Intercultural communication: concepts and applications

Communication

Within the context of any given organization, the idea of routines, as defined by Cohen, is as follows: "Routine is an executable capability for repeated performance in some context that has been learned by an organization in response to selection pressures." In its very simplest terms, a routine is a pattern of action within an organization; it is a function that is carried-out repeatedly, whether by design or unwittingly, and serves as an aspect of the overall performance of the organization. So, a routine may simply consist of, for example, a pattern of when a certain employee turns in a piece of work to his or her superiors and which superiors receive this work. However, when measured against the entire scope of any particular organization, it becomes apparent that routines can possess consequences that are far more comprehensive than each individual action might initially suggest. In other words, routines make-up the skeletal structure of organizations in that they underscore both the power structure of these organizations and the personal preferences and patters of behavior of individuals within it.

Furthermore, the above definition of a routine is useful because it highlights three essential facts about routines: first, they are learned; second, they are associated with an organization's ability to function or reach clearly outlined goals; and third, they set the course for repeated outcomes. Although, superficially, the notion of routines within organizations seems rather straightforward or uncomplicated, recognizing these three aspects of organizational routines suggests that they are truly the result of a complex interplay between individuals and their environments. So, if a leader of an organization wished to alter the routines operating within it, then that leader would be forced to analyze how, specifically, the members of that organization learned their respective routines, and how receptive they might be to learning new ways of conducting business. Also, a leader must be conscious of the fact that, in many cases, the setting or hierarchical structure of the organization may need to be changed if the ingrained routines are to be restructured to promote efficiency. The additional major concern of such a leader would be the likelihood of achieving the goals set out by the organization through the process of placing pressured upon existing routines. All of these issues fall under the blanket concern of increasing a firm's productivity or efficiency.

Still, if routines are understood to be the skeleton of organizations, then the information that flows within the confines of these routines is the lifeblood. Knowledge, in short, is the key component of a successful organization. Finding ways to optimize the flow of this knowledge, largely, is what spurs many modern organizations to consider knowledge management from the perspective of these routines. Precisely how knowledge is conveyed, to whom, in what form, when, and in what context are all central considerations of knowledge management; but what is often overlooked within the literature of knowledge management, is the very basic roll that routines tend to play in how knowledge operates within an organization.

The fundamental purpose of this paper is to probe the existing literature regarding how the transfer of knowledge within modern organizations is influenced by these elemental components of routines. Although there has been a substantial amount of research conducted analyzing the way knowledge is transferred within organizations, and there has been research illuminating the significance of routines within these organizations, few have taken a truly comprehensive look at the issue. At the heart of this matter is the question of how the business environment influences the patterns of behavior that occur within it, and how this environment, in turn, can potentially be manipulated to seek a desired outcome. So, what is often overlooked regarding the matter of organizational routines, is that the environment -- particularly, the organization and distribution of leadership -- acts upon these routines, and can either be beneficial or detrimental to the transfer of knowledge. Consequently, we should anticipate that different problems associated with knowledge transfer, such as tacitness, can be overcome by organizational leaders through deliberate restructuring. However, as some of the literature contends, the models for how this may be conducted will vary depending upon the organization -- its goals, its personnel, and its leadership.

Additionally, the very peculiar relationship between modern information technologies and the business must somehow be conceptualized if a proper model of knowledge transfer is to be attained. So, while in some cases, technology may serve as an obvious way to optimize the transfer of knowledge and overcome the barriers of routines, these same technologies, in different settings or with different individuals, will create more barriers and less effective routines. The fundamental concern must be attaining an applicable model of knowledge transfer, and perhaps the willingness to employ the idea of replication wherever it can be straightforwardly implemented.

Traditionally, many careers have been subject to gender specific designations. Obviously, numerous broad fields of work like medicine and law have historically been dominated by men, while women have been relegated to secretarial, nursing, or other subordinate positions. In recent decades this trend has come under fire and gender is no-longer widely accepted as an appropriate way to designate workers to specific realms. Not only has this pattern been questioned by advocates of equality, but is has also raised the question of how effectively an organization can actually be run in the presence of such discriminatory practices. So, the question of workplace diversity has come to the forefront of organizational theory because, if exercised properly, if can lead to more efficient knowledge transfer; but meanwhile, individual prejudices can serve to hinder the optimization of knowledge transfer.

However, a clear drawback of this emerging picture is that large organizations often look to information technology as the cure-all solution to the problems associated with inefficient routines and non-productive modes of knowledge transfer. Superficially, it seems as if such an approach should lend itself naturally to large organizations; however, the peculiar nature of knowledge often places unexpected pressures upon organizations, which it alone cannot address. One analyst argues that "companies need to convince people to reject old-school thinking that they are being measured by what they know and do individually. Such thinking only perpetuates knowledge hoarding, an unproductive remnant of an era when workers were trained to play it close to the vest." Once again, this is why the conscious presence of KM leadership is of utmost importance toward directing the lifeblood of organizations -- its knowledge -- in the most productive manner possible.