4
As mentioned above, past research on information sharing across cultures has demonstrated that
culture does have an effect on information sharing behavior in face-to face exchanges (Chow et al.,
1999; Salter, Schulz, Lewis, & Lopez V, 2008; Salter & Schulz, 2005). However, cross-cultural research on
information sharing has not been studied in the context of KMS. There are at least three factors that
might affect the willingness to share written as opposed to spoken information: (1) expected life of the
information, (2) anonymity and (3) cost of transferring the information.
The expected life of the information refers to the possibility of accessing in the future the information
exchanged. Anonymity refers to the possibility of non-identifying the person who is sharing the
information. The cost of transferring the information refers to the amount of effort that people need to
exert in order to communicate the information. The long life of the information in KMS, the possibility to
make anonymous contributions, and the cost of transferring the information might have an effect on
the willingness to share information. For these reasons, it might be possible that findings from past
research on face-to-face information sharing across cultures cannot be extended to KMS.
This study uses Hofstede’s updated cultural framework (2005) to understand the effect of culture on
the willingness to share knowledge. Even though several theoretical frameworks have been developed
to explain cultural differences, Hofstede’s framework has had the largest impact (Sivakumar & Nakata,
2001). Hofstede’s framework describes cultures along five different dimensions:
individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculine/feminine, and Confucian
dynamism.
Individualism/collectivism is the degree of group or individual interest prevalence. Power distance is the
degree of acceptance of unequal power distribution. Uncertainty avoidance is the perceived threat of
uncertain and ambiguous situations. Masculine/feminine is the degree of assertiveness and not caring
for others. Confucian dynamism is the degree of short/long term orientation values. Table 1 shows the
country scores obtained by Chile and Mexico for the first four dimensions (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
Scores for the Confucian dynamism dimension are not available for Chile and Mexico.
Table 1 Scores for cultural dimensions for Chile and Mexico
Cultural dimension
Chile
Mexico
Individualism/collectivism
23
30
Power distance
81
63
Masculine/Feminine
28
69
Uncertainty avoidance
86
82
Some cultural dimensions might stimulate information sharing behavior whereas others might inhibit it.
The present study focuses focus exclusively in the individualistic/collectivistic dimension because
“among the dimension effects of national culture that have been identified across studies,
individualism/collectivism is commonly seen as a basic value that distinguishes members of different
cultural groups from one another ” (Chow, Deng, & Ho, 2000, p. 67).
Convention