If Management practices still have a strong local flavour, Management Science definitely has a bias in favour of a uniform, Anglo-Saxon source. Especially in France: if you had to study in a management school you will spend your days reading translated US books, not French. French people believe that ‘management’ is a genuine English word and a practice invented in the US by Mr Ford. This leads sometimes to missing useful perspectives. That is exactly what happens right now with Enterprise 2.0 and the CGS Lab.
If Andrew McAfee coined the term, Jean-Claude Moisdon described with case studies the reality and forces behind it, ten years ago.
Based on 25 years of in-depth research action, the outcome is different from the mainstream understanding. It appears that management tools* have the following characteristics in real life:
• Flexibility: “the rhythm of production and modification of tools tries to cope with the transformations they are supposed to regulate”.
• Fragility: “the process of birth and death of management systems accelerates”
• Simplicity: “the design of management tools is characterised by the systematic research of usability”.
• Interactivity: “one of the core principles of the design of management tools consists in including them into a broader dynamic process, where they only constitute the initialisation of a retroactive and revisable process of choices made within a predefined length of time”.
• Arguability: “tools are less used to conform a priori individual choices but rather help structure negotiations between individuals who have to organise their interaction in a complicated environment”.
• Decentralisation: “tools are not systematically designed and used at senior management level”.
In the coming posts I will detail the key assumptions behind this perspective. However, for those having the opportunity to read French, I strongly recommend “Du mode d’existence des outils de gestion”, particularly the introduction. It dates back 1997 and has anticipated the current evolution social computing brings in organisations.
thanks for writing this wonderful blog. your views mirror those of Hofstede’s. i have the same feeling studying management theories with an Asian background, culture, philosophy, etc. sadly in Asia too most of the textbooks used are American. as a matter of fact, American-style teaching is coveted. nothing wrong with that really, but the context here requires lots of reflection on those American theorizing. in the case of KM, Nonaka and co. are really doing a great job in distinguishing the knowledge sharing mode in an Asian culture as opposed to others.
Bonjour Awie,
Thank you for your kind comments.
The domination of the American approach in management is certain but relates to a broader perspective. It is currently the dominant culture at international level. American authors benefit from more visibility due to a vast internal market, an amazing distribution network worldwide as well as a language that is widely taught and understood. It also benefits from this misplaced belief that Management is American and a readership that likes easy foods for thoughts.
Nonaka is one of my favourite and most influential author ever. However, it is embedded in a very rich and specific culture that makes difficult to understand certain aspects. I refer to notions such as “Ba” which have no equivalent in Western thinking.
If you have some good references from Asian authors around knowledge sharing and management, feel free to point me to them.