50

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 53

5.1 COMMUNICATION INFLUENCE ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING ........................................................................ 53 5.2 POWER DISTANCE INFLUENCE ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING ......................................................................... 56 5.3 INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM INFLUENCE ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING ........................................................... 57 5.4 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE INFLUENCE ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING ............................................................... 59 5.5 MASCULINITY/FEMININITY INFLUENCE ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING ............................................................... 60

4

5.6 LONG-TERM ORIENTATION VS. SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION INFLUENCE ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING ........................... 62

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 64

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 66

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONERS ............................................................................................................ 72 APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM .......................................................................................................... 74 APPENDIX C: WORK ALLOCATION AND CONTRIBUTION ............................................................................. 76 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEWS DATA ...................................................................................................... 76

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS (DERESKY, 2003, PP.127)....................12

FIGURE 2: SPIRAL EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE CONVERSION AND SELF-TRANSCENDING PROCESS (NONAKA AND KONNO 1998, PP.43)...................................................................22

FIGURE 3: ‘BA’ AND KNOWLEDGE CONVERSION (NONAKA AND KONNO, 1998)..................24

FIGURE 4: COMBINING COMMUNICATION, CULTURE DIMENSIONS AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING...........................................................................................................................27

List of Tables

TABLE 1: NATIONAL CULTURE DIMENSION SCORE (HOFSTEDE, 2001)...............19

5

1. Introduction

This section introduces the subject, provides a review of the literature and previous research, and defines the research problem, the aims and objectives of the study, the study’s research question, the delimitations/limitations of the study and the target audience that may benefit from the study.

Globalization has changed the dynamics of organizations. Workforce diversity and rising popularity of team-based management techniques have increased the concern for management of cross-cultural groups (Ford, et al., 2003). Recent study on organizational learning and knowledge creation indicate that knowledge sharing, communication and learning in organizations are profoundly influenced by the cultural values of individual employees, which plays a critical role in carrying out practices effectively (Ardichvii, et al., 2006). For that reason, it is important to understand the national cultural values that affect knowledge sharing within cross-cultural teams. Hofstede (1980) was among the first researchers to argue that organizational culture is not independent of national culture, suggesting that national culture eventually influences human resource practices and organizational behavior. Professional culture, ethnic culture, organizational culture and national culture can co-exist and have different saliency with individuals at different points in time (Ford and Chan, 2003). Organizational culture may be more salient than national culture to individuals on cross-cultural teams, however the claim that only organizational culture influences and affects knowledge sharing is unsupported (Ardichvii, et al., 2006).

This study highlights those factors of national culture that make knowledge sharing a difficult process while working in a cross-cultural team. This study utilizes a client-service IT consulting company as a case. In this company, individuals from Sweden and India collaborate remotely through ICTs to complete certain projects. They may also interact face-to-face when offshore team members come onshore.

This study investigates the process of knowledge sharing in cross-cultural teams through the national culture dimensions proposed by Hofstede (2001). The cultural dimensions highlighted by Hofstede are power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance and long-term vs. short-term orientation. Based on these dimensions, we studied the cross-cultural team as a knowledge-sharing environment, where different cultural dimensions affect the knowledge-sharing process. Nonaka’s (1994) model will be used as a framework to demonstrate the knowledge-sharing processes of cross-cultural teams. Nonaka’s model suggests that social interaction and conversation processes are procedures for tacit and explicit knowledge to be expanded in terms of both quality and quantity.

6

According to statistics, there are about 0.88 million people directly employed and around three million are benefiting from the indirect employment. These figures do not include the 4.2 million individuals employed by the Information Technology Enabled Services (Vigneswara, 2007). Professionals in India have a major share in providing IT services, which include programming, system integration, application testing, IT consulting, software development and IT support services to domestic and international clients. To benefit from those professional skills and abilities, the world’s largest IT companies have located their operations in India. Some companies have only offshore operations in India and adopt global software development models whereas some companies utilize IT professionals onshore to work on different projects. Cultural diversity within the workplace could impact knowledge sharing processes. For this reason, it is important to highlight national cultural dimensions that influence knowledge sharing. To do so, our study focuses on the case of an IT consulting company, Sogeti, which has adopted the practice of forming cross-cultural teams to do business.

1.1 Related WorkCompanies seek global IT services to access a wider talent pool and benefit from the reduced development costs, which are quite less than those of the local service providers (Macgregor, 2005). Organizations that are operating globally hire their employees from different cultures and have to deal with issues during the interaction due to difference in cultures and languages. Ingram and Simons (2002) emphasize that the international activities for communicating and transferring conceptual and operational knowledge, experiences, and skills in a company can accelerate the process of knowledge sharing.

Many scholars and consultants have argued that in order to create a culture in which creativity is appreciated, sharing ideas is necessary for knowledge-management initiatives to succeed (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002). According to Chakravarthy, et al. (1999), knowledge is produced and shared among the employees at the workplace and it is an automatic activity. Employee knowledge is an asset of the company, which should be shared with other employees, but many times the national cultural differences appear as a hurdle to easy collaboration. It is for intellectuals to investigate and determine which cultural values of different countries have an essential oneness (Kakati, 1995, pp. 1). Knowledge sharing is a diverse and complex process, even under the best situations (Hendriks, 1999; Lessard and Zaheer, 1996). Hofstede (1980) was the first to differentiate that people’s behaviors and beliefs are purely dependent upon their national culture and suggest that national cultural dimensions should be understood. Afterwards these findings were used in many fields for different research purposes, especially for the management of workplace diversity. Researchers of cognitive strategies and methods of learning and knowledge generation suggest that cognitive style differs due to national and ethnic cultures (Ardichvii, et al., 2006). Barachini (2009) studied the cultural and social issues related to

7

knowledge sharing; he argued that knowledge sharing can be considered as a business transaction theory. Barachini (2009) highlighted the hazards and motivators for exchanging explicit knowledge, but less importance was given to the cultural differences that affect the knowledge sharing. Simonen (1999) investigated the effectiveness of the knowledge sharing and knowledge management process between international alliance partners and found that cultural differences impact these processes. Further study determined that cultural dimensions can affect the online community of practice in the knowledge sharing process (Ardichvii, et al., 2006). Ardichvii, et al. (2006) also argues that more research is needed on cultural dimensions and its impact on knowledge sharing. Ardichvii, et al. (2006) have also stated that some of the dimension are less effective on knowledge sharing processes while working online, but have more impact when culturally diverse people interact face-to-face. Ford and Chan (2003) also studied cultural dimensions with respect to knowledge sharing and emphasized further study was needed to determine what effect communication skills have on flow of knowledge in cross-cultural teams. Ford and Chan (2003, pp. 12) stated, “One question that has received fairly limited research attention is that how cross-cultural issues relate to knowledge management”. According to Dibbernet, et al. (2006), working in the contemporary world requires some extra efforts to tackle cross-cultural issues. This not only increases the performance of IT-service providers who have cross-cultural teams, but a facilitating work environment can also help to increase the understanding of different cultures. Michailova et al. (2006) studied the influence of national culture on knowledge sharing between China and Russia. They used only one of the Hofstede national cultural dimensions for their comparison. They explored how individualism and collectivism can affect knowledge sharing and suggested future work utilizing all of the Hofstede dimensions with respect to knowledge sharing. In their study, Michailova, et al. (2006, p.16) stated “We have not analyzed other cultural dimensions, such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity and long-term vs. short-term orientation, although these factors may have direct impact on knowledge sharing in groups and organizations”. Previous studies have determined that there is a need to explore national cultural factors that can affect the knowledge sharing process in cross-culture teams.

1.2 Problem Area Service-based IT companies typically outsource in order to fulfill the requirements of their clients (Sailwal, 2009). This also enables companies to employ more cross-cultural teams. Different research has been carried out to see the cross-culture impact on knowledge sharing, such as that carried out by Michailova, et al. (2006) in their investigation of how national cultural dimensions can affect knowledge sharing between Russians and Chinese. They only considered one of the national dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1980) and suggested that individualism and collectivism can affect knowledge sharing between cross-cultural teams. In this research, we focus on an Indian and Swedish cross-cultural team. India has an enormous number of IT

8

professionals, with 0.88 million directly employed and around three million benefiting from indirect employment. These numbers do not include the individuals employed by the Information Technology Enabled Services, which number 4.2 million (Vigneswara, 2007). This signifies that India has a large number of IT professionals; therefore the international IT service-providing companies have been constantly seeking to collaborate with them in the last few years. As such, IT projects are completed with the collaboration of cross-cultural team members, but the knowledge produced during these projects is shared less among them. The difference in national culture could be the reason for this (Hofstede, 1980). Knowledge is an asset that should be transferred to others so that it can help to gain a competitive advantage. Hofstede (1980), after his detailed study of IBM employees in different countries, suggested differentiating people from different countries on the basis of national culture while taking into account their underlying values, beliefs and mindset. Hofstede (2001) also observed that these national culture differences affect cross-culture working environments. Michailova et al. (2006) suggested that it would be interesting to study knowledge sharing between cross-cultural teams with respect to the remainder of the national cultural dimension proposed by Hofstede (1980). It is important to explore national culture factors that can affect knowledge sharing in cross-culture teams. This study thus enables a better understanding of the hurdles for knowledge sharing in cross-cultural IT-teams and indirectly contributes to better management of these differences. As in the other case, working teams which share the same culture, language and country tend to be more effective and efficient. Indians are increasingly collaborating with Swedes to provide IT services to IT clients. So it will be interesting to investigate knowledge sharing between cross-cultural teams through the lens of the national cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1980). It is equally important to explore the factors of national culture that widen the gap between culturally disparate team members. It is quite essential to highlight these issues in-depth, especially for large organizations having numerous stakeholders. This study will identify the factors of national culture that make it difficult for Indian and Swedish team members to share knowledge. This research aims to provide a better understanding of the cultural differences between Indian and Swedish team members and lead to better management of these differences to promote knowledge sharing. Cross-cultural communication is bound to occur as different projects are carried out between people from different cultural backgrounds. For that reason, this research will be helpful for organizations while adopting a cross-cultural team framework and engaging Indian team members for projects as India provides a major share of IT services in the world.

1.3 Aims, objectives and Research QuestionThis research aims to study knowledge sharing within cross-cultural teams and to specify in which ways national cultural dimensions can affect knowledge sharing among the individuals within a team. As knowledge sharing among team members plays a vital role in determining the outcome of projects, it is thus important to investigate the issue. This study’s objective is to identify

9

cultural differences that affect the knowledge sharing process in IT services-providing companies. In the presence of cultural diversity, knowledge management becomes more difficult, so the factors of national culture that make knowledge management more difficult need to be explored. This leads to our research question.

What are the national culture differences that could influence the knowledge sharing process of an Indian and Swedish cross-culture team?

1.4 Scope and limitationDue to limited time and resources, this study is confined to projects where only Indian and Swedish individuals collaborate and interact with each other. Cross-cultural teams are formed to carryout different projects at Sogeti, a company which has offices in India and whose professionals come onshore and form cross-cultural teams with Swedish professionals to work on different projects. On the basis of national culture dimensions suggested by Hofstede (1980), India is different from most western organizations, thus another reason to consider India. This study will explore the cultural and communication impact on knowledge sharing. However, this study is not about data or information sharing. As mentioned earlier, India provides a major share of business services, so organizations carrying out their business activities in India will benefit from the study. We will attempt to investigate the opinions and views of team members in cross-cultural teams by conducting interviews of both Indian and Swedish team members. In the course of this study, our focus will be confined only to the cross-cultural factors, which we believe affect the knowledge sharing process. Technical aspects of communication and project development are beyond the scope of this thesis.

1.5 Target AudienceThis study will benefit researchers who intend to work on knowledge sharing and cultural differences. The study can be helpful to those wanting to explore issues regarding knowledge sharing in cross-cultural teams and will enable them to highlight more issues in the knowledge sharing process due to national cultural differences. It will also help organizations to better understand individuals in the context of national cultures and then guide them to improve knowledge sharing practices in cross-cultural team environments.

1.6 Disposition This research thesis consists of 6 chapters. The first chapter introduces the research topic to the reader. This section comprises the literature review, problem area, aims & objective of study, limitation/delimitation and target audience of study.The second chapter is a combination of previous research done on the topic and theoretical concepts about knowledge sharing, communication and the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. This theory leads to the main model of the study presented at the end of the second chapter.

10

The third chapter highlights the methodology of the research and presents research method, research approach, data collection method, strategy for data analysis and validity of the research. Qualitative method has been used to conduct this research. Interviews of the related professionals have been conducted to obtain required data and observation technique was used to validate gathered data. This chapter also outlines how the research was conducted and also discusses the reliability and validity of the research. The fourth chapter is about empirical findings in which interview and observational findings have been presented respectively. Interview findings have been recorded according to the flow of interview questionnaire and under each interview question; the findings from all six interviewees have been presented to give the reader an insight regarding how the interviewees responded to each question according to their point of view and preferences. The last part of the chapter describes the findings of the authors during their observation at the case company’s office in Stockholm. The fifth chapter includes analysis and discussion. In this chapter, each theme is analyzed and discussed according to the theoretical framework and empirical findings, which clarify the influence of communication and national cultural dimensions on the knowledge sharing process that was the main focus of this study. Each theme also contains key points at the end. The sixth chapter is the concluding chapter that describes what this study has achieved in terms of its contribution to the literature and practice. This section also presents some suggestions for future work in this specific study area.

11

2. Theoretical Framework

Theoretical framework comprises the theories related to the subject, which include communication, cultural dimensions and knowledge sharing. Theories are compiled in accordance to the topic of the study.

2.1 CommunicationCommunication is a process of sharing emotions, feelings and knowledge with others. Communication is also a process of sharing meaning by transmitting through words, behaviors, or material artifacts (Deresky, 2003). Problems arise when the sender relays a message to the receiver but a difference in perception occurs when the receiver perceives something other than what the sender intended to share. Anything that serves to undermine the communication of intended meaning is referred to as noise. Individuals from different cultures have different behaviors and communication styles (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1998). People live in their own private spaces that are based on their culture, experiences, and values, which could affect message interpretation (Deresky, 2003).

Figure 1: The Communication Process (Deresky, 2003, pp.127) Figure 1 shows that there will be more likelihood of misinterpretation the greater the dissimilarity in cultures of communicating people. Deresky (2003, pp.126) stated, “Our entire repertory of communication behavior is dependent largely on the culture in which we are raised”. For that reason, culture consequently serves as the foundation of communication and, for that matter, when culture varies, communication practices also vary. In an environment with cultural differences, communication is effective when information can be understood in other cultural contexts by coding and decoding (Kreijn, et al.,

12

2003). Knowledge is created and shared in social interactions (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and face-to-face conversations. So communication is a prerequisite for knowledge sharing. Cultural factors may increase the gap between the sender’s intention and the receiver’s perception about the message. Communication is an integral part of sharing knowledge, but the complexity of the message has a semantic effect on the transfer of knowledge. Global IT-service sector team members can be geographically dispersed, as in working offshore, or engage in face-to-face interactions when working onshore. When people are dispersed, they use information technology to communicate with their team members. In both of cases, cross-cultural communication occurs when people have different accents, styles, and even meanings to the words they use. Mostly international organizations utilize English as their mode of communication; however their English often has different accents and styles depending upon the culture. In some cases, both team members are not native English speakers, making knowledge sharing difficult even though they are intended to do so. Communication is a process where team members bring their individual resources together to work in teams to perform different tasks (DeSanctis and Jiang, 2005) in which one task can be sharing knowledge. Reagans and Zuckerman (2001) emphasize that social relationships can be enhanced if team communication is frequent rather than sparse. Effective communication can often be difficult in a homogenous group, even if it is just a conversation between two people (Agar, 1994). When it comes to people who are from different cultures, communication can become even more difficult. Bloch and Starks (1999) emphasize that in cross-cultural teams, communicating members should know about language variations and its impact on the overall performance of the team. DeSanctis and Jiang (2005) also emphasize that trust factor among team members is important for knowledge sharing. Nordi and Whittaker (2002) stated that the collective team has greater opportunity to assess the knowledge and abilities of their team members, while trust can be enhanced through greater communication that establishes social bonding. Informal interactions such as chance encounters and social gathering are more frequent amongst collected team members and enhance the sharing of their knowledge (Kraut et al., 2002; Nordi and Whittaker, 2002). According to Carmel (1999) real teams cannot be built by simply providing the communication tools and technologies, but rather better understanding, relationships and trust are required for efficient communication, collaboration and coordination. So cultural diversity, language differences and geographic distance can impact the sharing of knowledge between sender and receiver.

2.2 Cultural DimensionsOrganizations that work internationally face cross-cultural challenges. Culturally different people are increasingly collaborating and the need for managing cross-cultural teams also increases. It is important to know in what respect people are different, which will help to form effective management techniques. Their difference in attitudes and values can affect knowledge sharing between them. Different people define culture depending upon their

13

cultural and educational background. The most common and appropriate definition of culture for this study can be “The collective mental programming of the mind which distinguishes one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede, 2001, pp.9). Here mental programming refers to the manner in which a group thinks about a specific matter and the basic mind-set behind this thinking. The most important study on the influence of cultural differences on management carried out by Hofstede (1980) started in 1960 and continued for the next three decades. This now classic study was an extensive survey of 116,000 IBM employees from more than 40 different countries. On the basis of this research, Hofstede (2001) determined the basic national culture dimensions that differentiate people according to their cultural values, beliefs and behaviors. Hofstede (2001) identified the following four dimensions on which countries or groups can differ: individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance and power distance. Later, long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation was a fifth factor discovered that is especially relevant for Asian countries because uncertainty avoidance appeared less relevant (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). Hofstede was cited over a thousand times between 1987 and 1997. Also, Hofstede is the third most cited author in international business studies published between 1989 and 1993 (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). According to Chandy and Williams (1994), Hofstede’s (2001) model is the most cited national cultural framework. Although there is some criticism of Hofstede’s national culture dimensions (Mcsweeney, 2002; Williamson, 2002), Hofstede’s (2001) model is nonetheless acknowledged as the most comprehensive model (Kogut and Singh, 1988). Successive studies validate the score of dimensions between countries; even these studies are done in different settings (Shane and Venkataraman, 1996; Mouritzen and Svara, 2002). These five dimensions will be used in this study to explore the differences between Indian and Swedish employees of Sogeti who have been working as part of a cross-cultural team in different projects. These national culture dimensions can significantly influence the cross-cultural team knowledge sharing process.

2.2.1 Power distance (PD)

The concept of power distance originated from the work of Dutch social psychologist Mulder (1977), who specified his power distance theory based on laboratory and field experiments with simple social structures. He defines power as “the potential to determine or direct the behavior of another person or other persons more so than the other way round” (Hofstede, 2001, pp. 83). Power distance indicates the extent to which a society accepts the unequal distribution of power in institutions or organizations (Schneider, and Barsoux, 2003). Mulder (1977) specifies that power distance can be seen indiscriminately from small groups to society as a whole. However, norms may apply within groups and teams and between groups in society. The basic idea about power distance involves how human inequality is handled by different societies. The important thing to understand is that inequality can occur in areas such as prestige, wealth and power (Hofstede, 2001). As organizations are a part of societies, for that reason, inequality of member abilities and

14

inequality of power is inevitable. It is important to highlight that differences in the exercise of power in a hierarchy is associated with the value systems of bosses as well as subordinates, even bosses who are more powerful partners (Hofstede, 2001). As the basis of human behavior is psychological, the need for independence in people is matched by a need for dependence, and the need for power by a need for security.The extent to which less powerful persons of an organization or society believe that power distribution is unequal varies. Hofstede (2001) divided this into two categories, those countries having small power distance and those having large power distance. Large power distance countries are characterized by information constrained by hierarchy, centralized authority, many hierarchical levels, acceptance that power has its privileges, and an expectation of inequality. Small power distance societies are characterized by decentralized power and design making, openness with information, flat power hierarchy, right consciousness and a tendency toward egalitarianism. Hofstede (1980, pp.99) used the definition that was previously stated by Mulder (1977): “The power distance between a boss B and a subordinate S in a hierarchy is the difference between the extent to which B can determine the behavior of S and the extent to which S can determine the behavior of B”. People with a large power distance organization cannot share knowledge directly with the upper level bosses, and that is a loss of knowledge for the organization. As it is easy within the small power distance culture to share knowledge even with the upper hierarchy, so to could these organizations ultimately benefit from improving the knowledge sharing process. The bosses make decisions in large power distance cultures without consulting subordinates, something even subordinates often appreciate because they don’t want to disagree with the boss (Hofstede, 1980). In high power distance cultures, more importance is given to the knowledge of seniors than the more junior staff, which may result in less knowledge sharing from bottom to top and even can affect the knowledge sharing amongst the junior staff. If the cross-culture team comprises people having different levels of power distance in their culture, then the potential impact of this difference on the knowledge sharing process warrants exploration.In regards to the research setting in which Indian professionals are questioned, it is interesting to observe that back home they are used to a different kind of power distribution back home and when they come onshore to form cross-cultural teams with Swedish professionals, they experience a different level of power distribution in the organization. It bears highlighting that this attitude not only occurs in the lower level employees but with the upper hierarchy as well. According to the views of a senior Indian executive with a Ph. D. from an American university, “What is most important for me and my department is not what I do or achieve for the company, but whether the Master’s (i.e., owner of the firm) favor is bestowed on me. This I have achieved by saying ‘yes’ to everything the Master says or does; to confront him is to look for another job. I left my freedom of thought in Boston” (Negandhi and Prasad, 1971, pp. 128).

15

2.2.2 Individualism vs. collectivism

Individualism and collectivism are habits deeply rooted in the manner in which different societies are formed. Some people live in nuclear family systems and others live in extended family units. In individualism cultures, people are not integrated with their families and relatives but in collectivism cultures they are. An important point to highlight is that relationship between individuals is not only the matter of living together, but the phenomenon is dependent upon the values systems of major groups of the population. Additionally, the factors affecting and developing that behavior go beyond the family system, and include education, religion, and politics. Hofstede (2001) explained that collectivism is not only a matter of deference to a more powerful person, but people have a sense of collective identity which makes them believe that they should change their views together. Collectivism does not emphasize the negation of individual wellbeing, but the idea is that the wellbeing of the individuals can be guaranteed by maintaining the wellbeing of the group. In the context of organizations, individualism is influenced by factors other than the societal norm, which include employees’ educational background, the organization’s history and organizational culture. Hofstede (2001, pp. 29) defines individualism verses collectivism as “related to the integration of individuals into primary groups”. Individualism culture is less integrated to other people whereas collectivism values group wellbeing over individual desire. Individualism culture can be characterized by the following features: concern about themselves or close loved ones, a high importance placed on freedom, ability is viewed as important for one’s career, individual discussion is better, individual decisions are better, and calculative involvement. Collectivism culture, on the other hand, has characteristics like considering the implication of their actions on the wider group, knowing the right people is better for one’s career, group discussion is better, collective decisions are better, and moral involvement with the company. Bhagat et al. (2002) argue that people from collectivist and individualist cultures can be characterized distinctively because they treat information and knowledge creation very differently. Hall (1976) established that a culture could be differentiated as high context and low context, and that is related to the individualism verses collectivism dimension (Hofstede, 2001; Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). In high context cultures, less needs to be said in an explicit form because most of the message is coded in the context, whereas in low context cultures everything must be explicitly said to be understood. In high context cultures, people tend to rely more on the context of non-verbal actions and the environmental setting to convey meaning, and therefore are apt to prefer communication media with high media richness, such as face-to-face communication or phone calls (Ardichvii, et al., 2006). Whereas in low context cultures, people like to use the e-mails or online discussion boards. A society’s level of individualism and collectivism also specifies and affects the types of people who will hold critical positions in the organization as well (Hofstede, 2001). Individualism societies may have little knowledge sharing because knowledge is considered to be a power and tool for success. Yet in collectivism

16

societies, people collaborate in a way to enhance harmony, which can increase and promote knowledge sharing.

2.2.3 Uncertainty avoidance

Generally, uncertainty about the future is a basic fact of human life that is dealt through the domains of technology, law, and religion. And in organizations, these are in the form of technology, rules, and rituals. “We are living with an uncertainty of which we are conscious” (Hofstede, 2001. pp.146). Hofstede (2001, pp. 29) defined the concept as follows: “Uncertainty avoidance is related to the level of stress in a society in the face of an unknown future”. Not only do societies have different reactions to uncertainty, but their level of stress while facing uncertainty also differs. Uncertainty avoidance comprises the extent to which an organization or group established rules as a mean to incorporate ambiguity and doubts. “Rules are the way in which organizations reduce the internal uncertainty caused by the unpredictability of their member behavior” (Hofstede, 2001, pp.147). Rules are also viewed as affecting people’s autonomous judgment and end up leading them to do things they would normally consider bad. Another important aspect regarding rules is that the authority of the rules differs from the authority of the persons. The authority of the rules is related to uncertainty avoidance and the authority of the persons (Hofstede, 2001). Organizations that are more structured tend to have many rules there. Perrow (1972, cited in Schneider and Barsoux, 2003, pp. 29) stated, “Rules stem from past adjustments and seek to establish the present and future”. The rules are the basics when we see uncertainty avoidance because they determine the level of uncertainty in a group or organization. Hofstede (2001) suggested that most of the time good rules lead to a desired outcome if they are obeyed properly. “Bad rules may arise out of differences in values between those who make them and those who have to follow them” (Hofstede, 2001, pp. 147). In cross-cultural teams, uncertainty avoidance can be different depending upon the culture, so rules making can be a critical part.Hofstede (2001) also signified the difference between uncertainty avoidance and risk avoidance. Risk is often defined and explained in terms of percentage or probability that a particular event may occur. Weak uncertainty avoidance organizations can be identified by risk taking tolerance of differing behaviors and opinions, flexibility, less structured organization, and also fewer rules. The characteristics of strong uncertainty avoidance organizations include risk avoidance, strong structure, much planning, rules and procedures, maturity and strong consensus needed.

2.2.4 Masculinity vs. femininity

Men and women differ as to the role they play in society. Gender role socialization first starts in the family and then continues in peer groups and schools. Children’s literature and media also play a part in specifying gender roles (Hofstede, 2001), and mental health professionals consider it an effective practice. Religion also plays a significant role in assigning and shaping gender roles in the societies. Different religions specify and limit the role of both men

17

and women (Hofstede, 2001). Most religions consider and symbolize men as tough and women as tender. Tannen (1992) popularized the discussion of gender differences in values, specifying that “report talk” for men transfers more knowledge and information. “Rapport talk” for women entails more conversation and discussion, as well as exchanging feelings and establishing relationships. Her study illustrated that each gender has its own way of thinking, feeling and acting, and some of this is probably present in all human societies. This dimension revolves around the relative importance of achievement vs. nurture. Masculinity is related to ambition, earning, and greater differentiation in gender roles: men are seen to be more assertive whereas women are nurturers. Masculinity cultures have characteristics, like gender roles, which are clearly distinct. In such cultures, men are assertive, having mastery in the workplace valued and women are considered facilitators to their husbands. Femininity stands for caring and nurturing behaviors and less difference in the gender roles: men and women are both nurturers and less assertive (Hofstede, 2001). Femininity culture characteristics are quality of life; husband and wife both are nurturers, and social gender roles overlap. Role association with gender varies between different cultures. When these culturally different people interact, they have a different perception about each other. Masculinity thinking that revolves around mastery and competiveness may block knowledge sharing between individuals (Ford and Chan, 2003). After the Hofstede (1980) study and interviews conducted from men and women across nine occupations, the gender difference trends mentioned below appeared. Advancement, earning and up-to-datedness is more important for men. On the other hand, women’s priorities include friendly atmosphere, position security, physical conditions, managers and cooperation.

2.2.5 Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation

This cultural dimension was found in 1985 in the answers of the student sample from 23 countries, and is independent of the four dimensions identified in the IBM studies (Hofstede, 1980). An important point to highlight is that this difference could not be deduced from the original studies. Thus for that reason, Hofsdete (2001) created a Chinese value survey that was then answered by people across 23 countries. On the basis of these results, and also with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on East, long-term vs. short-term orientation became the fifth cultural dimension. Long-term orientation cultures have characteristics like persistence, ordering relationships by status and observing this order, thrift, and having a sense of shame. On the other hand, short-term orientation cultures specify personal steadiness and stability, protecting your ‘face’, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors and gifts (Hofstede, 2001).

In respect to organizations, this dimension is related to whether people choose to focus their efforts on the future or the present (Hofstede, 2001, pp. 29). Long-term orientation cultures consider and value virtue oriented towards future benefits; short-term orientation stands for the encouraging of qualities related to the present, in particular and fulfilling social responsibilities

18

(Hofstede, 1980; Ford, et al., 2003). Businesses with long-term oriented cultures are used to working toward building up a strong position in the markets as they do not expect quick results. In short-term orientation cultures, “bottom line” is a major focus, and managers are judged by their immediate results. On the employee level, long-term orientation individuals possess characteristics such as greater commitment, hard work today rewards in the long-term, and respect for tradition. Short-term orientation characteristics are fast change, focus efforts towards the present, and protecting face. In long-term orientation culture, people are more likely to participate in long-term goals (Hofstede, 2001). Team members from a culture that has long-term orientation may involve more in knowledge sharing, whereas team members with a culture of short-term orientation tend to be less interested. Members of a long-term oriented culture would be more willing to participate actively in knowledge management processes, which do not usually generate immediate results (Ford and Chan, 2003).Hofstede’s (2001) research results show a difference in national culture based on culture dimensions that are described above. Sweden and India’s scores are shown in the table 1.

Country Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance

Individualism Masculinity Long-Term Orientation

India (IND)

77 40 48 56 61

Sweden (SWE)

31 29 71 5 33

Table 1: National Culture Dimension Score (Hofstede, 2001)

2.3 Knowledge sharingKnowledge has become an important resource for the organization and in recent year’s knowledge has played a vital role for organizations to gain competitive advantage (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Knowledge is an asset for an organization that is necessary for its survival and success (Drucker, 1992). Organizations focus on knowledge workers and creative thinkers (Nonaka, et al., 2000), as these are the people that can play an important role in achieving organizational objectives. Drucker (2004) says that knowledge workers not only need formal education to enhance knowledge, but they also require learning opportunities which they can utilize to maintain their competitive advantages. Professionals argue that knowledge sharing is a diverse and complex process even under the best situations (Hendriks, 1999; Lessard and Zaheer, 1996). Different disciplines describe knowledge in its own context, like knowledge in the context of information systems is different in terms than that of human resources. The most common notion of knowledge in the current KM literature is Tacit and Explicit Knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Polanyi (1967) sees knowledge as a continuum, where he distinguishes it into two types: tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that cannot be easily

19

transferred to others, where explicit knowledge is such a knowledge that can easily transfer to the others. Knowledge is categorized into “knowing-that” and “know-how” by Ryle (1949). Polanyi (1967) stated that individuals appear to know more than they can explain. Von Hippel (1988) stated that “Know-how” is the accumulated skill or expertise that allows one to do something smoothly and efficiently. Empirical studies indicate that systematic know-how transferred from, between and within projects has significant impact on the success of projects (Frey, et al., 2009).Executives aspire to develop a knowledge-sharing culture in which knowledge is easily shared between organizational members through electronic or social means (Jashapara, 2004). Knowledge by its nature is different, and can be differentiated in terms of tacit and explicit. Sharing tacit knowledge is important and quite germane to organizational learning and gaining competitive advantage. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) stated that knowledge sharing is the interaction process of explicit and tacit knowledge. It has been argued that knowledge lies in people’s minds and it is in the form of tacit knowledge, but less the explicit knowledge (Gersick and Hackman, 1990; Leonard-Barton, 1992). Jasharpara (2004) expects knowledge sharing cultures to be more knowledge creative and enhance performance. Jashapara (2004) says that a knowledge sharing culture is based on the development of artifacts, certain value promotion, and healthy culture dialectic (Jashapara, 2003). Dixon (2002) says that knowledge is voluntary and individuals identify that they possess knowledge and share it when required. Knowledge sharing depends upon sender and receiver, who are both responsible for sharing knowledge actively if they think this knowledge is useful for anybody in the organization or team (Bouty, 2000). Nonaka (1994) highlighted that to carry out the sequence of innovation, the focus should be from the perspective of how an organization creates knowledge, rather than how it processes knowledge. So considering this, it signifies that ideas are formed in the minds of the individuals. But interaction between individuals plays a crucial role in developing these ideas. So the “communities of interaction” are core and contribute in amplifying and developing new knowledge (Nonaka, 1994, pp.15). Nonaka highlighted that these communities might span departmental or indeed organizational boundaries, but they define a further dimension to organizational knowledge creation, which is closely associated and dependent upon the extent of social interaction between individuals that share and develop knowledge. As individuals are the central part of the knowledge creation process, it is suggested by the author that there are factors that induce individual commitment in an organizational setting that include intention, autonomy, and a certain level of environment fluctuation (Nonaka, 1994, pp.17). According to Carmel (1999), real team cannot be built by providing the communication tools and technologies; better understanding, relationships, and trust are required to have effective communication, collaboration and coordination between team members. It is important for the manager to have the ability to convert different types of knowledge into a purposeful form to enhance team performance. Individuals who are culturally diverse may experience difficulty in creating and sharing new knowledge.

20

Another important task for organizations is to bring personal knowledge into a social context in which it can be amplified. So it is a necessity to have a field that provides a platform on which individuals’ perspectives are articulated and conflicts are resolved in the formation of higher level concepts. Personal knowledge of people who have different national culture may affect social bonding, which can restrict its amplification. Nonaka and Konno (1998) suggested that, as with the creation of the knowledge, conversion of that knowledge into a meaningful product is required. For that purpose, they suggested the following conversion model.Nonaka and Konno’s (1998) idea of ´Ba´ is a concept of sharing knowledge that can be perceived as shared spaces that enhance relationships and its purpose is to create and share knowledge. These spaces can be ‘physical’ like an office, ‘virtual’ dispersed workspaces like e-mail or teleconferencing, and lastly ‘mental’ like shared experiences or ideas, and may in fact be any combination of these (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, pp. 40). Nonaka and Konno (1998) said ‘Ba’ is an important concept in social life that represents place and situation, plus context with all the relationships included. Knowledge exists in these shared spaces and can be shared like one’s experience can be shared with another. The SECI (socialization, externalization, combination, internalization) model showed the four ‘Ba’ and it served as only the outline of the knowledge creation. Knowledge sharing is a spiraling process between explicit and tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Figure 2 show “the characteristics of four steps in the knowledge conversation process and each of four conversation modes can be understood as processes of self transcendence” (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, pp. 42). The model shows how the different ‘Ba’ combine to create knowledge, then it is shared from individual to group and ultimately as organization knowledge.

21

Figure 2: Spiral Evolution of Knowledge Conversion and Self-transcending Process (Nonaka and Konno 1998, pp.43)

The model shows the conversion of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge and vice versa, including the level at which it happens. Transfer of knowledge will be at bigger scale and with greater speed if the involvement of people in the process increases. Organizational knowledge creation and transfer can be seen as an upward spiral, which is from individual to group, group to organization and even at an inter-organizational level (Nonaka, 1994). Here team members that are from different cultures could affect the participation, which could slow and shorten the knowledge creation and transfer processes.

2.3.1 Socialization

“Socialization” involves conversion of tacit knowledge through the interaction between individuals. An important point to highlight in the scenario is that individual can also acquire tacit knowledge without language. Working with mentors and learning craftsmanship are not solely dependent upon the language but involves observation, imitation, and practice. In an organizational setting, on the job training uses the same principle. Nonaka and Konno (1998) explain that socialization is key to transferring tacit knowledge among members of a group and emphasize that tacit knowledge is transferred through time spent together rather than through written or verbal instructions. Socialization is also called the originating Ba, meanings it is the space where knowledge is created through the sharing of emotion, feeling and experiences. The key to acquire tacit knowledge is experience; otherwise it will be extremely difficult to share

22

each other’s thinking process. Tacit knowledge is shared when one self is freed to become a larger self. Tacit knowledge transfer needs an empathized relation between colleagues, which contributes to make a larger self and bonding (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, pp. 42). In short, self-transcendence behavior is required for socialization. “Process of transferring one’s idea or images directly to colleagues or subordinates means to share personal knowledge and create a common place or Ba” (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, pp. 43). Figure 3 shows knowledge transfer from phase to phase. In an environment where team members having different national culture are undertaking IT projects together, communication is tantamount because it is not craftsmanship that can be transferred without communication. Here culture difference can affect the socialization process and eventually affect the sharing of the tacit knowledge.

2.3.2 Externalization

The conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is referred to “externalization”. Nonaka (1994) suggested that tacit and explicit knowledge are complementary and can expand over time through a process of mutual interaction. In the externalization stage of knowledge creation, an individual commits to a group and becomes one of them; then the sum of the individual’s ideas diffuse into the group’s overall mental model (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, pp. 43). There are two key factors through which the individual mental model transfers to the group mental model. First is the articulation of tacit knowledge, which can be done through expressing one’s mental model into words, figurative language, and visuals. The second factor involves converting customer or external professional knowledge into an understandable form. People with the right capabilities and knowledge are important for a project team, taskforce, or cross-functional team. Dialogue is the mechanism that can be used to convert the individual mental model to the common concepts (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Self-transcendence is the key to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and group integration.

23

Figure 3: ‘Ba’ and knowledge conversion (Nonaka and Konno, 1998)

2.3.3 Combination

In this phase, explicit knowledge is converted to more complex sets of explicit knowledge. Key issues are communication and diffusion processes (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, pp. 44). “Combination” conversion mode involves the use of social process to combine different bodies of explicit knowledge held by individuals. The mechanisms used to exchange and combine knowledge can be meetings and telephone conversations. Modern computer systems provide a graphic example, where the reconfiguration of existing information—with the help of sorting, adding, re-categorizing, and re-contextualizing of explicit knowledge—can lead to new knowledge. Externalized knowledge is captured from inside or outside of the organization and then this explicit knowledge is disseminated in the organization through presentations or meetings. This explicit knowledge is then further processed to transform it into usable documents like plans or reports.

2.3.4 Internalization

“Internalization” is the conversion of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge, which relates to the concept of learning. Nonaka (1994) emphasized that in the process of organizational knowledge creation, individuals have a pivotal role. And the quality of individual tacit knowledge depends upon the “variety” of an individual’s experience and “knowledge of experience”. For explicit knowledge that is newly disseminated, individuals must identify the knowledge that is reverent to his/her self, and so requires finding self-knowledge from the organization knowledge. Internalization is promoted through learning by doing; training and exercises allow people to enter into the knowledge area of the group and organization.

24

2.4 Combining communication, culture dimensions and knowledge sharing

Communication is an important factor when knowledge sharing is concerned. As such, it is important to note that people having different national cultures tend to have issues while communicating with each other. Knowledge sharing processes require effective communication among team members to produce results. In cross-culture teams, members could have communication issues because of their personal language skills and the national culture where they have learned language. Deresky (2003, pp. 126) stated, “Our entire repertory of communication behavior is dependent largely on the culture in which we are raised”. Deresky (2003) cited culture difference as a major factor that could impact on communication. The upper part of Figure 4 is based on Deresky’s (2003) theory and shows that the national culture of team members of different cultures could have an impact on communication. Communication theory describes that culture may influence the sender and receiver, and thus widen the gap between the intention of a message and its perceived meaning. Knowledge sharing theory shows that communication is the basis of knowledge creation and its transfer, which become the base for the model of study. Figure 4 explores the communication issues between cross culture team members and their influence on the knowledge sharing process. Cultural dimensions mentioned by Hofstede (1980) that include short-term vs. long-term orientation, individualism vs. collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity vs. femininity are the concerns that may affect knowledge sharing. These factors of national culture are used to investigate knowledge sharing in cross-cultural team environments, and intend to highlight some issues which are based on the difference in both Indian and Swedish culture due to these mentioned dimensions of national culture possessed by the cross-cultural team members in the organization (Sogeti). The creation and sharing of knowledge needed some characteristics, which appear in knowledge sharing theory, like self-transcendence, dissemination of knowledge, diffusion of the individual mental model into the group or organization mental model and dialogues, which are all dependent upon the individual. And in the presence of culture difference, these required characteristics could be affected. Socialization and externalization ‘Ba’ are a main concern because it is related to individual and team knowledge sharing process. Combination and internalization ‘Ba’ is related to organization knowledge sharing processes, which are not a concern in this study. However, these two concepts are briefly described in the theory section so that the reader can get an idea about the full model of Nonaka and Konno (1998). The national culture dimensions provide an understanding that people can have different beliefs and ideas at a national level, and which this study will utilize to see how either of these differences influences knowledge sharing in cross-culture teams. The lower part of Figure 4 is based on Hofstede’s culture dimensions, which have been used to understand the difference in Swedish and Indian team members and the influence of these differences on the knowledge sharing process. National culture could have an influence on both Indian and Swedish team members, so

25

it is important to explore communication issues which could affect the knowledge sharing process. This concept becomes the basis for the upper portion of Figure 4. Both Indians and Swedes have differences in all the national culture dimensions, which could ultimately affect knowledge sharing. The lower part of Figure 4 is based on Hofstede’s (2001) study, which will help to explore difference in national culture dimensions and their effect on knowledge sharing process. Overall, the model has been used to explore the influence of communication and national culture dimensions on the knowledge sharing process among Indian and Swedish team members.

26

Figure 4: Combining communication, culture dimensions and knowledge sharing

27

3. Methodology – The Research ProcessThis section describes the research strategy and methodology. This section provides the reader with an understanding of data collection and its analysis in this study. Reliability, validity and ethical issues of the research are all addressed in this part.

3.1 Research methodology

There are three main approaches to conducting research, which are qualitative, quantitative and mix method (Creswell, 2009). Regarding methodology, Strauss and Corbin (1998) said that it’s a way of thinking about studying social reality and methods. Methodology is a combination of procedure and techniques for the analysis of collected data. According to Hussey and Hussey (1997), research project seek to analyze and explain the purpose of the research. According to Creswell (2007), qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. Qualitative research is used to investigate the behavior, perspectives, and experiences of people. Holloway (1997) stated that qualitative research is like social inquiry that focuses on how people interpret and derive meaning from their experiences. There are number of factors that influence the choice of research method, such as the research problem, the researcher’s skills, and the theoretical lens through which the researcher looks at the world. In this study, we intend to highlight factors of national culture which influence knowledge sharing. So we needed to ascertain the views of the people who are involved in cross-cultural teamwork and their own understanding about the differences which they experience. People learn from their environment and give meaning to their understanding which is socially and historically bound, so it is often difficult to separate people from a social and historical context. Cultural diversity among the team members can lead to difficulty in understanding each other. Thus it is important to use qualitative methods that consider the fact that the social and historical context cannot be separated from persons. 3.2 Qualitative Method validity

Nowadays services-based IT companies are setting up offshore offices in countries like India and hiring people from there because of their technical knowledge and cheap labor, etc. Sogeti, a Swedish IT service-based company, is one example of these companies. Research was conducted on the case of Sogeti IT service-based company where Indian and Swedish people work together in teams to provide services to the company’s clients. An interview method was utilized to gather information from 3 Swedish and 3 Indian team members of a project. These 3 Swedish and 3 Indian team members have experience working with each other. The interview method provides a pattern of discussion through which valid and reliable data is collected. It is important to determine who should be interviewed and why, as well as what data is

28

required to fulfill research requirements. Sogeti has many ongoing projects where Indian and Swedish people are collaborating together in teams. Thus this environment is best suited to this research to obtain the required data from suitable persons. A semi-structured interview was prepared which covers basic themes and open-ended questions about the topic.Major topics are:

Power distance and knowledge sharingIndividualism/collectivism and knowledge sharingMasculinity/femininity and knowledge sharingUncertainty avoidance and knowledge sharingLong-term/short-term orientation and knowledge sharing

Interview questions were drawn from the studies of Hofstede (1980) and Nonaka and Konno (1998) that are presented in Chapter 2. Hofstede’s study dealt with the influence of cultural difference on management and our research uses that study to reflect on knowledge sharing issues between Indian and Swedish team members. Nonaka and Konno’s (1998) study of knowledge sharing coupled with Hofstede’s culture difference study led us to construct interview question which are more specific for this study and further serve to enhance its validity. 3.3 Approach and data collection

Methodology is developed considering the research approach and, in this study; research design is developed for exploratory study. Exploratory research is used to gain insight and understanding of the research problem by exploring a phenomenon with deep insight. A semi-structured interview is used as a data collection method to obtain the meaning of central themes in the live world of the subjects. The main task in interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say (Kvale, 1996). The interview method provides more flexibility to explore interviewees’ experiences about cross-cultural issues that may have an impact on knowledge sharing. This type of design helps to explore problems through interviews and it becomes the primary foundation for better interpretation in the analysis. This study follows the seven stages of an interview inquiry presented by Kvale (1996).

ThematizingThe purpose of the investigation was formulated and topic concepts were described before the interview which clears the questions of why and what about the study.

DesigningThe design of the study was developed while considering all seven stages of investigations. Our intention was to get related knowledge from the interviewees through interviews.

Interviewing

29

The interview was based on questions and basic topics of the study and a reflective approach to knowledge seeking. This study tried to obtain interviewees’ own views about the questions so that the opinions and biased views of the researcher can be avoided.

TranscriptionAll six interviews were audio recorded so that transcription could be carried out to convert oral speech to text format. After that transcription, the interview material was prepared for analysis by eliminating text that was not required and then arranging it according to the topics.

AnalyzingThe purpose and topic of the study required the interpretation of interview data. Interview data consisted of the interviewee’s views and experiences. To gain insight into that, this study used hermeneutics for analysis.

VerifyingVerifying involves assessing the reliability of gathered information. Observations help to verify the information that is gathered from the interviews.

ReportingReporting is basically communicating the results of the study. This is the final stage of interview investigation where results are communicated in the study. Results were also communicated to interviewees to check and validate our interpretation of the data.

According to Creswell (2009), there are different types of data collection techniques in qualitative research that include semi-structured interviews and observations. In this study, semi-structured interviews were used to collect data and participant observations were conducted to make the study more comprehensive and valid. Semi-structured interviews are flexible and can be adjusted according to the discussion flow, giving informants the opportunity to report their own thoughts and feelings in detail (Holloway, 1997). This study intended to find cultural differences between Indian and Swedish team members working together and its impact on knowledge sharing, which required having a deep understanding of participant views and the issues experienced by them while working in cross-culture teams. Structural observation helps to observe behaviors that could be individual pieces of action or language (Thomas, 2011). Semi-structured interviews and observations helped us to gather in detail the data required for this qualitative study. Use of more than one source of data helps in producing an in-depth understanding of the research subject (Flick, 2002, Yin, 2009). To explore the issues based upon the difference in national culture of team members and which have an influence on knowledge sharing three Indian and three Swedish team members have been interviewed. Two interviews were conducted via Skype and four interviews were conducted face to face. The semi-structured interview helped

30

us to ascertain a deep understanding of both Indian and Swedish team members’ experience of working in a cross-cultural team. We have observed a team working for two and half days at the company office to collect evidence from natural setting. Interview questions were sent to the person in advance so that they had an idea of what to expect and so that discussion could be made.

3.4 Data analysis

The process of data analysis is involves making sense out of data that is collected in the form of text or audio. With regards to analysis, Thomas (2011, pp.171) stated that “we have to study the meaning that people are constructing of the situations in which they find themselves and proceed from these meanings in order to understand the social world”. Creswell (2009) observed that data that is collected is prepared and processed for the analysis; then analysis is conducted and the subject investigated subject through deeper and deeper understanding. Ultimately, the interpretation is made on the basis of the processed data and a deeper understanding of the subject. There are many ways to analyze qualitative data. We will utilize a hermeneutical analysis technique, which examines the meaning of data through interviews and observations, using the views and words of the participants, not those of the researchers (Ratcliff, 2008). Communication, national culture dimensions, and knowledge sharing were themes this study intended to explore. Hermeneutics focus primarily on the meaning of qualitative data, especially textual data. Raw data collected from interviews and observations was first transcribed into a textual format. The transcribed text was compared to the audio-interviews to remove transcription errors. Then a second reading/listening was performed to get the emphasis of words used by the interviewee to fully comprehend the importance of each statement. Hermeneutics works in a circular way and it is an iterative process. Gadamer (1976) referred to the hermeneutic circle as a dialectic between the understanding of the text as a whole and interpretation of its parts. Hermeneutics circle involves a movement of understanding from the whole to the part and back to the whole. Data is analyzed by understanding each participant’s experience related to each theme and its theory. Then a comparison is made of all the participants’ experiences about the theme to understand meaning as a whole and its relation to the other themes. This circular movement is repeated again and again to determine meaning and eliminate contradiction. So the data was analyzed by understanding the relation of the parts to whole and then repeated for the whole to parts. 3.5 Validity and Reliability

Qualitative research validity requires checking the accuracy of the findings by using different procedures (Gibbs, 2007 cited in Creswell, 2009). Validity ensures the correctness of the data that we get by means of follow up interviews. Interpretations made from the interviews will be confirmed by the interviewee, who validates the interpretation. The reliability of the qualitative research is by its consistency among the other researchers and whether similar outcomes occur if the research is done in different projects. Reliability is about

31

the congruence of the results regardless of where, how, and when the research is carried out. Holloway (1997) stated that it is difficult to achieve reliability in qualitative research and he emphasized that it is because of the fact that the researcher is them self used as an instrument. This study interviews different managers and employees from both the Indian and Swedish cultures, which makes the research reliable up to some extent. Different sources are used like participants’ data and related work that enhances the reliability of the research.

3.6 Ethical issues

The understanding of ethics is not a study of theoretical knowledge, but includes an understanding of the applicability of ethics to real world situations (Smith, 1995). Participants were provided with general questions in advance so that they had an idea about the interview. Participant had researcher’s contact details so if any information was needed about the study/interview, he could be easily contacted. Interviewee’s permission was obtained first. Interviews were conducted at a time when the interviewee was free and also at a place where they were comfortable. Participants were informed about the nature and purpose of study and told that their names would be kept confidential. In interviews, participants often divulge a lot of things that may be very confidential and personal, and that data will not be discussed in this study.

32

4. Empirical Findings

Company from which data has been collected described is in this chapter. A summary of participant views against each interview question has been presented. This chapter also includes the observations that have been made at the company office.

4.1 Company description

The name Sogeti has its origin in France and is an acronym for "Société pour la gestion et le traitement de l'information". In English, this translates to “Business Management and Information Processing Company". Sogeti is also the name of origin for the entire Cap Gemini Group that was founded in 1967. Until 1992, Sogeti was a Swedish company within the Cap Gemini Group and went by the moniker of Cap Gemini Sogeti. In 2002, Cap Gemini Group founded Sogeti as a subsidiary in six countries; the main reason for doing so was the growing local IT market. At that time, Sogeti had 5500 employees in these six countries, and today Sogeti has 20,000 employees based in 109 offices working in 15 countries. Being a subsidiary of Cap Gemini Group—which itself has 90,000 experts, 30,000 of whom are working offshore—makes Sogeti a global leader by having such a large number of experts and widespread offices. Cap Gemini Sogeti is a leader in IT services, mainly focusing on three business areas: IT application management, IT infrastructure services, and high-tech consultancy. The company has received many awards from the industry’s top providers, such as Microsoft and IBM amongst others, clearly showing the company’s competence. Sogeti works primarily in Europe and America, whereas India is only an offshore subsidiary. The company provides customer-centered and flexible IT services characterized by continuous customer service. Sogeti established a right-shore approach to fulfill its IT clients’ requirements. This approach entails providing customers with superior services by working on-site, off-site, offshore or mixed. Right-shore approach requires increased cross-culture interaction between team members through ICT’s or face-to-face to fulfill client requirement. As the company provides client centered and flexible solutions, sometimes the need arises to have an offshore employee come on-site to fulfill client requirements, thereby also increasing the interactions of culturally diverse people. Sogeti India is the global delivery center for the entire Sogeti Group, having 4 offices in different cities. Sogeti offshore employees collaborate with their colleagues as well as with clients in different countries and work seamlessly as a team. Many projects have been completed and many are currently in progress in which Indian and Swedish employees collaborate. Thus these are appropriate settings to witness the influence of culture on the organizational process. As the focus of this study is the influence of national culture on the knowledge sharing process, Sogeti’s setting seems very rich and informative because Sogeti is a leader in the industry, having a substantial number of experts and 40

33

years work experience of cross-culture collaboration to function as single global team. 4.2 Interview findings

1. What are the cultural differences that you experience while working in a cross-culture team?

We conducted six interviews with Swedish and Indian team members at Sogeti’s office in Stockholm. While asking questions about general cultural differences, a Swedish interviewee replied as follows: “In Sweden some managers are really afraid to say anything to Indians or other foreigner employees because they don’t want to make one uncomfortable. Sometimes they don’t even say anything if foreigner employee makes any mistake unless there is any exception”.This reply points out that there is a problem of communication and team members are well aware of this fact. Communication influences the productivity of the team members and this is why it is important to have better and straightforward communication so that the knowledge sharing process becomes easier and more convenient.

While at the same time, the interviewee expressed this about the culture of other countries in following words: “If you are coming from outside you are used to one of those managers that tell you what is wrong and what you have to do”.This reply points out that the Swedish team members are aware of the fact that there is a different management style in India and Indian team members may face some difficulty in understanding the task as compared to the Swedish team members. They know that communication processes or methods can be quite different depending upon the cultural differences, so this should be taken into consideration while working within cross-cultural teams.

When we asked the same question about the general cultural differences, another Swedish interviewee came up with another dimension and stated:“For Indian people, I don’t know the hierarchy and roles of engagement, how coworkers depend on each other and how they are supposed to engage in conversation”. As the theory describes, it is important to know the different management styles when you are working in cross-cultural teams and both management and employees should be knowledgeable of the working style so that they can better understand each other and ensure the process of knowledge sharing becomes smooth. From the above statement, it can be perceived that Swedish team members are not fully aware of the management style in India and that is why they are a bit confused about the relationship and roles of Indian team members.

34

“Indians have much personal discussion between them and ask many personal questions like how much you earn and other things but normally we Swedish don’t do that”.“We don’t send emails to ask anything regarding the task or group work but Indians do that a lot”.“Indians come late at jobs. Almost 1 hour late every day while we don’t”.The above replies indicate that team members are aware of the fact that both Swedish and Indian team members have different cultural backgrounds and it can affect both working and inter-personal relationships. For example, several studies show that in South Asia, there is a lack of time management in most of cases and it is also evident from the replies above that Indian team members come to work late. So when working in cross-cultural teams, team members should have an idea of the other culture so that they can better fit together in order to complete the tasks in time.

2. What are the cultural differences that impact knowledge sharing in your team?

We also probed the interviews regarding the influence of cultural differences on knowledge sharing and participants gave us some insight into the subject by answering questions in different ways. One of the interviewee replied: “Sometimes I feel culture difference makes it difficult to have much discussion and that can affect knowledge sharing process”.Again, this reply shows that interviewees are well aware of the difference in culture of the team members and they feel that it can restrict discussion, which can negatively impact knowledge sharing. As Indian and Swedish team members are from different cultures and engage in discussion very differently, it can be very disparate for all of the participants. For example, Indian team members want to have discussion in more informal manner, while Swedish members want to stick to the point and make the task clear. Another participant talked about the use of technology in the process of knowledge sharing and stated: “Here in Sweden it’s same, in fact people use Internet instead of discussion with each other”.Another participant replied: “I observed that in our culture we always love to have discussion, like we can be seen while standing on the desk of some colleague, discussing technical problem and even their issues which I think is very good to understand colleagues and having this informal discussion especially for sharing knowledge but here in Sweden I try to do this but have very strange reply as they seem reluctant”.

These two points describe that team members are aware of the cultural dynamics of both countries and know that how the communication process works in both cultures. Swedes tend to interact more via technological means like Skype and email, whereas Indian team members consider it easier and more efficient to talk to each other to make the task clear. As the tools of

35

communication have a greater impact on knowledge sharing, it should be clear to cross-cultural teams how other members interact and how they can adapt to the methods of other team members in order to make knowledge sharing smoother and more effective. 3. Are you able to communicate effectively with team members in a standard language other than your national language, if no then how?

During our interviews with the participants, several interviewees raised the point of importance of the language of communication in the knowledge sharing process as one interviewee pointed out: “When working in a team you require good coordination between the co workers. Good coordination requires good communication. As mentioned above language barrier seems to be the biggest hindrance”.The above reply shows that the interviewees are well aware of the importance of language of communication and feel it can be an obstacle if the language of communication is not the same.Another interviewee stated the language problem in the following words:“When people from same culture communicate in their mother language they understand intended meaning of the other person easily. I think even people from the same culture speak English they are not so effective and when we talk about people from different countries speaking English to each other it’s more difficult to get their intended meaning”. Several participants indicated that sometimes they have to repeat what they want to say to other participants and sometimes they have to re-phrase their sentences in order to make them clear to the other team member. The problem of difficulty in communication due to use of different languages was also mentioned by another interviewee below: “It is a problem, the ideas and knowledge we might have expressed better in our own language are affected by the language barrier”. Use of the same language as another interviewee in following response also indicated communication: “But when you speak to own countryman you can communicate more easily and effectively, as compared to other nationals. While talking to other nationals like Swedish you have to be more attentive and should think first about making the sentence and how to make more understandable for them”.

As Indians and Swedes have a different mother tongue, both have to pay special attention while communicating to each other in English.

During our interviews with the participants, another interviewee came up with a very good point and said: “People who come from low income/less education backgrounds may go into a tendency of professional insecurity. This inner feeling of insecurity may lead them to hide things or keep knowledge to themselves so that they (think that they) won’t be replaced”.

36

This point talks about uncertainty avoidance and its impact on the knowledge sharing process. The Swedes feel that as Indian people are not very sure of their future endeavors, they keep things to themselves and do not share knowledge as they feel insecure in sharing everything about the task or all of their knowledge with their colleagues or with the members of cross-culture teams. Whereas Swedes don’t think in this way and they share knowledge with all as they are sure of their future endeavors and they are not afraid of losing their job.

4. How can communicating in a cross-cultural team affect the knowledge sharing process, in your opinion?

We also asked the interviewees if they think that communication in cross-cultural teams plays a vital role in the process of knowledge sharing and their replies are below. The first Swedish interviewee said: “According to my point of view I think that a mutual understanding during the communication with the cross-cultured employees during any discussion could be of great help”.This interviewee brought up the point of mutual understanding and common grounds in order to have better and more focused communication, which can ultimately contribute towards knowledge sharing. He noted that communication could be much better and that it would be of great help if the members of cross-culture teams had mutual understanding so that they are not hesitant to share anything they deem important for the knowledge sharing. Another interviewee came up with the following point: “Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural team also becomes a challenge, because people normally have different ways to take along others, which may or may not be acceptable or the best approach for a person from another culture. Similarly in a multi-gender team, this challenge increases many fold as male/female interaction varies a lot across cultures and may be a bottleneck in knowledge sharing and team play”.This interviewee thinks that the culture in which a person has been brought up plays an important role for the people to undertake things in a different way. When this situation arises, knowledge sharing becomes more challenging, as things working for a person from one culture might not work for someone from another culture. He also brought up the point of femininity and masculinity in a sense that interaction among female and male individuals varies significantly from one culture to another and it can affect the knowledge sharing process considerably.When we asked the same question, Indian team members had the following opinion: “We have the problem like sometime we have communication at our end and we are doing things our way very accurately but when we have to communicate all these things with Swedish people, they have different issues and we have judged that it’s because of a communication problem”.

37

This reply also discusses the cultural differences that can cause communication done within one cross-cultural team to be taken absolutely differently in other teams from the different culture based on the cultural differences and business practices. Similarly, this interviewee gave an example from his professional career during which a project communication done on the Indian side was totally opposite what his Swedish counterparts expected. So cultural practices should be taken into consideration as they play a vital role in the knowledge sharing process. Similarly another Indian interviewee came up with the following point: “Yes, it affects a lot in cross-cultural knowledge sharing process because different cultures have different mindsets and they act according to their culture like in Sweden if you want to share something with your boss you can do it easily and you can share your ideas and recommendations but if we look into Indian culture there is a big difference”.This reply brought in the point of cultural differences as well as power distance in the process of knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing process is considerably affected by cultural values and different mindsets. Similarly hierarchy or power distance can play a vital role in knowledge sharing. For example in Sweden, you can go directly to the manager and discuss your ideas, but this cannot be done in India as they have a different hierarchical structure and things may not be very well appreciated by the managers or it can take time to relay them up to the concerned people, which is a hindrance to the knowledge sharing. When we asked about the impact of communication in knowledge sharing, the third Indian interviewee brought up the point of language: “I usually face problems during meetings where some presence of Swedish language comes in between as it is their mother tongue. I have to ask again and again at times in order to get a clear message. I believe the language is the biggest hindrance”.He thought that language plays an important role in the knowledge sharing. Based on his professional experience, he told us that the use of the same language makes communication easier and the message can be clearly communicated. For example between Swedish and Indian team members, use of English language is the more convenient way, but when someone is stuck with English and has to use his/her mother tongue, then it can hinder the process of knowledge sharing. So it is important to use a common language in cross-cultural teams in order to improve communication and make knowledge sharing richer.

5. How often do you consult your manager during the development of a project?

As regards to consultation with manager or superiors, an Indian interviewee answered as follows: “In India we have vertical hierarchy like team member, team leader, project leader, program manager, director, chairman and if you want to talk to the director we have to go through your immediate manager and talk to all the

38

people which come along the way whereas I experienced in Sweden, this gap is very little”.This aspects lead to the different hierarchical structure between Indian and Swedish organizational culture. In India, there are more levels to the hierarchy in the organization and employees have to go through all the concerned people in that hierarchy if they want to suggest some improvement or wish to change the process. Another interviewee from India replied in the same manner and stated that: “In India we consult with managers but I think we are not very open to give suggestion to managers, as work is done in a more hierarchical way, instruction always comes from managers and we have to follow them, I think the Swedish are quite open to consult and discuss work with a manager”.It also leads to the problem of access of employees to their superiors, as this is more difficult in India and this also puts obstacles in the way of innovation and productivity because instructions come from the managers and employees only have to comply with the instructions. In this way, productivity suffers and the knowledge sharing process is affected. One of the Swedish interviewees also brought up the point of the organizational structure and said that: “Indian used to be ask more questions, I think because they don’t want to do anything wrong. In Sweden if you want to share something with your boss you can do it easily and you can share your ideas and recommendation but if we look into Indian culture there is a big difference; you have to do what you have been told regardless what is your opinion”. The above statement implies that in Sweden organizational structure is flatter and employees have access to their bosses and they can share their ideas more freely and in a relaxed manner because in Sweden there is equality in the work environment and innovation and productivity is highly valued and it also contributes in the knowledge sharing process. During our interviews with the participants, we also got another aspect of the individual thinking and behavior at work and the admittance of mistake if something has happened wrong. For example one Swedish interviewee stated his experience in the following words: “Once when Indian guys were here they made some mistakes in our project like deleting some tables by mistake but we had the backup so it didn’t create any problem, they were like worried here but I guess when we were discussing about it within Swedish team, they might thought that we will send report to Indian office about what happened here, and they didn’t want us to tell anything at Indian office about what happened here, I think it’s ok if you have deleted table because here in Sweden if something happens we say to team lead that it has happened but I guess in India it has different effect”.This reply indicates that the Swedish team member has experience working in cross-cultural team, as he could anticipate why Indian team members were reluctant to tell about the mistake, as it could imply a different and probably a difficult situation if it would have occurred in India, which is why Indians were hesitant to report the mistake. It also implies that Indians are also more concerned about job security and they think that if the manager knows about the mistake, it could lead to them having an insecure position in the company.

39

It is also important to know that, due to the different hierarchical structure, it can also be difficult to admit mistakes in the Indian organizational structure, as employees do not want to place themselves in an insecure position in the company. Regarding the point of discussing things with managers during the project, a Swedish interviewee replied: “I would say it usually takes place in the beginning of the project and there is a lot of distortion in the beginning of the project. After project gets its flow then there is not much need to consult managers, and this is what usually happens. We discuss project matters in monthly meetings and if I need to consult my manager other then this I prefer to send an e-mail”. The reply above indicates that regarding the communication and consultation with the manager during the development of the project, normally Swedish participants do not consult their managers repeatedly after the task has been made clear to them. They discuss the progress of work in monthly meetings and it helps them understand the flow of the project. But if it is necessary that they have to discuss something with the manager, then they prefer to send an email to the manager instead of contacting him/her personally, whereas Indian participants prefer it to be face-to-face interaction to make things clear instead of using the technological tools like email.

6. Do you conduct any informal calls to your team members to discuss issues regarding work?

During our interviews, we also asked the interviewees if they engaged in informal talks or if they called each other to discuss informal things or not. Most of the Swedish participants replied that they do not call other informally or after office times to inquire about work or personal things. A participant replied: “Well, personally I don’t do that and I guess it varies from person to person, but for me I do not conduct such calls and also nobody else calls me informally regarding work”. Similarly another Swedish participant replied: “We don’t do informal calls about the work; we discuss issues in weekly meetings. I think Indians are more connected to each other like even in office I have observed whenever we are having lunch or coffee break, Indian team member most of the time are seen in groups”. The above answers show that Swedish society has individualistic characteristics in it as our participants did not have much interaction among each other. They prefer to have their own personal space and would not like anyone to interfere with it or cross that space. Whereas Swedish interviewees thought that Indians are more together all the time and they have more informal discussion. Another Swedish interviewee replied in the following manner: “I would say that it may be not that often because I face work issues during the work hours actually. If there is a deadline it has to be finished so maybe I would call but it’s very rare”.

40

The previous comment shows that Swedish people tend to finish the work during office hours and they do not discuss work issues after working hours. They normally prefer it if their personal time is not disturbed by their professional life. But when we asked Indian interviewees the same questions, a few of the answers were as below: “It is not the preferred method, but may need to be used, depending on situation and project needs. But I think we talk with each other more than Swedish do”.“Informal calls are very important, as I believe that you learn a lot through informal meetings”.The above two comments show that Indian team members think it is useful and sometimes necessary to talk to each other informally and stay in the group. This trend shows that Indian society as whole has the characteristics of collectiveness as they tend to stay together during lunch time and talk to each other about routine life and personal matters. They discuss things with fellow workers in detail and they also discuss official matters or a project’s progress after office hours or when they call or meet each other informally or after office hours. In the same context, another Indian interviewee remarked: ”Being an Indian yes I use to make informal calls to my colleagues but here in Sweden I do not. Here if anybody is posted for assistance at a project then I think it’s ok to call him/her informally”. The above comment also shows that it is embedded in Indian culture to be more informal and talk to each other about matters and issues of routine daily life. This is why they call each other informally and tend to stay together whenever they manage to get together, whereas Swedish interviewees tend to have their own personal space and they do not want anyone else to interfere in it. They tend to be more formal at work and would like to discuss official matters only during office hours. After that, they like to enjoy their personal life and their characteristic of independent individuality.

7. Do you feel any difference between workload distributions while working in a cross-cultural team, if yes then how?

We also asked the interviewees if they thought that work needing to be done was equally distributed among the members of cross-cultural teams or if they thought that there was a difference in workload allocation. Swedish interviewees replied as follows: “People from India they think that they can work day and night maybe because they don’t have their families here. Sometimes they sit in the office until 9 PM and they are ok with it, but this is not a Swedish manager who told them to do so”.“Indian gets more work to do in less time than Swedish guys but I would say if there were two teams the workload splits in an easier way and the things become easy to handle”.

41

The above two replies from Swedish team members’ show that there is no significant difference in the workload distribution. Work is distributed almost equally, but the attitude of Swedish and Indian team members differs greatly as Indians tend to work later hours in order to meet deadlines and this late hour working habit comes from India, where they are sometimes required to work late hours and finish the work according to the instructions of the manager. But in Sweden, they do not have any instructions from Swedish Managers to keep late hours and finish the work. In the case of the Swedish team members, they manage their time well and tend to finish their tasks within the confines of regular office hours and they do not keep longer hours in office. When we asked the same question to Indian members of the cross-culture team, they replied: “Yes, some people have a tendency to work more and take full responsibility and task ownership, while some just work a 9-5 routine. Some try to take credit for even others’ work and some are not even able to take credit of work/accomplishments they have done”.“Working back in India, you can stay late in the office and can achieve your targets but when we move to on-site in Sweden, we have to change our habits. We have to complete the given work in a given specific time”.Indian team members also think that the workload distribution is equitable, but their attitude towards accomplishing the work in time can differ from person to person. Some people have the drive to work more and to take full credit for the work they have done, whereas some people have a casual attitude and they tend to work only routine office hours. In India, people sometimes work longer hours in the office in order to demonstrate their dedication to the company to their superiors. However in Sweden, there exists a more casual and laid back situation and everyone works according to the task and schedule. They don’t tend to take credit for work they have not done themselves.

8. How do you avoid conflict/confusion while communicating with other members in a cross-cultural team?

During our interviews, we also probed interviewees about how they tried to avoid any conflicts that could arise during the project. There was a significant difference between the Swedish and Indian replies. One of the Swedes replied as below: “Personally I have been to India, so it was not any problem to resolve conflict or avoid conflicts with any Indian team member”.Similarly another Swedish interviewee agreed with the first interviewee and replied in the following words: “I think to avoid confusion and conflicts the Swedish write on paper, communicate via e-mail. Personally I don’t like it, but to avoid any confusion it’s better”.The third Swedish interviewee also corroborated the above two statements and replied: “I feel more paperwork can eliminate ambiguities because you know what you have to do exactly”.

42

The previous three replies from the three Swedish members of the cross-cultural team state that Swedish people prefer to have a written conversation. In order to avoid any conflict, they likewise prefer to utilize written communication so that there is no ambiguity in the description of the task. They also do this in order to have written proof of the conversation so that it can be used as future reference if a situation of conflict arises.In comparison to the Swedish members of the cross-culture team, the replies of Indian team member were more focused on verbal and face-to-face communication. One of the Indian interviewees replied as follows: “To avoid confusion and conflict, mostly face-to-face/video call communication is preferred, compared to phone or written communication, which due to differences in comprehension, may not correctly communicate the desired messages”.Similarly another Indian interviewee came up with the following point: “I usually repeat anything I don’t understand. Also I try changing the words; this helps most of the time. A face-to-face discussion can give you a clear view of the other person, in my opinion”The third Indian employee endorsed the replies of first two interviewees and made his point below:“Conflicts can only be avoided by increasing the level of understanding among us and for this we should talk more and with Swedish people so that we can understand them and at their part they have to do same, so that conflicts and confusions can be avoided in cross-cultural teams”.

To be more understandable and productive, avoiding conflict and confusion between team members is an important issue in a cross-cultural team. Indian members of the cross-cultural team tend to have more face-to-face communication in order to make things clear and avoid any conflict. By doing this, they discuss different points of the task and make it clear to each other what is to be done. Verbal communication is very effective and elaborate, but sometimes it cannot be used as a reference because there is no documentation of it.

9. Do you feel any difference while communicating/sharing knowledge with the opposite gender, if yes then what?

We also asked questions about whether gender difference made any significant difference on the knowledge sharing process. Replies from the Swedish and Indian team members were very similar and showed a consensus that Swedish female members of cross-culture teams are more open and easy to talk with as compared to their Indian counterparts. A Swedish interviewee stated: “When you see difference between Indian and Swedish females, the biggest difference will be that Indians will talk about only work while Swedish females will also talk about other things apart from project work”.Similarly another Swedish interviewee expressed his opinion below:

43

“I think Swedish girls don’t have any problem with other people; they are more open to talk, hence it is easier to share things. But I feel that Indian females are very reserved and I feel it difficult to share things with them because they are very shy”. In the same context, another Swedish interviewee replied: “Yes, there are differences in cross gender communication. In a multi-gender team, this knowledge sharing challenge increases many folds, as male/female interaction varies a lot across cultures and may be a bottleneck in knowledge sharing and team play. In India, I feel females are a little reserved; even when they work on-site they mostly talk only about work, but I feel Swedish girls are easy to talk with even other than work”.Swedish interviewees feel that they can talk and better share knowledge and things more easily if they are comfortable and free enough to talk to others. They feel it is easier to talk to Swedish females; hence it brings a positive impact on the process of knowledge sharing.When we asked the same question to Indian interviewees, they were also of a similar opinion: “I never felt any difference in sharing knowledge with the opposite gender. But I think cultural difference has effects; I think Swedish girls are more open to talk if I compare them with Indian girls. With Swedish females there can be some communication gap but I don’t feel any gender difference here”. Similarly another Indian interviewee replied: “Indian females are different I mean in terms of socializing with males, they don’t talk much with male team members. In Sweden I feel less gender difference”. The above replies also show that Indian female members are more reserved at work and it makes it a bit difficult to share knowledge, whereas Swedish female members are more open and their male counterparts feel comfortable talking to them and sharing knowledge.

10. What is your preference for interacting with team members, communication tools or face-to-face communication?

We also asked our interviewees about the preferred mode of communication between the team members and we found quite different replies based on the professional practices and cultural environment. One of the Swedish team members replied: “Well, I prefer to send messages on MSN rather than going personally to the desk of other team members”.Similarly another Swedish interviewee gave his opinion as below: “I think here in Sweden we go for documents and e-mail communication. For example, I need to write a report for the manager and project manager at the customer site before every meeting. I prefer to use email”. The third Swedish member also stated the same thing and replied:“It depends as it could be MSN or it could be Microsoft communicator and sometimes also Skype depending on if it needs to be voice communication”.

44

The above replies from Swedish team members show that they prefer to use technological tools such as Skype, email or Microsoft Communicator in order to communicate with other team members. Their replies also show a trend or habit of Swedish members as individuals and that is their preference to have their own personal space. They do not prefer going to someone’s desk in order to discuss things; rather, they favor using technological tools for communication. Whereas when we posed the same question to Indian team members, we got very different replies, which show that preference of mode of communication depends on many disparate factors including culture and business environment. For example an Indian team member gave his opinion as follows: “I prefer face-to-face communication. I personally believe that you cannot communicate properly via email, face-to-face meeting gives you more understanding, I mean what the other person is saying, if said face to face, it can help in understanding the things clearly”.Similarly another Indian team member answered: “I prefer face-to-face meetings followed by emails and telephonic conversation. With my Indian team members, it’s mostly face-to-face communication because it’s easy to understand but with Swedish it is more with e-mails”. The above replies from Indian team members’ show that they prefer to have face-to-face discussions in order to make communication comprehensible and to clarify the tasks. They prefer to go to the employees’ desks and talk to them as they think it is more helpful and understandable. However, they said whether they would use technological tools only or discuss it face to face depends upon the situation of the problem or task. But in any case, they said that face-to-face communication is better because it makes the task easier to understand and communicate effectively.

11. How do you think that working in a team can help to improve the quality of work?

While working in a cross-cultural environment, we also inquired what the interviewees though about the importance of working in a team and whether they thought it improved the quality of work. One Swedish interviewee had the following views: “Team is built up on understanding with each other. I think a team works better and improves the quality of work, but it’s about team understanding and coherence. In cross-cultural teams, sometimes people just come for one project and I think they are just working like individuals”. Similarly another Swedish interviewee replied: “Absolutely; I think team working improves the quality of work. If individuals work for a project independently, then some part may be good and some may be bad. It depends on experience and expertise of individuals”.The above replies from Swedish interviewees regarding teamwork show that although they tend to have communication through technological tools, at the same time they believe in the effectiveness of teamwork. They feel that

45

teamwork has a positive impact on the quality of work and ultimately contributes positively towards knowledge sharing. Similarly, Indian interviewees had comparable views about teamwork as one team member replied: “The team usually is built up with different expertise; maybe someone who is better in a different field or the part of the project given to the team and the other person may be good at any other part so these expertise when moved on together can help and a lot and give a positive result”. Another Indian employee described the importance of teamwork in the following words: “Teamwork ensures that experience of all is utilized, knowledge is shared and challenges are faced together, and this way output of a team is far superior to an individual”.Indian participants have also agreed to the fact that working in a team helps to improve the quality of work. They pointed out that while working in a team environment, the weakness of one member is balanced out by the strength of other members. Likewise, the quality of work improves because when people work together, they share knowledge and help out each other in order to achieve the target and produce better quality work. All of the interviewees also emphasized that while working in teams, the weakness of one member is compensated with the strength of other members and the quality of work improves.

12. How long do you think you would like to continue working for this company?

During our interviews, we also asked questions about the time span that interviewees would like to spend in the same company and we got different kinds of replies from Swedish and Indian team members. One Swedish interviewee replied as follows: “It depends on my satisfaction. As long as I am satisfied with the company, I will work for it”.Another Swedish interviewee replied in the same manner in the following words: “Satisfaction is the main thing; if you are happy and feeling good while working in a company, then one should carry on”.The third interviewee also validated the point of being satisfied at work and stated that: “It depends on how much you are satisfied with the working environment. Do you like your colleagues or not? Then ok you don’t need to change. I am talking from a Swedish standpoint; if you are starting a company, you start it a certain level with a certain salary and usually that salary raises each year by a certain percentage. But if you want to move up the ladder quicker, then I guess you are supposed to switch the company”.From the above replies we can see that Swedish interviewees view satisfaction at the job as the most important reason to stay with the company. They did not mention any specific time span, but stated that they would continue to work for the company as long as they were satisfied with their job, and they thought that

46

they were learning continuously on the job and their knowledge was increasing. But when we asked the same question to Indian interviewees, their replies were different, as one of the interviewees gave his opinion in the following words: “When you start your job after graduation, you should work a minimum for five years with the same company because they will improve your skills and will provide the real experience according to the market. It’s the best way to develop your career to work for a single company as far as you can”.This reply shows that Indian people have a tendency to work for a company for a longer period of time regardless of they are satisfied with the work. Similarly another Indian interviewee replied: “I believe the work should be enjoyable. Every new day should be challenging as this brings in creativity. As long as I love my work, I wouldn’t feel the need to shift my job”.This employee brought in the point of enjoying the work and creativity in the work. He mentioned loving the work and being creative and satisfied at the job as primary reasons for staying with the same company. “Well I believe there is very big competition in the market for the jobs. In this respect, I do not think that in the near future I am making plans to leave this job, but still I always try to move towards better future. On the same hand, I strongly believe that one should work for a company for at least couple of years”.The third employee brought up the point of being competitive at the market. He stated that there is a stiff competition in the market, so one should keep his/her job as long as there is an opportunity to switch to a better job. But he also raised the point that one should work for a company for at least two years in order to learn and gain competitive skills.

13. Do you think staying with one company is the best way to go on with your career?

When we asked the interviewees if they thought that the best way to boost one’s career was by staying with the same company, the replies of the Swedish employees were as follows: “It’s about better opportunity if you get one, go for it. I think this is best for your professional career growth. Staying in one company is ok, but I don’t think that it’s the best way to reach the peak”.The first Swedish employee stated that if someone gets a better opportunity, they should switch jobs and avail themselves of the opportunity in order to boost their career. In his opinion, staying with the same company is not the best way to boost or attain the peak of one’s professional career.Another Swedish employee stated his opinion in the following words: “For me satisfaction is more important. Maybe it’s better for my career to work in a company for several years, but if I am happy with the company then it’s ok. I personally prefer self-satisfaction over career growth”.This reply of the Swedish team member indicates that one should remain at the same company as long as he/she is satisfied with the work. According to him,

47

he intends to stay with the company as long as he feels satisfied at work and career growth comes in second place. But when we asked the same question to Indian team members, the first interviewee replied: “I think yes, because it is helping me in personal and professional growth and improving my knowledge and expertise”.He thinks that it is much better to stay with a company in order to get career growth and in-depth knowledge of the field. This trend shows the thinking of Indian team members as whole as they want to avoid any kind of uncertainty in professional life and want to stay with the company as long as they can regardless of being satisfied at work.Similarly the second interviewee expressed his opinion in the following words: “Well if the working environment is creative and challenging then of course, plus if you’re getting nice perks and benefits then why not?”This reply shows that a person should stay with the company as long as it has challenging environment and nice pay scales. The factor of satisfaction at work that Swedish interviewees regard as the most important was kind of missing from the replies of Indian team members.The third Indian interviewee replied in consent with the other two interviewees and stated:“It’s the best way to develop your career to work for a single company as far as you can”.He also believes that in order to improve one’s career, it is best to stay with the same company as long as possible. He also did not mention the level of satisfaction at work as a criterion to retain the job. So for Indian employees it is more important to stay at a company and improve their career path instead of getting or being satisfied with the job they are doing. Whereas Swedish employees stated that they will stay with a company as long as they are happy and satisfied with the job.

14. How do you feel or think about working for a manager, who is from a country other than yours?

We asked our interviewees if they preferred to work under their own manager or it is ok to work under any supervisor. Almost all replies were kind of same in the sense. One Swedish Interviewee replied: “I think it’s difficult to work for a manager other than your own country. Sometimes they are more demanding and that is what I feel. Cultural factors make it difficult to understand and communicate for both me and manager. So I prefer to work with a Swedish manager”.This reply shows that it is easier for employees to work with the manager who is native to the employees. It is dependent upon the cultural factor as well because if you work under the manager who is raised up in the same culture, then employees and manager have the same kind of mentality and practices. So it makes it easier to work under the manager from one’s own country in cross-cultural teams and it makes the communication easier. Another Swedish interviewee had the following opinion:

48

“I have been working all my life with other managers but I prefer to have a Swedish manager. It also depends upon the personality of the person and how he takes things. His attitude and demands from the employees”.Although this interviewee had worked with different managers from different background, he still he prefers to work with a Swedish manager. It is easier to work with the manager from own country as they have same business practices and cultural values and they understand each other better. How well he leads the team also depends upon the attitude of the manager, but Swedish team members still prefer to work with native manager. In the same context when we asked the same question to Indian interviewees, we got same kind of replies. For example an Indian interviewee stated: “Well that makes communication difficult apart from that the learning experience can be exciting”.He also emphasized that it makes it difficult to communicate with a manager from another culture or country. Although it can be an exciting experience to work with a manager from another culture, the communication is still difficult, which ultimately has a negative influence on knowledge sharing.Similarly another Indian interviewee replied in the following manner: “Yes, it is always difficult. It depends on the culture, how he thinks, how he manages his team, what he does about the problems that the team faces during the project. Culture plays a vital part; if the culture is different, then it’s very difficult to work”.This answer also validates the other replies and shows that to work with a manager from other culture is difficult and business and communication practices vary from culture to culture. So its easier for employees to work with a manager from the same culture as in this way they can communicate better and it will have a positive impact on knowledge sharing.

15. How do you take knowledge, as limited/restricted to the specific project development, or as asset to increase your competitive capability?

We also asked interviewees if they want to stick to the one specific project or want to do different projects in order to increase and share knowledge with others. Almost all replies were same indicating that they want to work on multiple projects as it increases their knowledge and capabilities. For example, a Swedish interviewee said: “Well it improves your capability; either you use it now for the particular project but still it will enhance the capabilities in future too”. Similarly another Swedish interviewee stated his opinion as below:“I think you learn from each project and it enhances your experience and knowledge”.The third Swedish employee also agreed with the former two and expressed his opinion as follows: “I am a learner and in each project I get something that improves my ability to perform well. Knowledge I got from each project adds on directly or indirectly to my work”.

49

All Swedish interviewees had the same opinion regarding working on multiple or different projects in order to enhance their skills and knowledge. They consider it an asset for the future and consider it to be very useful for knowledge sharing and long-term learning. Similarly Indian interviewees replied the same way and described it as being good for knowledge and future professional career. The first Indian employee replied as below: “I take it as an asset which you always carry along”.The above reply also shows that Indian people also consider having diversified knowledge taken from different sorts of projects to be an asset that makes knowledge sharing better in the future. Another Indian interviewee replied in the following words: “I consider it as a competitive edge. I think knowledge is an asset which increases my competitive capabilities and it is not restricted to a certain project”.This reply also shows that it is always better to have diversified knowledge and it makes a person competitive in the field. It is good for knowledge sharing in that when a person works on multiple or diverse projects, he or she shares the knowledge from previous projects with the new team and it makes the process of knowledge sharing more authentic and smooth.

4.3 Observations

For observation we visited the office of Sogeti in Stockholm and spent two and half days at Sogeti’s office in order to observe the behavior of Swedish and Indian employees. We found in our observation that Swedish Manager/Team leader is a team player and plays the role of a facilitator rather than a master. The team leader was also using the same office as other team members and we observed that Indian employees were him asking more questions in order to be clear as compared to their Swedish counterparts. Another important observation was that one of the Indian team members was calling the team leader “Sir” during his communication with him. In Sweden, it is a common practice to call the other person by their first name.

When it was time for lunch break in the office, Indian employees went to the kitchen together to eat and they were talking to each other frankly. At the same time we also observed that Swedish team members were not very concerned about each other during lunchtime and went to the kitchen as per their convenience and ate their lunch separately. During lunchtime, the Indians were talking about how the work was going and they were also discussing things related to personal matters. They ate their lunch at one table sitting together. Whereas, most of the Swedish people went to lunchroom alone and we also observed that they were not sitting at the same table while eating and were not very communicative to each other.

During our observations we noted that Indians were more communicative to each other whether it was related to work or just casual talk. At the same time, Swedish team members were concerned only with their work and did not

50

communicate much with each other. In the morning after saying greeting on another, the Indians started talking about “how are you”, “when you reached home last night” and “what did you eat for dinner” etc. We also observed that Indian team members were talking to each other even while standing at their desks. They went to the other team members and started talking to them while standing by the desk. It was also noted that this talk was not always related to the work but they were talking about each other’s routines and how daily life was going.

During the same time, it was observed that Swedish team members didn’t stand at other team members’ desks, rather they preferred to talk online with them. During the morning, Swedish team members were talking to each other but they were not talking as frequent and as frankly as the Indian were talking to each other. It was also observed that both Indian and Swedish team members were using messenger to talk with each other. But in addition to that, the Indian workers were mostly talking to each other face to face and sometimes they sounded a little bit louder.

During our observation, we noted that all the employees preferred to talk to each other in their own native language. Swedish people preferred to talk in Swedish with other Swedish team members and it was observed in Indians. Indian team members were also using their native language to communicate with their fellow Indian team members. Both Swedish and Indian team members felt it more convenient and easier to communicate in their native language, hence both were using their native language in order to communicate with their colleagues and team members. Less communication was observed between Indian and Swedish team members as compare to communication with team member of same origin.Communication between Indian and Swedish team members was not as frequent as it was between their own countrymen. Indians were talking to Indian mostly and Swedes talked with Swedes. When Indian team members talk to each other in their own language, they understood each other easily. The team members of same origin seemed to understand each other’s gesture and body language easily. Nonverbal communication was not so clear and cross-culture team members had to express themselves verbally.

While we were observing, we found out that there was only one Indian female team member and she was less talkative as compared to a Swedish female in office. The Indian female team member seemed reserved with other Indian male and Swedish male team members. But at the same time, she was more talkative with Swedish female team members as she felt it more convenient and safe to talk to female team members. She talked mostly about work-related issues with team members so communication was much less and most of the time it was formal and related to work only.

51

Indian and Swedish team members used English in order to communicate with each other and sometimes they had to repeat in order to make it clear to the their counterpart exactly what they wanted to say. It was also observed that they used different and simple words in explaining a thing again if they were feeling that the other person did not understand their point fully. It is in fact a good strategy to explain things in different and simple words so that what is being said and what is expected of them is clear to other members in order to do the work properly. Indian and Swedish team members both were observed repeating sentences. It was also observed that Indian and Swedish workers both seemed to give more attention when talking to each other so that they correctly understood the context. We had done our observation for two and half days at Sogeti’s office and we found out that the environment is quite open and flexible. The office environment was quite flexible and team members felt more relaxed to work there. Team members could talk to each other freely and spend time with other team members in order to understand the task or just to be more familiar with each other. It was possible to go for smoke and coffee breaks and the overall environment was quite open for employees.

While it came to the office hours, we observed that Indian team members came late while all Swedish people were always on time. During our observation time we observed that Indian team members arrived around 10 to 25 minutes late in the morning, whereas Swedish employees were always on time and they were very punctual in coming to the office on time and leaving on time. They did not spend any extra time after the office hours. But Indian team members came late and they used to stay late at work as well in order to finish the job.

52

5. Analysis and Discussion In this chapter we analyze and discuss the information and data we have collected through our interviews and observations using hermeneutics based upon the theories presented in Chapter 2.

5.1 Communication influence on knowledge sharingCommunication is seen as one of the most important issues between Swedish and Indian team members. Sailwal (2009) studied the knowledge management issues between Indian and Swedish IT-based cross-culture teams and found that language difference and communication are the most important factors. Team members pointed out different factors that appeared as hurdles to effective communication. First of all, frequent usage of national language by both Indian and Swedish team members in the office shows that they are not very comfortable while speaking English. Observation has also validated that both the Indians and Swedish prefer to use their own language with their countryman. The official language is English, but as Indians and Swedish both are not native English speakers, they have to put some extra effort to communicate their message to cross-culture team members. Frequent usage of national languages decreases overall communication among Swedish and Indian team members. Meetings are always held in English because there it becomes necessary for both Indian and Swedish members to discuss different matters. One Indian team member has explicitly pointed out that preference of the Swedish language effects knowledge sharing process. Another point which of concern is Swedish team members prefer using communication tools rather than face-to-face communication. Swedish team members mostly use electronic methods to communicate with Indian team members. Indian team members are used to face-to-face communication, as it is much practiced in India. During our observation this practice was also seen amongst Indians. In cross-culture teams, Indian members have to change their communication ways and use e-mails rather than face-to-face communication. Different means of communication limit the communication specific to work, which decreases overall discussion and communication frequency. It is natural that people feel comfortable in their native language but there are some reasons explored in this study that makes this practice more frequent. Both Indian and Swedish participants have enlightened these.

53

Participants from both Indian and Swedish side explain that they have to put some extra effort while listening to and understanding cross-culture team members. Both Indian and Swedish members learn and develop English skills in their own cultures. Difference in accent and language skill is found between Indian and Swedish team members that becomes a hurdle in effective communication and understanding. Another issue that was raised by Indians was that communicating in English with other Indian team member was more understandable than with Swedish. Team member were more comfortable while communicating with their fellow nationals not only in their national language but also even in English. People from the same country share some common grounds and understanding that makes it easy to understand each other. This is even the case with a second language that is English. Deresky (2003, pp.126) also stated “Our entire repertory of communication behavior is dependent largely on the culture in which we are raised”. Swedish people have the Swedish language to communicate and get education. In India, only 0.2% of the population has English as their native language (Azam, et al., 2010). Communicating in a language other than your native language is an issue to be considered carefully. The difference in language skills of Swedish and Indians can also be observed in Education First EPI (English proficiency index) report of 2011. The report suggested that Swedish have scored 66.26 on the English proficiency index that is considered a very high-level proficiency whereas Indians had scored 47.35, which is considered as low-level proficiency of English language. English proficiency score suggests that Indians have more concern regarding language as compared to the Swedish. One Swedish worker said “we have to say things again and again to clarify and communicate our message to each other”. He also added that usage of simpler words is an effective strategy while you communicate to a cross-cultural team member. Another Indian elaborated the point that “we have to think first before talking. That is how to make the message understandable for Swedish team members”. So the point to consider here is that when people from cross-culture teams communicate in a specific language, they have to be careful in the choice of words, as it can affect the message to be conveyed. Bloch and Starks (1999) emphasize that in cross-culture teams, communicating members should know about the language variations and the impact it has on the overall performance of the team. Here in this study, we found that team members have less knowledge about language variations and that in turn is affecting the knowledge sharing process. As considering the answers of both and the fact that the Indians have difference from each other in terms of experience, the data suggested that language barrier decreases with respect to time the individuals spent in the cross-cultural environment. In the situation, we determined that people who worked in cross-cultural teams for longer periods of time developed skills and better understood each other’s intentions and expressions. One of the Swedish team members, who had been working in cross-cultural teams for last four years, did not specify language as a major barrier. So we can assume that whenever cross-cultural teams are formed, some knowledge loss might occur at first. But as the length of time they spend in cross-cultural teams in increases, the team

54

members become more understandable to each other. After conducting interviews with several employees and managers at ManuCo, Ford and Chan (2003) suggested that “Active listening and a willingness to understand the other person helped them overcome the language barrier they faced”. Sailwal (2009) also found that experienced team members had fewer issues regarding language and communication.Due to the above issues, both Indian and Swedish team members communicate less with each other and that decreases their social bonding and understanding. According to Carmel (1999) real team cannot be built by simply providing the communication tools and technologies, but better understanding, relationships, and trust is required for efficient communication, collaboration and coordination. In this study, we have found that team members are using communication tools frequently but less face-to-face communication, which affects trust and understanding among them. Communication barriers decrease socialization between Swedish and Indian team members. Language and culture differences decrease communication and ultimately affect socialization and externalization, both critical processes of knowledge sharing. Spending time together decreases the communication gap and enhances understanding. This was evident in our study and experienced by the Indian and Swedish team members, who ultimately became more understandable to each other. Nonaka and Konno (1998) explained the role of socialization to transfer tacit knowledge among member of group and emphasized that tacit knowledge is transferred through spending time together, rather through written or verbal instructions. Indian and Swedish team member prefer to interact with each other through MSN and other electronic communication tools rather than face-to-face interaction. This convenient habit limits physical interaction and socialization. Externalization requires articulation of tacit knowledge, which can be done through expressing one’s mental model into words or figurative language (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). The existence of a communication gap between team members makes it difficult to express their respective mental models to each other. Dialogue is the mechanism that can be used to convert an individual’s mental model to the common concepts (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). In dialogues, it is possibility to confirm the other persons intention and meaning, which can help to facilitate improve understand of each other.

Important Points

1. Both Indian and Swedish team members found language difference to be a hurdle for effective communication.

2. Communication is easy and effective with team members of the same culture, either in English or in their respective native language.

3. Frequent use of communication tools and a preference to communicate in national language decreases overall discussion amongst cross-culture team members.

4. Spending more time in a cross-cultural environment tends to reduce the communication problems faced by cross-cultural team members.

55

5.2 Power distance influence on knowledge sharingMulder (1977) defines power distance as “the potential to determine or direct the behavior of another person or others more so than the other way around”. As the organizations are also part of society, power distance indicates the extent to which it can accept the unequal distribution of power in institutions or organizations. In organizational hierarchy, employees have different roles to play depending upon their allocated responsibilities. There are managers and subordinates, and their relationship with each other is deeply rooted in the societal norms they belong to. As Hofstede (1980) shows in his research, this variation is found in different countries regarding power distance. The empirical findings also suggested that, with regard to the relationship with the manager, Swedish participant answers were more cohesive as they were working in their own work environment. All Swedish participants agreed to the fact that after the initial meeting and workload distribution, they do not engage in the practice of consulting with their managers. And if they needed to do so, they do not feel hesitant to have a formal consultation with them. On the other hand, Indian participants consult with their managers more often, as they are used to being heavily dependent upon the decisions taken by their manager when back home. So they have a habit of consulting their manager much more often than their Swedish counterparts during the development of the project. Regarding communication and consultation with the manager during the development of the project, Swedish participants’ views seem to be more synchronized with each other. All of them mentioned that after the work distribution at the start, it is not routine for them to consult the manager repeatedly and in most cases project meetings help them to better understand their responsibility. But if a situation arises where they require guidance they can seek it by sending an email or contact him/her in person. But their Indian counterparts’ replies showed that they consult their mangers quite often and do so for a variety of reasons. One of them specified that as for a technical project manager, they would consult them quite often. At the start they do consult their manager, quite often to control and have knowledge of development and activities going on every step. Also in certain projects, they have to be in constant consultation with their site manager, resource manager and project manager as well. Although Indian team members consult their manager often, they always try to get instructions from managers and try to avoid disagreeing with them. This kind of organizational practice creates obstacles for creativity, as subordinates are not free to make decisions on their own to improve the work quality. Indian team members have a different view of the manager’s role as they are used to working with Indian managers who are not very open to getting suggestions from subordinates. The reason for this organizational practice is that Indians are very much concerned about job security and they think if they disagree with the mangers then they can risk losing their job. Whereas in Sweden, subordinates can give suggestions to the manager equally in order to improve the quality of work or if they think there is a need for change in a certain process. This is due to the reason that they don’t have an issue with job security and at the same time the role of the manager is more that of a facilitator than a mere controller.

56

Due to differences in hierarchical and power structures in the organizations that are dependent upon the cultural and social aspect of society, the amount of work distributed to individuals may differ in accordance with the work environment. This approach can affect the relationship between the team members, as some can feel that they might be doing the bulk of the work. As the onshore team members are here for a specific project and have to meet a deadline, they have a habit of working late hours. But it is purely due to their emphasis on completion of the project before the due date, not to have more work allocated to them compared to their Swedish counterparts.

Important points1. Indian team members are used to large power distance organization

cultures as compared to Swedish team members. 2. Due to work habits developed in hierarchical power structure, Indian team

members tend to consult the team leader more often in order to avoid any mistakes.

3. Swedish team members are quite comfortable discussing and sharing knowledge with their manager and also feel free to consult higher management whenever needed.

4. Swedish team members consider the team leader as a facilitator while Indians consider the team leader as a boss and try to avoid any argument or disagreement.

5.3 Individualism/collectivism influence on knowledge sharingIndividualism and collectivism habits are deeply rooted in the way the different societies are formed (Hofstede, 2001). So it can be observed in the behavior and habits of people belonging to different cultures. Hofstede (2001) presented some findings that show India is a collective society whereas Sweden is an individual society. This study confirms some of those findings. Hofstede (2001) suggested that the relationship between individualism and collectivism is not only the matter of living together, but also the phenomenon is dependent upon the values and systems of major groups of population. It is suggested that Swedish individuals are accustomed to individual identity whereas Indian individuals are used to more of a collective identity. This habit makes Indians have a close relationship with their countrymen. Although different society values have changed over the years due to globalization, the Hofstede (1980) score index seems to be a cultural habit on which individuals of both countries differ. It specifies that people belonging to different cultures have their own way of social interaction, which consequently also influences their work habits. Observation shows that Indian team members spend much time with each other, stay in-group, and even eat lunch together. This habit increases the frequency of discussion and their mutual understanding. The difference in this behavior between eastern and western culture can also be seen in Ford and Chan’s (2003) research work of a manufacturing company in which local and

57

Japanese professionals work together. Their research pointed out that US employees choose their buddies depending on common interests. On the other hand, Japanese respondents identified a group of individuals by their nationality. Swedish team members do not place informal calls to their colleagues whereas Indian people are used to making informal calls to each other. Indian team members’ replies show that they make informal calls, but not as much as they typically do in India. Indian team members experienced a Swedish work environment where most of the interaction between individuals was conducted via e-mails, which caused them to change their manner of social interaction. This shift in mode of interaction requires time to understand, and that is why experienced Indian team members have less communication and social interaction issues. Swedish team members want to discuss work issues only during meetings, unlike Indian team members. Indian team members like to have informal meetings and they also discuss work issues in these meetings. Hofstede (2001) found that collective societies see social interaction as a source of information and that is found amongst the Indian team members in this study. Indian team members thought that one could learn and obtain information from informal social interaction.Also, in the context of the organization, individualism is also influenced by factors other than the societal norm that include employees’ educational background, the organization’s history and organizational culture (Hofstede, 2001). The organizational environment caused individuals to develop the habits of the culture with respect to communication. So individuals tend to communicate with each other primarily through electronic communication tools, but Indians also had a tendency to interact with fellow Indian team members face to face. To illustrate the behavior of the Swedish towards use of communication tools, one of the Swedish team members responded that he feels no difference if team members works from a geographically dispersed place or in same room. So it can be assumed that Swedish team members have a more individualist behavior while on the other hand Indians are more used to collective identity.

Indian team members are used to be having sociability behavior that can be defined as “a measure of sincere friendship among the team members”. Due to the difference in sociability and solidarity behavior, knowledge block can occur. Both have pros and cons as mentioned by Ford and Chan (2003), and they highlighted that high sociability fosters teamwork, sharing more knowledge and organizational citizenship behaviors, but can promote politics and make it difficult to reprimand poor work. As Indians are more used to sociability culture, their work style is more team-oriented which fosters knowledge sharing in the cross-culture teams. Indian team members are used to communicating and integrated more with each other. Also Indians spend much time with each other and that enables sharing of feeling, emotion and experience which enhances knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. Indians like to have face-to-face interaction, which enhances understanding and fosters the transfer of tacit knowledge. Much interaction and spending time

58

together also increases the trust factor among them, which in turn enhances knowledge sharing. As a collective nation, Indians have more discussion and dialogue, which helps to diffuse individual mental models to the group mental model and contributes to transfer tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Swedish are used to a solitary work style, so from their perspective it seems that knowledge blocks occurs, which can affect the knowledge sharing process. Swedish people prefer e-mail and web-based tools for communication and that reduces physical interaction and the amount of time spent together. This behavior limits the understanding and trust between team members. So due to this particular behavior, tacit knowledge blocks tend to occur between Indian and Swedish cross-cultural team members that can eventually result in influencing the knowledge sharing process.

Important Points1. Indian team members are more accustomed to having a collective identity

culture as compared to individualist identity culture of the Swedish team members.

2. Indian team members are used to socializing and spending more time together than Swedish team members.

3. Indian team members prefer to have face-to-face interactions whereas Swedish team members use communication tools to interact.

4. Swedish team members do not make informal calls to their colleagues, whereas Indians are used to making informal calls.

5.4 Uncertainty avoidance influence on knowledge sharingThere is little difference in uncertainty avoidance between India and Sweden according to Hofstede’s (1980) research; a result that is also found in our research. Indian organization scores a bit high as compared to Sweden. But uncertainty avoidance should preferably be seen in terms of type of organization rules formed to deal with any ambiguity or uncertain situations. Hofstede’s (1980) results showed that attitude towards time is different in countries with weak uncertainty avoidance. Flexible working hours did not appeal to high uncertainty avoidance cultures, whereas the opposite is true for weak uncertainty avoidance cultures. Swedes and Indians have different behavior towards time and punctuality. Our observations also showed that Indian team members have casual behavior towards time as compared to Swedish team members. Indians were used to coming late to work and also stayed there after official working hours. This is due to the fact that they developed their work habits in India where they were accustomed to working for long hours to meet deadlines. Swedish team members have a different view of time. They consider it to be a resource and seem to be more punctual as compared to Indian team members. Hofstede (2001) also showed that countries with weak uncertainty culture may have fewer rules but they are obeyed much more so than strong uncertainty avoidance countries. Indian team members are used to having many rules and a structured way of working back in India, but their behavior is casual about obeying these rules. Same result found in this

59

study applies to the official time rule. Although it is not seen as a good habit to stay at work after regular office hours, it gives them the opportunity to spend more time with each other, which helps Indian team members to build mutual understanding and foster knowledge sharing.Swedish team members think that written communication is a better way to avoid any confusion and uncertainty and the company also uses a codification strategy that seems to verify and encourage their view. Swedish team members have the view that written messages suffice in providing one with a clear understanding of exactly what to do. Indians have a totally opposite view about avoiding confusion and they stressed face-to-face meeting as germane to the development of understanding. Swedish team members feel that their e-mails are helping Indian team members to understand tasks well, whereas this habit makes Indian team member uncomfortable. This different understanding towards avoiding confusion can result in the loss of mutual understanding between them. The organization follows codification as their underlying organizational knowledge management strategy, and for that reason employees are used to have an environment in which they have less uncertain and ambiguous situation. Indian team member become conditioned to it and do not end up being stuck in a situation where knowledge loss can occur. The organization has experience of cross-culture teams working together so their rules are pretty mature, which makes the environment easy to work in and allows for fewer problems to be faced by the team members. So in context of this research, uncertainty seems to be having a limited influence on the knowledge sharing process.

Important points1. Uncertainty avoidance is purely dependent upon an organization’s norms

and rules. The organization is multinational and has a mature organization structure which helps to minimize uncertainty between cross-cultural team members as well.

2. Indian team members have casual behavior towards time whereas Swedish workers give much importance to punctuality and time.

3. Swedes have more weak uncertainty avoidance culture, which leads to easy rules at the workplace whereas Indian organizations have comparatively strict rules.

5.5 Masculinity/femininity influence on knowledge sharingHofstede (2001) suggested that in different cultures the roles and behavior of both males and females differ in organizations. This difference was also found on Hofstede (2001) scores where Sweden scored 5 as compared to India which scored 56, specifying that there is difference in the role of females and males in both the countries. The roles assigned to them are also mostly influenced by social norms along with the organization culture as well. So it is quite important to understand the ways in which this difference of role and behavior

60

affect work environment and performance when cross-cultural teams are formed. Both Indian and Swedish team members have noticed that Indian females communicate less with them. Indian females mostly communicated only about work with other male members of the team. Indian male team members experience less gender difference while interacting with Swedish female team members, although the communication gap makes interaction difficult. Observation also verifies that Indian female’s interaction is limited to work-related issues only. Indian females were raised in a masculine culture in which relation is bound to the husband and their socialization with other men is not appreciated or encouraged. This behavior makes them communicate less with male team members. The Swedish grew up in a culture where gender roles overlapped and socialization with different genders occurs much like with the same gender (Hofstede, 2001). In Indian culture, the male is dominant and feels that his responsibility is to earn money and support the family. That makes them focus on their competiveness and skill mastery at work. Indian culture is more masculine and competition starts from the beginning, even as early as at the school level. India has a smaller percentage of working female professionals as compared to Sweden, and that is also an indication of masculine culture. Although the Hofstede (1980) research index was dated, India has recently experienced rapid growth and change in its culture due to globalization. Now, many women are working in almost every field, and that was not the case before. Indian culture is now less masculine than before, but is not yet close to the most feminine culture of Sweden. In Swedish culture, men and women both work and there is not any thick line between gender roles. Males and females interact regardless of gender and they are more open towards each other.The difference in the social norm and organization from which females of both countries belong affects their behavior at the work place. We consider that this behavioral factor results in loss of sharing of tacit knowledge that requires individuals to have an effective socialization process. On the other hand Indian males and Swedish females do not have that issue while communicating. The transfer of tacit knowledge requires close relation so one can share feeling, emotion and experience, which is difficult to achieve without socialization. Indian females come from a masculine culture that differs greatly from the Swedish culture which has equal opportunities for both males and females. In the externalization phase, dialogue is required tacit knowledge to be transferred to explicit knowledge, and this is also influenced by the tendency in individuals to play an active role in a discussion. Externalization is achieved when individual mental models are diffused into the group mental model. However, Indian females are not actively participating, meaning that their mental model is not fully diffused. Swedish culture helps women to share their feelings and experience with others regardless of gender difference, which contributes to the knowledge sharing process as well. Nonaka (1994) suggested socialization as pivotal to knowledge sharing, which requires frequent communication to build understanding and bonding to each other. The limited socialization and

61

communication by Indian female team members is a result of Indian masculine culture, and that has an impact on the knowledge sharing process.

Important Points 1. Indian females, due to an upbringing in a more masculine culture, tend to

socialize less with male team members. 2. Swedish female team members communicate and collaborate more with

other team member as compared to their Indian counterparts.

5.6 Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation influence on knowledge sharing

Long-term vs. short-term orientation is related to the choice of focus for people’s efforts that is either geared towards the future or the present (Hofstede, 2001, pp.29). As mentioned by Hofstede (2001), long-term orientation cultures consider and value virtue oriented toward future benefits and short-term orientation encourages qualities related to the present, particularly those fulfilling social responsibilities. So it is important to understand the employee’s behavior and relation with the organization. Likewise, this behavior can also help to understand the relationship of the employees with each other.Swedish participants explained their views, and they generally agreed to the fact that they will continue working for the organization as long as they are satisfied. It suggests that their relationship with the company is dependent upon the level of satisfaction and that has an impact on their behavior toward knowledge sharing. This behavior is due to the feeling of social security Swedish team members have, which is not the case with their Indian counterparts. This social security helps them to have a more comfortable approach while working in an organization. Their interest level in seeking knowledge about everything around them would not be the same as a person without that kind of social security. On the other hand, Indian participants strongly pointed out that the job opportunities in the market are quite low, so they prefer to work for a company as long as possible. This behavior arises from the lack of social security they experience back home. So they have a behavior of gaining competence advantage over other employees to secure their place in the organization. This state of mind helps them to stay attentive about most of the things going on around them in the organization. Dealing with new challenges and learning opportunities are also factors, which determine the individual’s orientation and relationship with the organization. The professionals at the start of their career have different priorities in their mindset. This can affect knowledge sharing as it determines the level of the interest in seeking new things and dealing with challenging situations. One of the Swedish workers pointed out that he gives importance to self-satisfaction over career growth. On the other hand, one of the Indians suggested that it is better to stay with one company at the start of your career for at least five years. The long-term orientation approach towards the organization at the start

62

of the career causes individuals to be more interested in seeking and learning opportunities around them in the organization.

Important points1. Indian employees are used to having more long-term plans with the

company as compared to their Swedish counterparts. 2. Long-term orientation thinking affects employees’ behavior, which

facilitates them in developing strong social bonds and helps in the transfer of knowledge.

63

6. Conclusion

This section concludes the findings of this research and answers the research question. Suggestions for future research are also made in this section.

This research showed the significance of understanding the knowledge sharing in cross-cultural IT teams and helps to suggest the better management of the differences. The research was conducted based on the impact of cultural dimensions on communication and the process of knowledge sharing. The research focused on five key areas of cultural dimensions which are “power distance”, “individualism vs. collectivism”, “uncertainty avoidance”, masculinity vs. femininity” and “long-term vs. short -term orientation”. The impact of the above-mentioned cultural dimension on the process of knowledge sharing and communication was studied through interviews & observation, and the results showed that all of the dimensions have a considerable impact on knowledge sharing, but with a different degree of intensity level. The results of the study also show that the impact of “power distance”, “individualism vs. collectivism” and “communication” have relatively a higher impact on the process of knowledge sharing as compared to the remaining dimensions. Communication plays a vital role in the process of knowledge sharing, as this is the basic tool for dissemination. The more the members of cross-cultural teams communicate with each other, the better this is for the knowledge sharing. Use of the same language has many advantages, as members of cross-cultural teams can convey their message effectively and it reduces the chances of confusion. It is a noted fact that communication is much easier when members use their mother language, as they do not have to translate their message into another language. But in the case of cross-culture teams, it becomes necessary to communicate in a common language that is understandable to members of both cultures. Power distance is also an important factor that can affect knowledge sharing both in positive and negative ways. In a high power distance country like India, it is more difficult for subordinates to provide suggestions to their superiors, and that ultimately impacts knowledge sharing in a negative sense. Whereas in a low power distance country like Sweden, everyone can come up with ideas and suggestions and people do not feel any hesitation to consult or present their ideas to their superiors. This makes the process of knowledge sharing more fluid and spontaneous and positively impacts the process of knowledge sharing. The findings of this research suggest that it is more beneficial for organizations to have a better understanding of the culture in which they operate in order to provide a better atmosphere to positively impact knowledge sharing. The cross-culture team with individualism suffers more in terms of knowledge sharing as people communicate less with each other, whereas the teams having a collectivism approach communicate with each other more, making the process

64

of information sharing easier and having a positive impact on the knowledge sharing process. Hence it is vital for firms to have a clear understanding of the above-mentioned cultural dimensions in order to give the cross-cultural teams a better opportunity to communicate effectively and contribute positively in the process of knowledge sharing.

6.1 Suggestions for future work

The authors are aware of the fact that the findings of this research are based on interviews and observation of one company and cannot be generalized. Another reason limitation is that the research work was performed in limited time and the case company was selected based on the author’s own choice and belonging to a specific geographical area. The impact of the cultural dimensions may vary if the research is done in another geographical area and hence research can be conducted in another geographical area in order to see if the results of that research are in coherence with this research. The authors also recommend that research should be carried out with a larger sample size and having a wider geographical scope so that the results of this research can be validated.

It will be useful to conduct a detail study on the impact of language difference, focusing on communication skills and its impact on knowledge sharing within cross-culture team which has been found in this research.

Furthermore, this research provides factors that influence knowledge sharing; future research can be done to provide a strategy to overcome these differences in order to enhance knowledge sharing.

A quantitative survey of cross-cultural teams using national culture dimensions can also be carried out in order to update Hofstede’s results, which would be beneficial to future researchers.

65

ReferencesAgar, M., 1994. Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: Morrow.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001) Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), pp. 107-136.

Anderson, G., 1993. Fundamentals of Educational Research. London: Falmer Press.

Ardichvii, 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), pp. 94-107.

Azam, M. Chin, A. and Prakash, N., 2010. The Returns to English-Language Skills in India, IZA Discussion Papers 4802, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Barachini, F., 2009. Cultural and social issues for knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 13(1), pp. 98-110.

Bhagat, R. Kedia, B. Harveston, P. and Triandis, H., 2002. Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework. Academy of management Review, 27(2), pp. 204-21.

Bouty, I., 2000. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), pp. 50-65.

Bloch, B. and Starks, D., 1999. The many faces of English: intra-language variation and its implications for international business, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(2), pp. 80–88.

Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F., 2002. Knowledge Sharing Dilemmas. Journal of Organization Studies, pp. 687-710.

Carmel, E., 1999. Global Software Teams: Collaborating Across Borders and Time Zones. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Chakravarthy, B. Zaheer, A. and Zaheer, S., 1999. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Afield study. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Strategic Management Resource Center.

66

Chandy, P. and Williams, T., 1994. The impact of journals and authors on international business research: A citational analysis of JIBS articles. Journal of International Business Studies, 25, pp. 715-728.

Chordas, L., 2003. Global Outsourcing: Eyes on India. BEST’s review, pp. 98–103.

Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. 3rd ed. Sage.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L., 1998. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Deresky, H., 2003. International Management: Managing across borders and cultures. 4th ed, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

DeSanctis, G. and Jiang, L., 2005. Communication and the Learning Effectiveness of Multinational Teams, in Debra L. Shapiro, Mary Ann Von Glinow, Joseph L.C. Cheng (ed.) Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives (Advances in International Management, Volume 18), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.97-123.

Dibbern J. Goles, T. Hirschheim, R. and Jayatilaka, B., 2006. Information Systems Outsourcing: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature. The database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(4), pp. 6–96.

Dixon, N.M., 2002. Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What they know. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Drucker, P., 1992. The new society of organizations. Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp.95-105.

Drucker, P., 2001. The new workforce. The Economist, 1 November.

EF, English proficience index (EPI) 2011. [Online] Available at: <http://www.ef.se/epi/> [Accessed 14 May 2011].

Flick, U., 2002. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Ford, D. and Chan, Y., 2003. Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 11–27.

Ford, D.P. Connelly, C.E. and Meister, D.B., 2003. Hofstede’s Culture Consequences and IS Research: An Incomplete and Uneasy Partnership. IEEE Transactions in Engineering, 50(1), pp. 8-25.

67

Frey, P. Lindner, F. Müller, A. and Wald, A., 2009. Project Knowledge Management Organizational Design and Success Factors-an Empirical Study in Germany. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 42, pp. 1-14.

Gadamer, H., 1976. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Translated by David Linge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gersick, C. J. and Hackman, J. R., 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, pp. 65-97.

Gudykunst, W.B. and Ting-Toomey, S., 1988. Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park: Sage.

Hall, E. T., 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City: Anchor.

Hendriks, P., 1999. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), pp. 91-100.

Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage.

Hofstede, G., 1980. Cultures Consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hofstede, G., 1991. Cultures and Organizations: software of mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Holloway, I., 1997. Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. London: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Hussey, J. and Hussey, R., 1997. Business Research Method. London: McMillan Press Ltd.

Ingram, P. and Simons, T., 2002. The transfer of experience in groups of organizations: implications for performance and competition. Management Science, 48 (12), pp. 1517–1533.

Jashapara, A., 2004. Knowledge management an integrated approach. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Kogut, B. and Singh, H., 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), pp. 411-432.

Kraut, R.E. Fussell, S.R. Brennan, S. E. and Siegel, J., 2002. Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support

68

remote collaborative work. In P. Hinds and S. Kiesler (Eds.). Distributed work (pp. 137-162). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kreijns, K. Kirschner, P.A. and Jochems, W., 2003. Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, pp. 335-353.

Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox of managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp. 111-125.

Lessard, D.R. and Zaheer, S., 1996. Breaking the silos: Distributed knowledge and strategic responses to volatile exchange rates. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 513-543.

Lindlof, T.R. and Taylor, B.C., 2002. Qualitative Communication Research Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

MacGregor, E. Hsieh, Y. Kruchten, P. MacGregor, E. Hsieh, Y. Kruchten, P., 2005. Cultural patterns in software process mishaps: incidents in global projects. In proceedings of Human and Social Factors of Software Engineering (HSSE). St Louis, Missouri.

McLaughlin, L., 2003. An eye on India: Outsourcing debate continues. IEEE Software, 20(3), pp. 114-117.

McSweeney, B., 2002. The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55(11), pp. 1363-1372.

Michailova, S. Hutchings, K. and Zealand, A.N., 2006. National cultural influences on knowledge sharing: a comparison of China and Russia. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), pp. 383-405.

Mouritzen, P.E. and Svara, J.H., 2002. Leadership at the apex: Politicians and administrators in western local governments. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Mulder, M., 1977. The Daily Power Game. Leiden: Martinus Nijihoff.

Nardi, B. and Whittaker, S., 2002. The Place of Face to Face Communication in Distributed Work. In Distributed Work: New Research on Working across Distance Using Technology. P. Hinds & Sara Kiesler, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Negandhi, A.R. and Prasad, S.B., 1971. Comparative management. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

69

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. Ichijo, K. and Krogh, G., 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation: how to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organizations Science, 5(1), pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Konno, N., 1998. The Concept of Ba: Building A Foundation For Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(35), pp. 40-56.

Polanyi, M., 1967. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday Books.

Ratcliff, D., 2008. 15 Methods of Data Analysis in Qualitative Research. [Online]. Available at ElIN database. [Accessed 4 Oct 2010].

Reagans, R. and Zuckerman, E.W., 2001. Net Works, Diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D team. Organization Science, 12(4), pp. 502-517.

Ryle, G., 1949. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutcheson.

Sailwal, B., 2009. Importance of Knowledge Management in Distributed Software Development. Master Thesis. Växjö University. ISSN 1650-2647.

Schneider, S. and Barsoux, J-L., 2003. Managing Across Cultures. 2nd ed, prentice hall.

Shane, S. A. and Venkataraman, S., 1996. Renegade and rational championing strategies. Organization Studies, 17, pp. 751-777.

Simonin, B., 1999. Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic alliances: an empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), pp. 463–490.

Sivakumar, K. and Nakata, C., 2001. The stampede towards Hostede´s framework: Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-culture research. Journal of international business studies, 32(3), pp. 555-74.

Smith, P. and Hunt, J., 1997. Research mindedness for practice: An interactive approach for nursing in health care. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh.

Stake, R., 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

70

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Susan, C. Jean-Louis, B., 2003. Managing Across Cultures. 2nd ed. Pearson Education Limited.

Tannen, D., 1992. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. London: Virago.

Thomas, G., 2011. How to do you case study: A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage Publications.

Vigneswara Ilavarasan, P., 2007. Exclusivity of the direct ICT employment: A case of Indian software industry. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, Bangalore: India.

Von Hippel, E., 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Williamson, D., 2002. Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture. Human Relations, 55(11), pp.1373-1383.

Yin, R., 1989. Case Study Research. California: Sage Publication.

Yin, R., 2009. Case Study Research. 3rd ed. California: Sage Publication.

71

Appendices

Appendix A: Questioners

We are carrying out a study on communication processes within cross-cultural team for the purpose of knowledge sharing. We study communication processes for knowledge sharing with the help of national cultural dimension, based on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity vs. Femininity, long-term vs. short-term orientation and individualism vs. collectivism. Your answers will help to study communication processes for knowledge sharing within a cross-cultural team. We are hopeful that our study will be able to help the organization to have a better understanding of communication processes, with particular focus on knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural team. For the individuals, the study will serve to better understand the cross-cultural team members in perspective of their national cultural dimension.

1. What are the cultural differences that you experience while working in a cross-culture team?

2. What are the cultural differences that impact knowledge sharing in your team?

3. Are you able to communicate effectively with team members in a standard language other than your national language, if no than how?

4. How can communicating in a cross-cultural team effects the knowledge sharing process, in your opinion?

5. How often do you consult your manager during the development of a project?

6. Do you conduct any informal calls to your team member to discuss issues regarding work?

7. Do you feel any difference between workload distributions while working in a cross-cultural team, if yes than how?

8. How do you avoid conflict/confusion while communicating with other members in a cross-cultural team?

72

9. Do you feel any difference while communicating/sharing knowledge with the opposite gender, if yes than what?

10. What is your preference for interacting with team member, communication tools or face-to-face communication?

11. How do you think that working in team can help to improve quality of work?

12. How long do you think you would like to continue working for this company?

13. What do you think staying with one company is the best way to go on with your career?

14. How do you feel or think about working for a manager, who is from a country other than yours?

15. How do you take knowledge, as limited/restricted to the specific project development, or as asset to increase your competitive capability?

73

Appendix B: Consent Form

Topic “Knowledge Sharing in a Cross-Cultural Team: Case of an IT-based Services Company”

Context

We are carrying out a study on communication processes within cross-cultural team for the purpose of knowledge sharing. We will study the communication processes for knowledge sharing with the help of national cultural dimension, based on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity vs. Femininity, long-term vs. short-term orientation and individualism vs. collectivism. Your answers will help us to conduct this study and we are hopeful that this study will be able to help the organization to have a better understanding of communication processes, in particular of knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural team. For individuals, the study will serve as a guide to better understand the cross-cultural team members through the perspective of their national cultural dimension.

I agree to participate in this interview, whose conditions are as follows:

1. The topic is aimed at cross-culture team working and knowledge sharing between them. For this purpose, semi-structured interviews of cross-culture team members that are employees of company (Sogeti) will be conducted.

2. The interview information will be used only for the purposes defined in context (above).

74

3. Questions that interviewee doesn’t want to answer will be skipped; interviewee can stop the interview at any time.

4. To facilitate the interviewer’s job, the interview will be recorded. The recording will be used only for the purpose of this study.

5. All interview data will be handled carefully and kept confidential. Therefore, name of the interviewee will not be mentioned in the study.

6. Follow up interview will be conducted so that interviewee can validate the interpretation of his provided information.

Interviewer Name(s):

Date:

75

Appendix C: Work Allocation and Contribution

Chapter 1, Problem formulation and literature reviews have done by both of group members. Chapter has written by Hasan Raza and edited by Jawad ul Hassan.Chapter 2, theory research and literature related to topic are studied by both of the group members, this chapter written by Jawad Ul Hassan and reviewed by Hasan Raza.Chapter 3, research methodology and strategy discussed in detailed by both of group member and written by Hasan Raza.Chapter 4, interview data is transcribed by Jawad ul Hassan and written, discussed and reviewed by both group members. Observation have done by both group members and written by Hasan Raza.Chapter 5, Data analyzed by both of group members. Written by Hasan Raza and edited and reviewed by Jawad ul HasanChapter 6: Conclusion is written by both of group members.References are reviewed and checked by Hasan Raza.Questionnaire have prepared by both of group members and written by Jawad ul Hassan.Language correction and editing is done by Jawad ul Hassan.Consent form prepared by Hasan Raza.Table of Content, List of figures and list of tables have prepared by Jawad ul Hassan.

Appendix D: Interviews Data

Q.1: What are the cultural differences that you experience while working in a cross-cultured team?Swedish interviewee 1:In some countries, managers are hard but here in Sweden we take it more or less easy way, the culture is different and their expectations from employees are also higher. Well management, sometimes, in many countries is much hard; here in Sweden some managers are really afraid to say anything to Indians or other foreigner employees because they don’t want to make one uncomfortable. Sometimes they don’t even say anything if foreigner employee makes any mistake unless there is any exception. But if you are coming from outside you are used to of those managers that tell you what is wrong and what you have to do. May be expectation is more from the person who is coming from outside but at the same time they don’t tell you what you are doing wrong and for that reason may be the stay is not for longer period. Because people here are afraid that they can be called racist or something like that. Well sometimes, they speak to you but normally Swedish people are not very open in this regard. Indians have much personal discussion between them and ask many personal questions like how much you earn and other things but normally we Swedish don’t do that. It is not so often but young people discuss some personal things if they are very good friends.

76

Swedish interviewee 2:Indians come late at jobs. All most 1 hour late every day while we don’t. Indians ask a lot of questions and they ask for permission to go further while we don’t once we get a task we complete it and consult after completion, we don’t send mails to ask anything regarding the task or group work but Indians do that a lot. Swedish interviewee 3: I would say difference is on the culture itself as if I would work with people from Nordic countries I would actually know the surrounding and background, how they grew up and how they think. Actually here I know the laws and jurisdictions so it’s easy to work with Nordic countries’ people than others. For Indian people, I don’t know the hierarchy and roles of engagement, how coworkers depend on each other and how they are supposed to engage in conversation.

Indian interviewee 1:While working in a cross-cultured team, the differences are many folds. With diversity, the issues are normally of lack of understanding and expectation management problems.Indian interviewee 2: There are office code ethics differences, I mean in our culture we have different code ethics, of course the general code ethics will be same for all human beings but I mean which actually depends on regional land. Cultural difference is a big problem.Behavioral differences, it’s not kind of personal but behavioral difference is like how we take things whenever anybody asks us to do something. It’s kind of understanding each other.Indian interviewee 3:The major issue that we face is the communication as my native language is not Swedish therefore there is always an issue to understand my peers.

Q.2 What are the cultural differences that impact knowledge sharing in your team?Swedish interviewee 1:I have not felt any big difference, working with Indians was ok rather in some areas like if you have any problem or issue they help regardless of nationality and I must say Indians have good technical knowledge. However sometimes I feel culture difference makes it difficult to have much discussion that can affect knowledge-sharing process.Swedish interviewee 2:Sometimes yes but sometimes no, normally they are not interested because they think that they have almost everything .we have very good universities and very good general knowledge and then maybe you are coming from other country like India they will acknowledge your expertise but even then they may not ask you, it’s my opinion. It depends also on company because in many companies’ people are doing work only to get salary and here in Sweden its same; in fact people use Internet instead of discussion with each other. There is

77

also a problem if you start to work in a company and you have a lot of energy but still sometimes you may be ked down due to some differences. .Swedish interviewee 3:I think eagerness sometimes for the future is one thing that you actually need to know about the person. For instance I know this is what he wants for his future and eager about, and then it will be easy to share knowledge about that topic. I think project manager should know about what team member is eager and what his plans are. I think when working with Indian people we don’t know what are their future plans and what to share with them. Indian interviewee 1:With differences in culture, a lot differs such as different brought-up, different education and different values. People who come from low income/less education backgrounds may go into a tendency of professional insecurity. This inner feeling of insecurity may lead them to hide things or keep knowledge to themselves so that they (think that they) won’t be replaced.Indian interviewee 2:When working in a team you require good coordination between the co-workers. Good coordination requires good communication. As mentioned above language barrier seems to be the biggest hindrance. Secondly work ethics are very different to where I come from so it takes time to get adjusted. Indian interviewee 3:Yes, it has very big impact on overall delivery of our project and especially when I talk about Swedish project. Well we had the problem, knowledge sharing was not placed in every project and I believe in that scenario documentation and something related to that to just give picture to other people like how we actually develop their system while sitting in India and how they have to use on-site, So it could be a problem if we share the knowledge on both ends than the overall delivery will be great. I observed that in our culture we always love to have discussion like we can be seen while standing on the desk of some colleague, discussing technical problem and even their issues which I think is very good to understand colleague and having this informal discussion especially for sharing knowledge but here in Sweden I try to do this but have very strange reply as they seem reluctant. They sit whole day in front of computer and seem reluctant to have discussion.Q.3 Are you able to communicate effectively with team members in a standard language other than your national language, if no then how?Swedish interviewee 1:Well language difference plays big impact in knowledge sharing. In meeting speakers and team members use English as a medium of communication so that everybody can understand their part and responsibilities and there was not any problem. But in office, team members use Swedish language regardless of the fact that an Indian is sitting and he cannot understand it. Databases and other official documents were in Swedish language and team members from other cultures and nationalities faced problems. They were using Google translator and it was not translating in accurate way so language was a barrier up to some extent in knowledge sharing.Swedish interviewee 2:

78

Yes off course that’s a problem, I have this issue with Indian people that they speak very quickly and very fast and sometimes you don’t understand what they say. And I have also heard that from other Swedish colleagues.Swedish interviewee 3:When people from same culture communicate in their mother language they understand indented meaning of the other person easily. I think even people from the same culture speak English they are not so effective and when we talk about people from different countries speaking English to each other it’s more difficult to get their indented meaning. First I think people should use regular words and avoid any hard words that can increase understanding level between team members. Sometimes people use acronyms which other team member may not understand so plain and regular English should be used to make language understandable to others.Indian interviewee 1:Well, in this case we both do not have this English language common in our cultures; we use English which is not our language. So it is a problem, the ideas and knowledge we might have expressed better in our own language are affected by the language barrier. In verbal communication, highs and lows of your sound and hand/body gestures can help in communicating the right message. In a multi-cultural environment, the challenge mostly is to ensure that everyone understands written communication, the way you want them to. Indian interviewee 2:As the national language is different to what we speak therefore the problem is there. I’m trying to pick up the language but during work we can’t get enough time to be taught professionally. But during the recent years we have worked on our language skills so it is helping us to resolve the problem. Though sometimes even accent of some Swedish people is not understandable so we have to make things clear again and again. Indian interviewee 3:But when you speak to own countryman you can communicate more easily and effectively, as compared to other nationals. While talking to other nationals like Swedish you have to be more attentive and should think first about making the sentence and how to make more understandable for them. Also sometimes even accent of some Swedish people is not understandable so we have to make things clear again and again. It’s a problem but we have to so we manage it and cope up with it.Q.4 How can communicating in a cross-cultural team effects the knowledge sharing process, in your opinion?Swedish interviewee 1:Yes, it effects a lot in cross-cultural knowledge sharing process because different cultures have different mind sets and they act according to their culture like in Sweden if you want to share something with your boss you can do it easily and you can share your ideas and recommendations but if we look into Indian culture there is a big difference. You have to do what you have been told regardless of the fact that what your opinion is. You can’t share your ideas with your superiors so they hesitate. And yes I believe cross-culture effects knowledge sharing process.

79

Swedish interviewee 2:Communication problem effect knowledge sharing because people do not talk freely with each other and hesitate to communicate much which is not good for knowledge sharing processSwedish interviewee 3:I think that before getting into any company or something, a person must take a journey through that culture so that he can understand what is the culture is all about and then have a great know how about it. Then after some discussions, the team members can come to a conclusion or the common grounds of the discussion that has been done between the members. A mutual understanding is very important in any case especially when people are working in teams. Problems arise when the understanding is not enough and there are some gaps in that. So that is very important. The communication between a team or the companies that have the people from different cultures can be strengthened when there are some areas of commonality as I have mentioned above about the common or the same grounds. Sometimes when people from different countries or cultures for example India are in the team having the Swedish as well. Just gather up on a similar approach after mutual discussion and understanding. Helps a lot and when anything is put forward to a manager having common ground could be helpful for the whole team. But if other than that there is no common understanding or there are no mutual grounds, it creates problems in the team and could create problems for the company and effect the working environment. So according to my point of view I think that a mutual understanding during the communication with the cross-cultured employees during any discussion could be of great help.I would prefer on that as first and then as a different person and how the situation is I am not sure of teams that are working in same environment they are like located in the same culture.Indian interviewee 1:Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural team also becomes a challenge, because people normally have different ways to take along others, which may or may not be acceptable or the best approach for a person from another culture. Similarly, in a multi-gender team, this challenge increases many folds, as male/female interaction varies a lot across cultures and may be a bottleneck in knowledge sharing and team play.Indian interviewee 2:I usually face problems during meetings where some presence of Swedish language comes in between, as it is their mother tongue. I have to ask again and again at times in order to get a clear message. I believe the language is the biggest hindrance.Indian interviewee 3:Of course these problems effects knowledge sharing process and especially the communication thing if we try to resolve this communication problem like manage with a pure central language which can be spoken very well by both the parties then possibly this knowledge sharing process can be done in much better way, but right now we have the problem like sometime we have communication at our end and we are doing things our way very accurately but

80

when have to communicate all these things with Swedish people they have different issues and we have judged that it’s because of communication problem that knowledge sharing process gets effected. But when you speak to your own countryman you can communicate more easily and effectively as compared to other nationals and that is obvious. While talking to other nationals you have to be more attentive and should think what to say first and how to make things understandable for others.Q. 5 How often do you consult your manager during the development of a project?Swedish interviewee 1:Indian asks a lot of questions and sends too many e-mails as I have told before. Swedish people also like to communicate via e-mails but they don’t ask at every step until they get done with their task. Once when Indian guys were here they made some mistakes in our project like deleting some tables by mistake but we had the backup so it didn’t create any problem, they were like worried here but I guess when we were discussing about it within Swedish team, they might thought that we will send report to Indian office about what happened here, and they didn’t want us to tell anything at Indian office about what happened here, I think it’s ok if you have deleted table because here in Sweden if something happens we say to team lead that it has happened but I guess in India it has different effect. Swedish interviewee 2:Usually there is no difference, they both consult with manager during the project but Indian used to be ask more questions, I think because they don’t want to do anything wrong. In Sweden if you want to share something with your boss you can do it easily and you can share your ideas and recommendation but if we look into Indian culture there is a big difference you have to do what you have been told regardless what is your opinion and you can’t share your ideas with your superiors so lower level staff hesitates to do that.Swedish interviewee 3:I would say it usually takes place in the beginning of the project and there is a lot of distortion in the beginning of the project. After project gets its flow then there is not much need to consult managers, and this is what usually happens. We discuss project matters in monthly meetings and if I need to consult my manager other than this I prefer to send e-mail.Indian interviewee 1:Varies from project to project and project manager’s technical abilities. For a technical Project manager interaction is more, while for a non-technical project manager the Consultation and interaction is mostly for controlling activities.Indian interviewee 2:In India we consult with managers but I think we are not very open to give suggestion to managers like work is done in more hierarchical way, instruction always comes from managers and we have to follow them, I think Swedish are quite open to consult and discuss about work with manager. Yes we do consult with our manager quite often. It is a step-by-step process involving team works so you not only consult with your manager but also with your co-workers.

81

Indian interviewee 3:Yes, I believe when you have cross-cultural teams you have many managers and you have to respond to all these managers whether they are local or on site manager, our resource manager or our project manager, so I have to communicate same thing to a lot of manager and I guess we should improve our system. In India we have vertical hierarchy like team member, team lead, project leader, program manager, director, chairman and if you want to talk to director we have to go through your immediate manager and talk to all the people which come along the way whereas I experienced in Sweden, this gap is very little.Q.6 Do you conduct any informal calls to your team member to discuss issues regarding work?Swedish interviewee 1:Well, personally I don’t do that and I guess it varies from person to person, but for me I do not conduct such calls and also nobody else calls me informally regarding work. Swedish interviewee 2:We don’t do informal call about the work; we discuss issues in weekly meetings. I think Indian are more connected to each other like even in office I have observed whenever we are having lunch or coffee break, Indian team member most of the time are seen in groups.Swedish interviewee 3:I would say that it may be not that often because I face work issues during the work hours actually. If there is a deadline it has to be finished so maybe I would call but it’s very rare. I would say in general it doesn’t work that way but it’s also depending on individual’s relationship. But usually in Sweden I would say no Indian interviewee 1:It is not the preferred method, but may need to be used, depending on situation and project needs. But I think we talk with each other more than Swedish do.Indian interviewee 2:Informal calls are very important, as I believe that you learn a lot through informal meetings. Indian interviewee 3:Being an Indian yes I use to make informal calls to my colleagues but here in Sweden I do not. Here if anybody is posted for assistance at project then I think it’s ok to call him/her informally. We used to discuss about work even other than work place.Q.7 Do you feel any difference between workload distributions while working in a cross-cultural team, if yes then how?Swedish interviewee 1:Workload distribution is according to the knowledge and abilities of the person. Usually Indians are given more work but here in my project they were given less amount of work. They were of the view that everyone is working and developing themselves but we are just sitting and time is passing with no

82

good use. We have a very cool down situation here in Sweden rather than in India.Swedish interviewee 2:I don’t think there is any difference but consultants get more work, it’s my opinion that employees get less work than the consultants. People from India they think that they can work day and night may be because they don’t have their families here. Sometimes they sit in office until 9.PM and they are ok with it but this is not Swedish manager who told them to do so.Swedish interviewee 3:I am not sure I mean it depends on how big the team is, what type of project is. I think there is no difference in workload if you are related to a same team. Indian gets more work to do in less time than Swedish guys but I would say if there were two teams the workload splits in easier way and the things become easy to handle. Indian interviewee 1:Yes, some people have a tendency to work more and take full responsibility and task ownership, while some just work in 9-5 routine. Some try to take credit for even others work and some are not even able to take credit of work/accomplishments they have done. Indian interviewee 2:I don’t feel much difference on the workload but yes at times it takes much more time in understanding a task. As we need to complete projects on time so the pressure is always there. Indian interviewee 3:I believe workload distribution is depending on your environment like your gathering on your location. Working back in India you can sit late in office and can achieve your targets but when we move to on site in Sweden we have to change our habits. We have to complete the given work in given specific time.

Q.8 How do you avoid conflict/confusion while communicating with other members in a cross-cultural team?Swedish interviewee 1:We had cultural training before starting with Indian team. Company provided Indian cultural training so that we could have smooth working. Personally I have been to India so it was not any problem to resolve conflict or avoid conflicts with any Indian team member.Swedish interviewee 2:Normally Swedish people write on paper and I think to avoid confusions and conflicts the Swedish write on paper, communicate via e-mail. Personally I don’t like it but to avoid any confusion its better.Swedish interviewee 3:I would say that Swedish guy would actually state this is the problem or I mean situation and he will try to focus on main issues. I would say that trying to pinpoint the main problem because it might have to do with resources, time or any stress. I feel more paper work can eliminate ambiguities because you know what you have to do exactly.

83

Indian interviewee 1:To avoid confusion and conflict, mostly face to face/video call communication is preferred, compared to phone or written communication, which due to differences in comprehension, may not correctly communicate the desired messages.Indian interviewee 2:I usually repeat anything I don’t understand. Also I try changing the words this helps most of the time. A face-to-face discussion can give you clear view of other person, in my opinion.Indian interviewee 3:Conflicts can only be avoided by increasing the level of understanding among us and for this we should talk more and with Swedish people so that we can understand them and at their part they have to do same so that creates conflicts and confusions can be avoided in cross-cultural teams.Q.9 Do you feel any difference while communicating/sharing knowledge with the opposite gender, if yes than what?Swedish interviewee 1:Well, I have not felt any difference, but when you see difference between Indian and Swedish female the biggest difference will be, Indian will talk about only and only work while Swedish female she will talk about other things also apart from project work.Swedish interviewee 2:I think Swedish girl don’t have any problem with other people, there was a project in which two male persons came from India but people here were having problems with them, after some time manager sent them back and called two Indian female consultants, but this time there was no complains. Swedish interviewee 3:I feel no difference, I think we are all human beings with some individual talks and behaves according to situation I mean our expression is just to be right…I can’t talk about this specific case here about a new female …… because if you look at it from my point of view what I heard are just the rumors and it was more or less a cultural collision that didn’t work.For me I don’t make a difference between if it’s a girl or if it’s a male because I mean this is a world of humans with the same rights, I think no difference should be considered then.Indian interviewee 1:Yes, there are differences in cross gender communication. In a multi-gender team, this knowledge sharing challenge increases many folds, as male/female interaction varies a lot across cultures and may be a bottleneck in knowledge sharing and team play. In India I feel females are little reserve even when they work on-site they mostly talk only about work but I feel Swedish girls are easy to talk with even other than work, I think females are more open in Sweden and you can freely talk with them other than your work. Indian interviewee 2:I never felt any difference in sharing knowledge with an opposite gender. But I think cultural difference effects; I think Swedish girls are more open to talk if I

84

compare with Indian girls. With Swedish females there can be some communication gap but I don’t feel any gender difference here. Indian interviewee 3:Indian females are different I mean in terms of socializing with males, they don’t talk much to male team member. In Sweden I feel less gender difference. As when we have a Swedish girl as a team member, she always talks more than the male team member and always gives more input.Q.10 What is your preference for interacting with team member, communication tools or face-to-face communication?Swedish interviewee 1:Well, I prefer to send massage on MSN rather than going personally to the desk of other team members. Though I don’t like it that you are sitting in the same room and sending massage on MSN but still the environment makes you to do so. Indians also use MSN to communicate with each other and with other people like Swedish.Swedish interviewee 2:I think here in Sweden we go for documents and e-mail communication for example I need to write a report for manager and project manager at the customer site before every meeting. I prefer to use email. Swedish interviewee 3:It depends as it could be msn or it could be Microsoft communicator and sometimes also Skype depending on if it needs to be voice communication.

Indian interviewee 1:I prefer face-to-face communication. I personally believe that you cannot communicate properly via email, face to face meeting gives you more understanding, I mean what the other person is saying, if said face to face, It can help in understanding the things clearly.Indian interviewee 2:I prefer face-to-face meetings followed by emails and telephonic conversation. With my Indian team member it’s mostly face-to-face communication because it’s easy to understand but with Swedish it is more with e-mails. As Swedish people are concerned, they prefer e-mails and communication tools other than talking face to face.Indian interviewee 3:Well, it really depends on the problem if problem is of general level we can go through teleconferencing or video conferencing but if problem is big and strange then face to face meeting helps a lot. We held meetings after every two to three weeks and our manager visits on shore office after six months. Personally I prefer mostly face-to-face meetings especially with Indian because it’s easy to understand but with Swedish it’s more with e-mails. As far Swedish people are concerned they prefer e-mails and communication tools.Q. 11 How do you think that working in team can help to improve quality of work?Swedish interviewee 1:Team is built up on understanding with each other. Some time I think individuals with expertise work better than a team member like many

85

companies make some department and then it doesn’t work and they go for out sourcing. I think team works better and improves quality of work but it’s about team understanding and coherence. In cross-cultural team some time people just come for one project and i think they are just working like individuals. Swedish interviewee 2:Absolutely I think team working improve quality of work. If individuals work for a project independently then some part may be good and some maybe bad, it depends on experience and expertise of individuals. In my opinion teamwork produces better quality.Swedish interviewee 3:The team usually is built up with different expertise may be someone who is more good in a different field or the part of the project given to the team and the other person may be good at any other part so these expertise when move on together can help and a lot and give a positive result. Indian interviewee 1:Teamwork ensures that experience of all is utilized, knowledge is shared and challenges are faced together, and this way output of a team is far superior to an individual. Individual working depends how much experience he or she has, like much experience guy can produce good result individually. Indian interviewee 2:Teamwork is absolutely essential. You can never achieve your goals independently. As they say two heads are better than one. Indian interviewee 3:I believe working in a team improves quality of work a lot and if it’s a cross cultural team even then its far good though there are disadvantages of communication and cultural differences but still teams produce far better results than individuals.Q.12 How long do you think you would like to continue working for this company?Swedish interviewee 1:It depends on my satisfaction as long as I am satisfied with the company I will work for it.Swedish interviewee 2:Satisfaction is main thing if you are happy and feeling good while working in a company then one should carry on.Swedish interviewee 3:It depends on how much you are satisfied with the working environment, do you like your colleagues or not then ok you don’t need to change say for instance. You like the company you don’t have to move but if you are willing to in some way if I am talking from a Swedish standpoint if you are starting a company you start it a certain level with a certain salary and usually that salary raises each year by a certain percentage but if you want to move the ladder quicker then I guess you are suppose to switch the company and show this is I have worked with and this is my expertise and why I should have this salary its actually up to the bit between me and new company.Indian interviewee 1:

86

When you start your job after graduation you should work minimum for five years with the same company because they will improve your skills and will provide the real experience according to the market. It’s the best way to develop your career to work for a single company as far as you can.Indian interviewee 2:I believe the work should be enjoyable. Every new day should be challenging as this brings in creativity. As long as I love my work I wouldn’t feel the need to shift my job.Indian interviewee 3:Well I believe there is very big competition in the market for the jobs in this respect I do not think that in the near future I am making plan to leave this job but still I always try to move towards better future on the same hand I will strongly believe that one should work for a company for at least couple of years.Q.13 what do you think staying with one company is the best way to go on with your career?Swedish interviewee 1:It’s about better opportunity if you get one, go for it. I think this is best for your professional carrier growth. Staying in one company is ok but I don’t think that it’s best way to reach at the peak. Swedish interviewee 2:For me satisfaction is more important, may be its better for my career to work in a company for several years but if I am happy with company then its ok. I personally prefer self-satisfaction over career growth. Swedish interviewee 3:I think one should stay for a while like 1 year at least at one work place to get experience from there. Everyone looks for the better options so do I but in my opinion to change a company too early does not provide a better platform which is needed to succeed in your career.Indian interviewee 1:I think yes, because it is helping me in personal and professional growth and improving my knowledge and expertise.Indian interviewee 2:I think one should work for at least some year with a company as its better. Well if the working environment is creative and challenging then of course plus if you’re getting nice perks and benefits then why not?Indian interviewee 3:Yes, especially when you start your job after graduation you should work minimum for five years with a single company because they will improve your skills and will provide the real experience according to the market. It’s the best way to develop your career to work for a single company as far as you can.Q.14 How do you feel or think about working for a manager, who is from a country other than yours?Swedish interviewee 1:I think it’s difficult to work for a manager other than your own country. Sometime they are more demanding and that is what I feel. Cultural factor

87

make it difficult to understand and communicate for both me and manager. So I prefer to work with a Swedish manager.Swedish interviewee 2:I have been working all my life with other managers but I prefer to have a Swedish manager. It also depends upon the personality of the person and how he takes things. His attitude and demands from the employees.Swedish interviewee 3:I will feel comfortable. I will actually look up at his expertise and his knowledge area I mean this is a guy who knows a lot in this area then I would actually like to work with him, no matter what if he is from China if he is from India. It would be the same. I would look at his expertise and his knowledge and I wouldn’t look at his country code.Indian interviewee 1:I would feel very good, as this will enable me in learning other cultures and understanding new things and working techniques.Indian interviewee 2:Well that makes communication difficult apart from that the learning experience can be excitingIndian interviewee 3:Yes, it is always different. It depends on the culture, how he thinks, how he manages his team, what he does about the problems that team face during the project, culture plays a vital part if the culture is different than its very difficult to work yes if you have very rich experience then it can be like working in a home country otherwise with little experience it’s difficult to work

Q.15 How do you take knowledge, as limited/restricted to the specific project development, or as asset to increase your competitive capability?Swedish interviewee 1:Well it improves your capability either you use it now for the particular project but still it will enhance the capabilities in future too. It works both ways and it depends upon the information you are getting most of the time I get it as an interesting thing and a new thing.Swedish interviewee 2:I think you learn from each project and it enhance your experience and knowledge. Sometime we use such technology which becomes obsolete after sometime as it happens in IT that Knowledge cannot be used afterwards, but still I think even that experience helps in future. Swedish interviewee 3:I am a learner and in each project I get something that improves my ability to perform well. Knowledge I got from each project adds on directly or indirectly to my work. Indian interviewee 1:Knowledge is the most important asset to increase competitive capability. Indian interviewee 2:I take as asset which you always carry alongIndian interviewee 3:

88

I consider it as a competitive edge. I think knowledge is an asset which increases my competitive capabilities and it is not restricted to a certain project.

89

90

351 95 Växjö / 391 82 Kalmar

Tel 0772-28 80 00

dfm@lnu.se

Lnu.se