Cognitive and cultural proximity between service managers and customers in cross-border regions: knowledge transfer implications

Abstract

Knowledge transfer between customers and managers is an important source of new ideas for innovation in the service industries. In cross-border regions, inter-cultural interactions engender but also constrain knowledge transfers between actors even when actors share similar economic and technological knowledge bases. This theme is explored through an analysis of cognitive and cultural proximity between service managers and customers from “the other side” in a European cross-border region where the constituent regions have broadly similar national cultures: Tornio-Haparanda on the border between Finland and Sweden. Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 19 Swedish and Finnish managers of small and micro businesses serving customers from both sides were undertaken to gauge their perceptions of the impact of cultural and cognitive proximity to customers on learning interactions. The study adds to the emerging literature in this field by identifying seven elements of cognitive and cultural proximity including mentality, ways of solving problems, conservatism, shared language, focus on contextualised details, mentality, and use of similar technologies. It is also original for suggesting some the implications for the possible impacts of perceived cultural and cognitive proximity on cross-border knowledge transfer between customers and managers.

Full text

Cognitive and cultural proximity between service managers
and customers in cross border regions: knowledge transfer implications
Abstract
Knowledge
transfer
between
customers
and
managers
is
an
important
source
of
new
ideas
for
innovation
in
the
service
industries.
In
cross
border
regions,
inter-cultural
interactions
engender
but
also
constrain
knowledge
transfers
between
actors
even
when
actors
share
similar
economic
and
technological
knowledge
bases.
This
theme
is
explored
through
an
analysis
of
cognitive
and
cultural
proximity
between
service managers and customers from
“the other side” in a
European
cross
border
region
where
the
constituent
regions
have
broadly
similar
national
cultures:
Tornio-Haparanda
on
the
border
between
Finland
and
Sweden. Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 19 Swedish and Finnish managers of
small and micro businesses serving customers from both sides were
undertaken
to gauge
their perceptions of the impact of cultural and cognitive proximity to customers on learning
interactions. The
study
adds
to
the
emerging
literature
in
this
field
by
identifying
seven
elements
of
cognitive
and
cultural
proximity including mentality, ways of solving problems,
conservatism, shared language, focus on contextualized details, mentality and use of similar
technologies. It is also original for the
implications of perceived cultural and cognitive
proximity
on cross
border
knowledge
transfer between customers and managers.
Keywords:
knowledge
transfer, cultural and cognitive
proximity,
cross
border
regions,
relational proximity
Introduction
In
the
rising
globalized
knowledge
economy,
the
long-term
competitive
advantages
of
cross
border
regions
increasingly
rest
on
their
capacity
to
create
integrated
innovation
spaces,
characterized
by
substantial
cross
border
flows
of
knowledge,
expertise
and
skills,
via
high
intensity
human
mobility
(Lundquist & Trippl, 2013). This is particularly germane to
European Union’s open internal borders, where restrictions on cross border movement have
been lifted stimulating the development of cross border destination regions
and encouraging travellers to challenge and explore transnational regions
as places for communication and interaction. This has led to the new challenges and
possibilities for development of cross border tourism destinations, especially in
the European northern peripheries, such as the border between Sweden and Finland
(Prokkola, 2008).
Many
of
the
banal
practices
of
cross-border
mobility,
which
mostly
lie beyond
the
visions
of
regional
strategies
constitute
potentially
significant
sources
of knowledge
transfer,
and
innovation.
One
specific,
and
under-researched,
type
of
cross
border mobility
is
trans-
border
customer
mobility
resulting
in
potential
inter-personal
interactions between
customers
and
managers taking place in cross border tourism shopping spaces.
This
is
particularly
common
between
small
countries
with relatively long
open
borders compared
to their size, such as in the EU, which also have considerable cultural variations
(Spierings
& Van Der Velde, 2008).
Most
studies
focus
on
national
innovation
systems or
territories
within
these
(e.g.
regional
innovation
systems
and
learning
regions),
neglecting cross
border
regions
characterised
by
1

international
differences
in
collective
learning
systems
or
socio-cultural
proximity.
There
has
also
been
a
tendency
to
focus
on
manufacturing industries
and
large
and
medium
size
enterprises
and
to
overlook
learning
processes
in
the service
industries (Un & Montoro-
Sanchez, 2010; Aponte & Zapata, 2013),
with
a
particular
dearth
of
research on
small
and
medium
size
service firms (Forsman, 2011).
This
is
surprising
given
the policy focus on
innovation
in
small
and
micro
enterprises in cross
border
regions, particularly in the context
of EU focus on service innovation, cross
border
regions, and tourism (see Weidenfeld,
2013).
Most
cross
border
regions
are
heterogeneous
in
terms
of
geographical
conditions,
history,
culture, socio-economic
conditions,
governance,
technological
trajectories,
and
institutions
(Lundquist & Trippl, 2013; Lundquist & Winther, 2006; Trippl & Maier, 2010). They tend
to remain institutionally embedded in their respective national systems, which differ with
respect to their economic structures, cultural factors, administrative borders, R&D bases,
national institutions, regulatory frameworks, and, consequently, innovation performances
and capacity to form an integrated innovation space (Trippl & Maier, 2010). Although
these
differences
hamper knowledge
transfer,
they
also
represent
sources
of
innovation
by
offering
potential
for
new combinations
and
unexploited
synergies
(Koschatzky, 2000).
Nevertheless,
the
constituent
border
regions
within
most
cross
border
regions
are
institutionally
embedded in
their
respective
national
innovation
systems,
rather than
functioning
as integrated
innovation
spaces
(Trippl & Maier, 2010).
Moreover,
cross
border
knowledge
transfer through
different
channels (e.g. labour
mobility,
co-patenting
and
co-
publications, formal
and
informal
networking,
and
trade)
remain
uncommon (Greunz, 2003;
Van Gorp, 2009) even
when
regions
share
broadly
similar
economic
and
technological
knowledge.
This
can
be explained
by
specific
socio-institutional
conditions,
including
the
extent
of
formal and informal
cultural,
social and
institutional
proximities
(Hussler, 2004;
Koschatzky, 2000; Trippl & Maier, 2010).
Customers, of all kind,
are
important
sources
of
service
innovation
(Alam, 2002; Tether &
Hipp, 2002).
Consequently,
for
many
small
service
firms in
cross
border
regions,
one
of
the
most
important
sources
of
knowledge
transfer potentially
stems
from
the
relatively
banal
interactions
between
service
managers
(or employees)
and
cross-border
customers.
This
is
particularly
germane
to
SMEs
in
rural communities,
which
are
often
less
growth
oriented
and
laggardly innovators
(Moyes, Whittam, & Ferri, 2012).
Knowledge
transfers
between
such
businesses
are usually
relatively
minor
resulting
in
mostly
incremental
innovations.
Despite
being
incremental,
they
can
–
individually,
but
especially
cumulatively
–
provide
substantial
competitive
advantages
(Tödtling & Kaufmann, 2001). This
paper
does
not
examine
innovations,
or
innovation
impacts,
per
se,
but
rather
the implications of cultural
and cognitive aspects for enhancing knowledge
transfers,
which
inform
these.
All
knowledge
transfers
are
influenced
by relational proximity,
but
in
cross
border
regions,
spatial
proximity
between
actors
from
different
national cultures
can significantly shape the
influence
of
other
non-spatial
proximities
on innovation
(Mattes, 2012).
Relational
proximity between
key
actors
–
mostly
managers
and
policy
makers
-
has
been
shown
to
constitute
a
necessary
condition
for
fruitful
inter-personal
knowledge transfers
and
facilitating
cross
border
innovation
(Lundquist & Trippl, 2013).
In contrast,
the
influence
of
relational proximity on
knowledge
transfers
and
co-learning
between managers/owners
and
customers
in
the
service
industries in cross
border
regions
has
been
largely
ignored.
Consequently, in terms of perceived relational proximity and knowledge transfer, the
research question addressed in this study is; how do managers perceive customers form the
other side of the border?
2

By the means of personal interviews, this
paper examines
Swedish and Finnish managers’
perceptions of
cross
cultural
interactions
with
customers
in
the
adjacent
border
cities
of
Tornio
and
Haparanda.
It aims
to
provide
a
fine-grained
analysis
of
how
specific
elements
of
perceived
cognitive
and
cultural proximity serve
as
barriers
and
facilitators
to
actual and
potential
cross
border
knowledge
transfers
between managers and customers from
relatively
similar
cultures
in
neighbouring border
regions. The paper
provides
an
insight into,
how
managers’ perceptions of
relational proximity
can
influence
customer–firm
knowledge
transfers
in
cross
border
regions.
The
paper
first outlines
a
conceptual
framework
for
inter-
personal
knowledge
transfers
in cross
border
innovation
systems.
Based
on
this
review,
seven
key
perceived
elements
of cognitive
and
cultural proximity between
customers
and
managers
are
identified,
which inform
the
methodology
outlined
in
the
next
section,
followed
by
discussion
of
the
findings, and
general
conclusions.
The
role
of
customers
and
managers
in
cross
border
regional knowledge
transfer
Service innovation activities
are important for business success and yet complex and difficult
to
manage, not at least,
because
they
are
highly
dependent
on
the
skills
and
knowledge of
managers/
employees
and
customers (Howells, & Uyarra, 2007).
High level of absorptive
capacity is needed in organizations, i.e.
ability
to
value,
assimilate
and
apply
new knowledge
(Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), which is
shaped
by
individual
actors’
openness
to
new
knowledge
from
within and
outside
the
organization and the
region
(Kallio, Harmaakorpi, &
Pihkala, 2010).
Customers (national, international, repeat, ad hoc etc.) represent
one
important
source
of
such
knowledge
for
firms.
Enhanced
awareness
of customer
needs
can
provide
significant
market
opportunities
(Sandén, Matthing, & Edvardsson, 2006) and increase
innovation
capacity
(Mention, 2011).
Customers
are
important
catalysts
for
new
service
s
,
providing
suggestions and
feedback,
often
involving
ideas
already
incubating
within firms
(Kuusisto & Riepula, 2009).
Moreover,
customers’
innovativeness,
in
terms
of
willingness
to
buy
new
products
has
a
pivotal influence
on
the
adoption
and
diffusion
of
innovation
(Akçomak & Ter Weel, 2009; Kallio, et al., 2010).
Learning
from,
and
with,
customers
is
defined
as
“
the
process,
deeds,
and
interactions
where
a
service
provider
collaborates
with
current
(or
potential)
customers
to
anticipate
and learn
customers’
latent
needs
and
develop
new
services
''
(Sandén
et
al.,
2006,
p.
112). Managers’
learning orientation
in
terms
of
openness
towards
customers
plays
a
vital
role
in
developing
new ideas
and
also
influences
the
relational proximity between
them
(Sinkula, Baker, & Noordewier, 1997; Steenkamp, Hofstede, & Wedel, 1999; Tajeddini,
2011)
. In
cross
border
regions,
different,
or
partly
shared,
histories, social
contexts,
languages,
beliefs,
values,
ethnicity,
and
jurisdictional
orders
are compounding
factors in knowledge transfer and learning,
being
sources
of
incompatibility
and
weak
proximities,
but also of
opportunities.
Relational
proximity
and
cross
border
knowledge
transfer
Proximity
is
the
degree
of
closeness
of
actors.
The
specific type
and
degree
of
proximity
in
knowledge
networks,
remain
empirically
understudied (Huber, 2012).
Relational Proximity includes
several
non-tangible
proximities,
including
cognitive,
organizational,
social,
institutional,
cultural
and
technological
proximity
(Lundquist &
3

Trippl, 2013).
Relational proximity as
an
umbrella
encompasses
all
four
of
Boschma’s
(2005)
non-tangible dimensions
of
proximity:
cognitive,
organizational,
social
and
institutional
or
cultural (Moodysson & Jonsson, 2007).
Their
meanings
are
overlapping
and
confusing
rather
than mutually
exclusive
and
coherent
(Lundquist
&
Trippl,
2013;
Mattes,
2012).
At
the
inter-regional
scale, proximity
is
defined
as
the
similarities
of
two
regions
in
terms
of
shared
behavioural
codes, culture,
trust,
sense
of
belonging
and
cooperation
capabilities,
which influence
regional
capacity
to
absorb
knowledge
spillovers
(Basile, Capello, & Caragliu, 2011).
These are
underpinned
by
the
different
types
of
proximities
identified
by
Boschma
(2005).
Cognitive
proximity
is
considered
relevant
for
disentangling
the
proximity
paradox
(Broekel
&
Boschma,
2012;
Huber,
2012), which refers to the possibility that both too
much proximity and distance might reduce learning and knowledge transfer when actors are
too similar or different (Boschma & Frenken, 2010). This is not
least
because
it
is
considered
a
pre-requisite
for
interactive
learning
processes
(Boschma, 2005),
and
is
inherently
interwoven
with
other
forms of
proximity.
Given
the
focus
here
on
service
firm-customer
relationships,
it is
contended
that
the
cognitive and cultural
dimensions
of
relational proximity are
particularly
important
in
cross
border knowledge
transfers
(Figure 1).
O
rganizational
dimensions
are
considered
less
relevant in
this
case
study
because
they
mostly
refer
to
intra-firm relationships
(Mattes,
2012;
Boschma,
2005).
Social
proximity,
while
important
in
inter-personal
communication,
is
generally
not
specific
to
differences
between
cross
border regional
actors,
and
is
therefore
not
central
to
our
analysis.
Insert Figure 1 about here
The
technological
proximity
dimension
is
perceived
as
a
sub-dimension
of cognitive
proximity
by
some
scholars
(e.g.
Boschma,
2005,
Gilsing
et
al.,
2008;
Huber,
2012) and
as
a
separate
dimension
by
others
(e.g.
Geutz,
2005,
Lundquist
and
Trippl,
2013; Menzel,
2005).
In
this
paper,
they
are
examined
separately
to
simplify
the
empirical
analysis
of the
complex
knot
of
relational
proximities
between
cross
border
regions
customers
and
managers. The
following
discussion identifies
the key
elements
(in
italics)
of
the
cognitive
and
cultural proximity between managers
and
customers,
although
recognizing
that,
in
practice,
they
may
overlap.
Cognitive
proximity
and
technological
proximity
Cognitive
proximity
is
a
precondition
for
mutual
understanding
and communication
(Huber,
2012)
while
exerting
a
critical influence
on
other
types
of proximities
(Mattes,
2012).
The
cognitive
dimension
refers
to
those
resources
providing shared
representations,
interpretations,
and
understanding
according
to
mental
categories
that people
developed
in
interaction
with
their
physical
and
social
environments
(Thomas, 2008).
This
can
have
negative
consequences
for
knowledge
transfer. Categorical
thinking
in
an
automatic
and
unreflective
fashion
leading
to
predictable
outcomes
instead
of
reflective
processing,
whereby
individuals
creatively combine/extend
internalized
cultural
and
private
models
to
improve
their
sense
making.
This is
typical
of
cognitive
conservatism
towards
new ideas,
and
is
considered
a
barrier
to
knowledge
transfer as r
eflective thinking resulting in new ideas
depends on
the receiver’s ability to apply relevant mental (cultural and private) models
(Ringberg & Reihlen, 2008).
4

Diversity in knowledge, opinion and experience engenders meaningful communication
but
requires
the
existence
of
shared
language. Shared
vocabularies,
codes and
collective
narratives
enable
efficient
exchanges
of
views,
ideas
and
practices
as
well
as similarity
in
ways
of
thinking
about
products
or
technology.
Moreover,
‘shared
narratives’
- including
myths,
stories,
and
metaphors
-
provide
powerful
means
for
creating,
exchanging, and
preserving
rich
sets
of
meanings
and
combinations
of
tacit
knowledge
(Holt & Macpherson,
2006; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
However,
too
much
cognitive
proximity can
lead
to
lock-
in
effects
and
competition,
in
contrast
to cognitive
distance
which
engenders
complementarities
and
interactive
learning
(Boschma, 2005).
Cognitive
distance
may
constrain
absorptive
capacity
because
it
influences
effective knowledge
transfer
(Broekel &
Boschma, 2012)
but
may
engender novel
combinations
of
complementary
resources
(Gilsing, Nooteboom, Vanhaverbeke, Duysters, & van den Oord, 2008).
Another
important
element
is
mentality,
a
theory-driven
psychological
stance
in
terms of
individuals’
attitudes
and
behaviour
in
response
to
new
ideas
and
knowledge.
Shared
mentality
reflects
proximity
in
ways
of
reacting
to
new
information
and
ideas
emanating,
for
example,
from
individuals
from
the
same
national
culture
(Peng & Akutsu, 2001).
In
this
paper,
it
indicates
proximity
between
managers
and
customers
in terms
of
thinking
and
behaviour
(e.g.
marketing
and
product
preferences).
When it comes to provision of specific
details, customers of collectivist cultures outperform those of individualist cultures
(Hofstede, 2001).
Technological
proximity
is
defined
as
the
understanding
of
shared
technological knowledge
amongst
actors, for example
knowledge
of
techniques,
technologies
and
markets
(Menzel,
2005). It
enables
learning,
particularly
in
terms
of actors utilising
similar
technical
language
(Huber,
2012).
It
is
considered
a sub-dimension
of
cognitive
proximity
by some
researchers
(e.g. Boschma,
2005;
Gilsing
et
al.,
2008;
Broekel
and Boschma,
2012) and
is
positively
related
to functional
disciplines
such
as
marketing,
production
and
engineering
(Gilsing
et
al.,
2008). At
the
regional
level
it
is
defined
as
“…proximity
of
regions
whose
technological
profiles
are similar
to
its
own”
(Greunz,
2003,
p.
657).
Knowledge
spillovers
are
expected
to
be
higher between
regions
with
similar
technological
profiles
(Greunz, 2003). Although
studied at
the
inter-firm
level, technological
proximity
between
managers
and
customers in
terms
of
using
similar
technologies
and
tools,
and
their
shared
understanding,
remain
understudied,
particularly
in
cross
border
regions.
Cultural
proximity
Culture
is
a
set
of
interrelated
common
rules,
norms,
conventions,
interpretation
schemes,
values,
perception,
thoughts
and
feelings
which
guide
behaviour
within
a
group.
Cultural
proximity
or
similarity
refers
to
sharing
tacit
background and
ideology,
adoption
of
similar
ways
of
thinking,
behaving,
and
deciding,
while
also facilitating
intra-cultural
exchanges
of
opinion.
It
is
often
assumed
but
rarely
empirically measured
(Ibert, 2010; Kaasa & Vadi,
2010).
Knowledge
understood differently
by
the
provider and
receiver
depending on
levels
of
cultural
proximity
(Hussler,
2004) can
incur
costs and
risks,
increases
(Bjorkman, Stahl,
& Vaara, 2007).
It
invoke
s
stereotypes
and
a
confrontation
of
‘us
versus
them’ (Vaara,
Sarala, Stahl, & Björkman, 2012)
, which is
important
in
the
following
analysis.
Cultural
dissimilarity
can
induce
innovative
tension,
and
stimulate
mutual
learning,
as
divergence
can
lead
to
constructive
controversy,
which requires
negotiation
of
differences
and
direct
social
interaction,
and
is
a
key
to innovation
(Auer-Rizzi & Berry, 2000; Ibert,
5

2010; Javidan, Stahl, Biodbeck, & Wilderom, 2005).
Customers’
ways of
solving
problems
may
also
differ
between
national
cultures
depending
on
their
cultural similarity.
Product and
service
development
is,
at
its
core,
a
problem-solving
process
, which
often
consists
of
trial
and
error,
involving
user
innovation
(Hippel, 2005).
Cultural
values
may
have
a
direct
influence
on
individual
behaviour,
attitudes
and actions.
Therefore,
service
managers’
cultural
orientation
and
values
may
determine
the
way they
develop
new
services
(Alam, 2010).
In
summary,
cultural
proximity
is determined
by
the
convergence/divergence
of
publicly
shared
values,
worldviews
or interpretation
schemes
(Ibert,
2010).
Willingness
to
accept
the
need
for,
and
be
open-minded about,
change
and
learning
from
foreign
cultures,
are
important
for
a
firm’s
learning orientation,
encouraging
managers
to
‘open-up’
or
adopt
to
external
knowledge
(Akçomak &
Ter
Weel,
2009;
Steenkamp
et
al.,
1999;
Tajeddini,
2011).
Cultural and Cognitive
proximity
between
Swedish
and
Finnish
cultures
A
common
history,
similar
institutional
structures
and
geographical proximity,
and
high
cultural
and
institutional
proximity
exist
between
Finnish
and
Swedish societies
(Vaara,
2000).
Several
studies
on
perceived
cultural
differences
and stereotypes
between
Swedes
and
Finns,
and
their
influence
on
inter-cultural
communications and
collaboration
(Auer-
Rizzi
&
Berry,
2000;
Paasi
&
Prokkola,
2008;
Vaara,
2000; Smallbone,
2006),
have
demonstrated
the
usefulness
of
Hofstede’s
(1980)
‘power
distance’ and
‘uncertainty
avoidance’
dimensions.
Swedes
have
a
slightly lower
score
than
Finns
in ‘uncertainty
avoidance’
and
lower
scores
in
‘power
distance’
(Vaara,
2000).
These
studies
identified
the
following
7
elements
of
cognitive
and
cultural proximity as
being
important:
conservatism,
language,
mentality, use
of
similar
technologies
or
tools,
ways
of
solving
problems,
provision
of
specific
details,
and
values.
In
terms
of
conservatism and language,
Finns
perceive
Swedes
as
being
more extrovert
(Jukarainen,
2005)
and
less
‘uncertainty
avoidant’,
while
Swedes
perceive
Finns
as being
conservative,
less
open-minded
and
more
resistant
to
change
(Vaara,
2000).
For the current
study, this suggests that
Finnish
customers’
ideas
are more likely to be perceived
as
being
conservative
by
Swedish
managers, while Finnish
managers
are expected
to
be
less
likely
to
perceive
Swedish
customers’
ideas
as
conservative. In
terms
of
mentality,
Finns
are
perceived
as
being
more
straightforward,
rapid decision
makers,
following
the
lead
provided
by
authorities,
emphasising
managers’ responsibility
in
decision
making
and
challenging
controversial
issues,
but
less
democratic than
Swedes
(Auer-RizziK
&
Berry,
2000;
Paasi
and
Prokkola,
2008;
Vaara,
2000; Smallbone,
2006).
It
is
also
assumed
that
for
customers,
individualist
cultures
are
more
apt
to absorb
and
diffuse
imported
technology
than
are
collectivist
cultures (Kedia & Bhagat, 1988).
Therefore,
knowledge and
use
of
technology
is
assumed
to
be
influenced
by
a
collectivist
society’s
preference
for using
its
own
technologies,
and
familiarity
with
a
narrower
range
of
tools,
compared
to
more individualist
and
less
conservative
societies.
As
Finnish
culture
is
considered
to
be
more collectivist
than
Swedish,
Finnish
customers
and
managers
are
more
likely
to
use
tools and
technologies
that
are
familiar
in
Finland.
In terms of
solving problems,
Swedes
are perceived
by
Finns
as
having
a
more
individualistic
and
horizontal
culture
in
general, less
democratic,
less
effective
decision
makers,
and
placing more
emphasis
on
consensus
building,
discussion,
diversity
of
views,
polite
phrasing
and avoiding
controversial
issues (Auer-Rizzi
and
Berry,
2000;
Paasi
and
Prokkola,
2008;
Vaara, 2000;
Smallbone,
2006). When it comes to provision of specific
6

details, customers of collectivist cultures outperform those of individualist cultures
(Hofstede, 2001). In terms
of
values,
compared
to
Swedes,
Finns
are
perceived
as
more
authoritarian, straightforward,
less
democratic, giving
less
emphasis
to
consensus
building,
discussion and
diversity
of
views,
and
more
typical
of
collective-vertical
cultures.
Study area and research
methods
In
two
remote
adjoining
border
regions
in
countries
which
share
broad cultural
and
economic
similarities, the
neighbouring
towns
of
Tornio
(Finland)
and Haparanda
(Sweden)
in
the
southern
part
of
the
Tornio
River
Valley, which
is located in the centre of the
North
Calotte region. The valley
represents
an
EU
cross
border
region with
open
borders
and
high
levels
of
spatial
proximity
(Figure
2),
cross
border
mobilities
with
banal
daily
interactions
including
intense
commuting
(Paasi
and Prokkola,
2008;
Ruotsala,
2009)
. It has historically
been a contested ‘‘borderless’’ land where different cultures coexist creating dynamic process
of interactions between cross border identities (Prokkola 2008).
The
two
neighbouring
regions
have
a
small
population
of some
25,000
inhabitants,
a
third
of
whom
live
in
Haparanda
region
(Ruotsala,
2009), distributed
at
low
densities
over
a
large
area
(Ruotsala,
2009;
Lundén
and
Zalamans,
2001; Smallbone,
2006).
Insert
Figure
2 about here
The
two
cities
are
administratively
run
more
like
one, declared
Eurocity
(or
a
twin
city),
and
cooperate
in
joint transnational
integration
projects
(Jukarainen,
2005).
There are four
main
groups:
two
mono-cultural
majority
groups
(
Swedish
and
Finnish),
and
bilingual
and
bicultural
minority
groups
living
on
both
sides
and
of
the
border
(Lundén
and
Zalamans,
2001).
Following the literature review on the factors affecting knowledge transfer between
different national cultures in general and cultural differences between Swedish and Finnish
cultures, the most relevant elements which may influence knowledge transfer in the Finnish
and Swedish border context were identified. In addition, a
pilot
exploratory
approach
was
also undertaken
for identifying the final selection of the most relevant elements. Informal
interviews
were undertaken
with
several Swedish
and
Finnish
actors
from
both
border
regions,
including
3
shoppers,
5
shop
managers, 2
academics
from
the
local
higher
education
institutes
and
4
officers
from
local
and regional
authorities.
The
interviewees
expressed
their
own
cultural
views
on
the
topic
in
their own
terms,
which
avoided
potential
problems
of
misinterpretation
and
loss
of
relevant
data (Wilkesmann
et
al.,
2009).
Open
questions
(e.g.
‘what
influences
learning
between
people
from
both
sides
of
the
border’)
help to
reveal
the
relevance
of
national
stereotypes
in
the perceptions
of
different
types
of
proximity.
Subsequently,
a
literature
review
on
the
impact
of such
stereotypes
on
cognitive
and
cultural
proximity
was
undertaken
(see previous section)
and
considered
in
both the
theoretical
discussion
and
data
analysis. These
interviews
contributed
to
refining
the
methodology
so
as
to focus
on
the
most
relevant
elements
of
proximity.
The pilot study confirmed the need for a qualitative approach
(semi-structured
interviews)
to understanding cognitive and cultural proximities, the constitutive elements of which are
often blurred and overlapping. This was reinforced by the need to tease out how national
stereotypes influence individual managers’ perceptions of proximity between themselves and
7

their customers. For the main study, interviewees were randomly selected from the most up-
to-date comprehensive
lists
of
service
SMEs,
provided
by
the
city municipalities,
including
169
businesses
in
Haparanda
and
320
in
Tornio.
The
sample
was divided
equally
between
the
two
towns
and
focused
on
businesses
located
in
close
spatial proximity
to
the
border.
It
targeted
businesses
managers
from
the
service
sub
sectors
of catering,
retail,
leisure,
tourism
and
accommodation, because they are characterised
by daily
interactions
with
cross
border
customers and therefore are more influenced by barriers of cross cultural communication
(Table
1).
In
cases
of
refusal, a
manager
of
a
similar
type,
and
geographically
proximate,
was
approached.
A
sample
of
24 managers
(12
from
Tornio
and
12
from
Haparanda)
were
invited
to
be
interviewed,
of
whom 9
from
Tornio
(culturally
Finnish)
and
10
from
Haparanda
(7
culturally
Swedish
and
3 mixed)
consented.
The
lack of
mixed
culture
interviewees in
Tornio
is
consistent
with
the
more
culturally
homogenous
population
in
Tornio
(see Lundén
and
Zalamans,
2001). Interviews
were
undertaken
between
June
and
August
2011. Interviewees’
ages varied
from
38
to
60,
with
most
having
at
least
some
form
of
higher
education
and
almost
one half
having
at
least
10
years
of
experience
in
the
business.
Virtually all
the
businesses employ
1
to
50
members
of
staff,
with
most
employing
a
maximum
of
5
full-time
employees.
Insert
Table
1 about here
Semi-structured
in-depth
interviews
including
both
pre-planned
questions
and
open ended
questions
allowed
respondents
to
talk about
examples
from
their
own
experiences (Creswell,
2012).
Interviews
lasted
between
25
to
90
minutes,
were
recorded
and
transcribed in
their
original
language
to
reduce
difficulties
associated
with
translation
and
interpretation of
verbatim
data,
and
then
translated
into
English
by
a
bilingual researcher. The
involvement
of
more
than
one
person
reduced
the
chance
of
losing
subtle
expressions
of opinions
in
the
course
of
transcription
and
translation
(Liamputtong,
2010)
but
increased
the costs,
contributing
to
a
decision
to
restrict
the
number
of
interviews. Even within 19
interviews,
the similarities in many responses
indicated that
saturation
was approached
.
The
first
part
included
information
on
the
nature
of
the
business
and
the
interviewee (e.g.
number
of
employees,
age,
experience,
cultural
affiliation).
The second
part
included
an
open-ended
question,
asking
managers
to
choose
people from
any
possible
location
and
culture
(assuming
no
language
barriers), whom
they
would
invite
for a
hypothetical
meeting
to discuss
ideas
about
service
improvement
in their
business,
and
to
explain
the
reasons
for
their
selection.
This was particularly important for understanding the importance that
managers attached to different elements of
relational proximity
.
It
also
included
a
more
specific question
about
whether
Finnish
and
Swedish
people
in
general,
and
customers
or
managers
in particular,
think,
describe
and
discuss
ideas
differently.
For
both
questions,
managers
were encouraged
to
exemplify
their
answers.
In
the
third
part,
the
7
elements
of
cognitive
and
cultural
proximity discussed by other
researchers
and vaguely discerned
in
the
exploratory
interviews,
as
influencing
cross
border
learning
interactions, were
examined.
Managers
were
asked
how each element influenced
their
learning
interaction
with
cross border
customers, and
to
explain their
views.
The
fourth
part
allowed
the
interviewees
to
express their
views
freely
on
any
aspect of
the
topic.
Direct
or
deductive content
analysis
was
used
for
validating
and
extending
knowledge,
with
the
literature
being used
to
pre-determine
the
initial
coding.
The
data
analysis
included
8

highlighting
all
text, which
may
represent
elements
of
dimensions
of
cognitive
and
cultural
proximity extracted from
open-ended
questions,
followed
by
their
coding
using
predetermined
codes
(Hsieh
and Shannon,
2005). Particular attention was given to
perceptions (and stereotypes) as potentially informing knowledge transfers.
Results
Most
managers
had
strong
opinions
on
at least
one
of the seven
elements
of
cognitive
and
cultural proximity with
customers
from
the
other
culture. They
also
highlighte
d the
importance of
historical
trajectories,
which
is
indirectly related
to
shared
language.
However,
some
interviewees
could
not
explain
their
arguments,
but
preferred
to
discuss
more
general intercultural
communication
of
new
ideas: these views are reported here as
indicative of their perceptions of customers from other cultures.
One of the seven
elements
did
not
receive
any
additional
comments
from the interviewees:
A
similar
number
(three)
of
managers
from
each
culture
considered there
were
no
real
differences
between
Finnish/Swedish
customers,
and
one
Finnish
manager ‘complained’
that
there
was
too
much
similarity
which
hindered
innovation.
Mentality
Six
interviewees
referred
to
mentality
in
general
and
three
of
these
explained
that
ways
of
thinking,
and
of
reacting
to
new
information
and
ideas
(Peng
and
Akutsu,
2001),
reflected
differences
between
the
two
national
cultures: “They
(Swedes)
have
long,
long
meetings
until
all
aspects
have
come
up
with conclusions,
so
that
all
members
are
committed
and
understanding
of
the
conclusions and
then
they
start
up
implementation….
In
Sweden, if
you
make
mistakes,
it
is
not
the end
of
the
world,
because
you
are
doing
something,
but
in
Finland,
you
would
lose your
social
status
directly”
(Finnish tourism
and
event
marketing
manager). Another
Finnish
leisure
business
manager
described
differences
in
reactions:
“…
when
it comes
to
how
we
are
inspired
to
work,
Swedes
become
so
much
involved
whereas
Finns remain
calm”,
and
in
the
nature
of
their
ideas:
“usually
you
get
more unique
ideas
from
Swedes,
and
more
practical
ideas
from
the
Finns…”.
The
process
of ideation
also
differed
“in
terms
of
thinking
and
coming
up
with
new
ideas,
Finns
are slower
thinkers
and
Swedes
are
slow
decision-makers”
(Finnish
Tourism
business manager).
One
interviewee
exemplified
how
Finnish
mentality
regarding
service
delivery had
‘crossed’
the
border
and
influenced
a
new
service
development
in
a
tourism
facility (tourism
business
manager):
“The
Finnish
customers
were
dissatisfied
with
the
dressing
rooms.
So
next
year
we
are
going to
build
new
dressing
rooms
based
on
Finnish
market’s
requirements,
which
has
to
be relaxing
… and functional”.
Knowledge
transfer
relies
on
managers’
ability
to
reflect,
decide
and
apply relevant
mental
(cultural
and
private)
models
and
succeed
through
considering
new
ideas based
on
old
knowledge
(Peng
and
Akutsu,
2001;
Ringberg
and
Reihlen,
2008).
However,
in the
same
tourism
facility,
different
mental
cultures
induced
‘innovative
tension’
between customers´
preferences
and
the
need
to
provide
a
high
quality
product,
which
shapes
service
development:
“…when
we
did
what
they
[Finns]
want,
there
was
a
mishap
because
they
were
dissatisfied ...
we
did
it
in
our
way
because
our
quality
of
the
product
we
serve
is
more
important
than
the
culture.
Sometimes
we
listen
to
them
and
we
get
small
improvements,
sometimes
we
don’t … our
biggest
challenge
is
putting
the
9

business
plan together
to
fit
in
the
Swedish
and
Finnish
market
as
one
product”.
(Swedish manager)
In cross border regional context with different mentality structures, customers’ ideas are
particularly treated with caution by managers while considering them as appropriate and
feasible for innovations. This was a barrier, which was viewed from more than half of the
Swedish managers, who were either skeptical or decisive against ideas from Finnish
customers. On the contrary, most Finnish managers in the study were more positive towards
ideas from Swedish customers. Swedish customers were often perceived as bringing up
radical (and sometimes ‘strange’) ideas in comparison to the Finns who only provided
practical ideas, which were considered ‘boring’ or not feasible. It appeared that both
Swedish and Finnish companies were not keen on implementing ideas of cross border
customers.
Conservatism
Swedish
managers
and
customers
were
perceived
as
being
more
‘open-minded’
and
less
conservative
than
their
Finnish
counterparts
by
five
interviewees
(Swedish
and
Finnish).
Being
open-minded
and
willing
to
recognize
the
need
for
change
is
pivotal
for
learning
orientation
and
adoption
of
external
knowledge
(Tajeddini,
2011;
Steenkamp
et
al.,
1999).
For
example,
“the
Swedish
side
[of
the
border]
is
more
innovative
because
they
[managers
and
customers]
are
more
open
in
innovation.
It
does
not
mean
they
have
more
ideas.
In Finland
you
have
to
work
more
to
get
ideas
out” (Finnish
event
marketing
manager).
Another
interviewee, a
Finnish
retail
store
manager,
explained
how cross
border
proximity
was
considered
a
regional
competitive
advantage
for
overcoming Finnish
conservatism:
“…we
live
so
near,
and
we
have
these
Swedish
influences,
which
means,
for
example,
in fashion,
we
need
to
get
the
things
faster
here
(meaning
trendy)
for
sale
and
we
are
more
free to
try
out
the
first
thing.
20-30
years
ago,
fashion
started
from
the
Swedish
side,
almost
a year
later,
it
came
from
southern
Finland [the headquarter],
but
we
already
knew
it
here
…”.
This
shows
how
more
conservative
values
on
one
side
of
the
border
influenced
behaviour
with
respect
to
novelty,
such
as
adoption
of
new
products
(Kaasa
and
Vadi,
2010;
Steenkamp et
al.,
1999;
Tajeddini,
2011). This implies that firms and companies operating
close to innovative border regions can tap in new trends before the rest of the country.
Differences between cross border cultures affect the direction in which ideas flow between
cross border regions. Whereas ideas are more likely to flow from the more innovative
Swedish regions to Finland by cross border Swedish customers, conservative Finnish
managers may not easily open up towards such ideas, discuss their thoughts openly and
adopt them. This, to some extent, constrains innovative processes as the outcomes of such
flows of ideas.
Shared
language
The
use
of
a
foreign
language
to
engage
with
customers
from
the
other
cross
border
region
was
mentioned by
six
interviewees
as
“…a
barrier
for
some
customers
to
express
their
opinions,
especially Finns
face
problems
talking
other
languages
although
they
are
pretty
10

good
at
languages” (Finnish
cultural
service
business
manager).
Communicating
in
a
foreign
language
does
not allow
the
use
of
similar
and
familiar
nuances,
codes,
narratives
and
vocabulary,
which enables
efficient
exchange
of
views,
ideas
and
practices
between
individuals
and communities’
through
discussions
(Holt
and
Macpherson,
2006;
Nahapiet
and
Ghoshal, 1998).
For
example,
“in
Sweden
we
say
‘you’
to
all,
in
Finland
they
say
‘Sir/Madam’.
There is
more
focus
on
titles
in
Finland,
more
'authority'-oriented.
In
Sweden
you
say
‘you’
to people
you
even
do
not
know”
(A
Swedish
specialised
service
business
manager). It appears from the interviews that customer closeness, so important for
knowledge transfer, is conditioned by the language in use. Swedish managers seem to be
much “closer” to the customers than the Finnish ones, leveling our hierarchical structures
(we the managers, they, the customers) by using a somewhat more informal language (used
among friends) and emphasize that “we together” will find a solution to the customers’
needs.
Bilingual
managers
have
clear
advantages
in
discussing
ideas
with
customers.
A
Finnish
tourism
and
event
marketing
manager
argues
that
“even
if
the
idea
itself
is
important,
and
I
describe
it
in
Swedish,
all
who
are
present
can
understand
the
nuances
without
unnecessary
doubts
or
any
bad
feelings
for
not
understanding”.
However,
even
bilingual
managers
in
cross
border
regions
can
be
challenged:
“I
am
a
mixed
person.
But
still,
I
don’t
know
every
name
on
every
subject
in
the
shop.
In Sweden
we
call
something
a
pencil,
in
Finland
something
else.
There
are
very
much
special words
for
specific
items
which
I
am
still
learning.
When
Finnish
customers
have
a
need
for something
and
I
don’t
understand
what
they
are
talking
about,
we
must
talk
and
talk
and talk.
So
I
get
the
idea
by
showing
the
catalogue [to get a common understanding]”
(Swedish
retail
store manager).
To get closer to the customers, recruitment
of
native
speakers
was
suggested
by
a
Swedish
tourism
business manager
.
Shared
narratives
including
myths,
stories, and
metaphors,
which
provide
powerful
means
in
creating,
exchanging,
preserving
and combining
of
different
forms
of
knowledge,
including
tacit,
are
also
considered
as
‘shared language’
between
actors
(Holt
&
Macpherson,
2006;
Nahapiet
&
Ghoshal,
1998).
The inferiority
complex
of
Finns
towards
the
Swedes,
referred
to
as
‘a
little
brother
complex’,
is linked
to
particular
historical
readings
and
popularly
manifested
in
Finn’s
envy
of
Swedes
as being
more
extrovert,
better
ice
hockey
players,
musicians
and
more
sensitive
and
complex rather
than
strong,
deterministic
or
coherent
(Jukarainen,
2005).
Differences
in
the perceptions
and
narratives
of
historical
trajectories
were
viewed
by
two
managers
as
relevant to
knowledge
transfer.
“Finns
have
a
darker
history,
wars,
etc.
and
have
struggled
more
than
the
Swedes.
They
can complain
about
something,
e.g.
food,
but
they
don’t
tell
what
it
is.
In
the
restaurant
you
say the
meat
is
not
rare
…
the
meat
is
not
good,
but
do
not
specify
what
is
not
good.
…
they
don’t do
that
because
they
have
been
in
war
for
many
years…
they
have
the
war,
the
mines,
so
you
should
not
complain
too
much
because
you
should
be
lucky
to
have
food
on
your plate…”(Swedish
tourism
business
manager).
A Swedish manager complained about the Finnish customers’ inability to explain service
dissatisfaction, which he thinks is a symptom of vague reference points for evaluation. The
relevance of history for benchmarking is also stressed by a Finnish manager, who claims
11

that Finns find reference points in their neighborhood, not in a global context, as the
Swedes. This
could
lead
to
reliance
more
on
external
than internal
sources
of
knowledge
(Hussler,
2004), which means that there is a greater potential for the transfer of knowledge
from Sweden to Finland than vice versa Another view from a Finnish
tourism
and
even
marketing
manager provides further support for this argument:
“Finland
is
a
younger
than
Sweden,
which
has
been
one
nation
for
longer
…
so
they
are
still kind
of
tribes
fighting
each
other;
‘I
am
not
telling
you
[i.e.
telling
the
other
‘tribe’] everything,
because
you
can
get
better
than
me….
Swedes
also
compete,
but
Swedes
compete side
by
side
with
the
rest
of
the
world,
and
Finns
compete
against
each
other,
which
is
stupid”.
This
suggests
that
Finns
are more likely to
exchange
fewer
ideas
among themselves
due
to
perceptions
of
internal competition i.e. competition between Finnish companies and
individuals.
Arguably,
this
might
derive
from
strongly
hierarchical
structures
and
over
rigid
control,
typical
of
more
masculine
societies. A shared language is important for inter-
personal communication and knowledge transfer between customers and managers. The
Finnish customers’ ability to share ideas with Swedish managers may be inhibited by lack
of shared language.
This is particularly the case for Swedish cross border individuals who
are less likely to speak Finnish as many Finns learn Swedish at schools.
Use
of
similar
technologies
or
tools
Evidence
of
the
impact
of
technological
proximity
between
Swedes
and
Finns
was
given
by
two Swedish
managers.
A
Swedish
retail
manager
mentioned
that
‘if
you
have
a
new
machine,
a brand
or
something,
for
example,
Makita,
a
screwdriver,
and
you
try
to
sell
something
else, they
[Finns]
don’t
want
it.
Swedes
are
more
flexible and test new
technologies”.
The
second,
a
Finnish
restaurant
manager, mentioned
that
Finns
would
never
use
Swedish
technology,
such
as
Ericsson
mobile
phones, and
would
always
chose
Nokia,
perhaps
as
an
act
of
patriotism (when Nokia mobile phones were produced).
Resistance to
use technologies from other cultures might also be explained by differences in, and access to
service support systems and warranty regulations, aspects which might hamper the
development of
cross
border
region
innovation systems..
These findings do also
provide
some
support for
the
importance
of
technological
proximity
between
customers
and
managers,
and
the argument
that
Finnish
society
is
more
collectivistic,
conservative
and
familiar
with
fewer technologies
and
tools
than
the
Swedish
one. This may constrain
Swedish managers when trying to draw some ideas from Finnish customers, who do not
tend to use other technologies than Finnish.
Specific
or
contextualised
details
Managers
and
customers
from
more
collectivist
cultures
are
perceived
as
providing
more
specific
and
contextualised
details
than
those
from
individualist
cultures
(Hofstede,
2001;
Yalcinkaya,
2008;
Bhagat
et
al.,
2002;
Steenkamp
et
al.,
1999).
This
was
mentioned
by
three Finnish
managers
and
one
Swedish
manager,
who
viewed
Finns
as
being
more
specific
and focused,
and
more
collectivist
than
Swedes
when
discussing
ideas,
and
therefore
as
being more
practical;
“It
is
easier
to
talk
with
Swedish
customers,
you
can
chat
with
them…
with Finns,
you
have
to
be
more
direct,
less
gossiping”
(Finnish
leisure
business
manager).
He continues
“in
a meeting,
they
[Swedes]
talk,
talk,
talk,
and
try
to
look
at
things
from
all
perspectives
(tourism and
event
marketing
manager)
and
have
the
culture
of
‘discussing’
without
telling
their opinions”.
12

The
Finns
were
perceived
as
being
“…
more
direct,
they
do
and
then
think”
(Finnish
Tourism
business
manager)
and
answer
questions
rather
than
speak
spontaneously.
“
They
speak
much
more
if
asked
questions…so
it
is
important
to
formulate
questions
to
Finns”
(tourism
and
event
marketing
manager).
A
Finnish
café
manager
also
mentioned
that
“I
get more
practical
ideas
from
Finns.
Finns
comment
on
what
they
see.
If
they
see bread,
they
could
say
right
away,
can
you
put
some
cheese
on
the
bread.
Swedes
just
say:
‘do
you
have
something
else’?
And
if
I
ask
them
what
you would
like
to
have,
they answered:
I
don’t
know,
something
sweet’.
Finns
would
just
say,
I
would
like
to
have cheese”.
A
Swedish
retail
store
manager
describes
his
interaction
with
his
customers:
“I
can say
to
the
Swedish
customer
‘no,
it’s
not
possible’.
The
Finnish
customer
wants
a
more detailed
answer
than
no
–
while
the
Swedish
customer
is
more
satisfied
with
the
shorter answer”.
These findings indicate how Swedish managers could benefit from listening to Finnish
customers, and how Finnish managers should be prepared to ask follow-up questions for
more detailed information. This difference may benefit Swedish managers because Finnish
customers are more likely to challenge problems and issues than Swedes. These may be
helpful for having a more detailed and helpful view that helps to solve problems and
innovate. By contrast, for Finnish managers, the lack of contextualized and detailed
discussions is unlikely to contribute to innovation stemming from a solving problem
process.
Ways
of
solving
problems
A
Swedish
retail
store
manager
described
his
perception
of
how
Swedish
managers
and
Finnish
customers
viewed
the
speed
of
change
differently.
He explains how his assortment is
based on an agreement among all those store managers belonging to the same retail chain.
This implies that if “customers from Finland come and ask why I don’t have this jacket in
gray … I have to explain that how our collection is created”, and that it might be impossible
to get the jacket in that particular color. He continues discussing the relevance of planning
“I
have
to
plan
first, before
I
start
to
create’
and
the
Finns
would
say
‘you
can
plan
it
while
you
are
creating
it’”. Another
tourism
and
event
marketing
manager
referred
specifically
to
the
difference
in ideation
processes
and
approach
to
its
implementation
by
the
two
national
cultures,
which is
explicitly
related
to
customers’
role
in
new
service
product
development:
“Finns
are
a straightforward
culture
and
they
want
to
implement
[new
ideas]
when
only
half
way planning
is
done
through
trial
and
error”.
These differences may benefit both Finnish and Swedish managers. Being encouraged to
work faster and use ‘trial and error’ approach to problem solving may accelerate innovative
processes among Swedish businesses, which may end up being too lengthy as a result of
Swedish tendency for lengthy discussions and ideation. Finnish managers may benefit from
being provided with more novel ideas as a result of in-depth discussions with Swedish
customers if they have a willingness to engage in deeper conversations (which is not
necessarily the case).
The
insights
into
each
of
the
above
elements,
excluding
‘values’,
are
summarized
in
Table
2.
Although
the
interviews
did
not
provide
much
commentary
on
this
aspect,
the
tendency of
Finns
to
diverge
amongst
themselves
less
in
‘values’
than
Swedes,
partly
explain differences
in
their
perceived
proximity.
13

Insert
Table
2 about here
Conclusions
This
paper
seeks
to
advance
our
understanding
of
the
nature
and
potential
impact
of
relational proximity on
knowledge transfer
between
managers
of
service
businesses
and
customers
from
what
are
often implicitly
dismissed
in
cross-border
regional
economic
strategies
as
the
banal
mobilities
of
cross
border customers. It
focuses
on
the
perceptions of
cognitive
and
cultural proximity of
Swedish
and
Finnish
managers
from
Tornio-Haparanda
and their implications for encouraging knowledge transfer
between actors in
the Sweden-
Finland
border.
Since
relational proximity between
key
actors
in
cross
border
regions
is
considered
to
be
an important
mediator
of
fruitful
inter-personal
knowledge
transfer,
the
lack
of
research
on
the influence
of
different
dimensions
of
relational proximity is
a
surprising
gap,
and
one
that
is
crucial
for understanding
cross
border
innovation
(Lundquist
&
Trippl, 2013;
Trippl & Maier,
2010).
Learning
and knowledge
exchange
are
particularly
germane
to
cross
border
regions
with
a
higher
potential
for
cultural interactions
resulting
in
innovation. It is important to re-emphasise that the focus is on the role of relational
proximity rather than on knowledge transfer per se, let alone any resulting innovations.
Qualitative
data
from
semi-structured
in-depth
interviews
were
used
to
examine managers’
market
and
learning
orientations,
and
their
perceptions
of
how seven elements of
relational
proximity
influenced, or potentially influenced, the role of
customers’ as
a
source
of
new
ideas.
Some
evidence
was found
for
the
importance
of
all
of
these
constructs,
except for
´values’
and an additional element, differences
in historical
trajectories was identified.
Although, to some extent, these perceptions reflect national stereotyping rather than ‘real’
proximity differences, the former are critical in influencing how managers approach
knowledge transfer from customers.
Finnish
and
Swedish
managers
perceive
themselves
differently
in respect
of
mutual
knowledge exchange with cross border customers.
Finns are perceived more as fast
thinkers
and
quick
to
respond
to
more
practical
ideas,
whereas
the
longer
and
more thorough
deliberations
of
Swedes
were
considered
to
result
in
more
distinctive
ideas.
The fact that
Finnish
customers
are
also
perceived
as
being
more
likely
to
use
their own
national
technologies and reluctance
to
adopt
new
technologies
can
affect
cross border
diffusion
of
technological
knowledge
from
Sweden
to
Finland
and
possibly
the
learning orientation
of
Finnish
managers.
It
is
therefore
plausible
that
technological
knowledge
is more
likely
to
flow
faster
and
earlier
from
Finland
to
Sweden
than
vice
versa. Language,
including
shared
vocabulary,
codes
and
collective
narratives,
was
mostly perceived
to
be
germane
to
learning,
and
understanding
customers’
feedback
and
suggestions. The
‘provision
of
sufficiently
detailed
ideas’
was
considered
more
important
by
Finnish managers,
who
expressed
having
difficulties
in
absorbing
new
ideas
from Swedes.
The
Swedish
tendency
to
deploy
less
contextualised
ideas
was perceived
as more
individualist
culture,
compared
to
the
more
collectivist Finns,
which was
considered
to
be
an
important
barrier. Proximity
between
managers
and
customers
in ‘Ways
of
solving
problems’
in service
product
development,
is
pivotal.
The
Finnish
approach
of
trial
and
error,
compared
to
Swedes’
longer planning
and
pre-calculated
process,
constituted
a
perceived
barrier
to
Swedish
14

managers’ joint
ideation
and
implementation
of
new
product
development.
The
differences
between
the historical
trajectories
of
cross
border
actors,
including
shared
narratives,
emerged
as influential
on
knowledge
transfer
in
terms
of
a
Finnish
sense
of
inferiority
towards
Swedes
and
traces
of
Finnish
trepidation.
The fine-grained analysis of how specific elements of perceived
Cognitive and Cultural
proximity either engender or constrain cross border knowledge transfer between customers
and managers is summarized in Table 3.
Insert Table 3 about here
It shows that Finnish managers could benefit more than the Swedish managers from the
banal practices of cross border mobility as long as they are willing to compromise their
conservative mentality for more open mindedness towards different ideas.
The perceived
effects of relational proximity in terms of
cognitive
and
cultural proximity
on knowledge
transfer have different implications for service innovation processes. For Swedish managers
the challenge resides in involving and enticing Finnish customers into face-to-face
discussions, whereas the Finnish managers struggle for receiving more detailed ideas to be
able to exploit them for innovative processes
This
study
has
limitations
stemming
from
its
focus
on
the
two
main
dominant cultures
in
one
cross
border
region,
and
the
broad
scope
of
its
contextualisation.
It
necessarily
may
have missed
the
intervention
of
other
non-cross
-
border
-
related
elements
of
Relational
Proximity,
such
as
social
proximity
including
inter-personal
differences
between
individuals
and managers’
tendency
to
perceive
their
customers
as
similar
and positive
rather
than
different. Further
studies
in
other
cross
border
regions,
employing
other
research methods,
are
required
to
confirm
the
exploratory
findings
and
determine
which elements,
and
at
which
levels
of
proximity,
hamper
or
facilitate
cross border knowledge transfer.
Second,
further
attention
should
be
given
to
subcultures,
such
as
Sami
culture
and
mixed
cultures,
considering
their
distinctive
patterns of
dispositions
and
behaviours
and
cross
cultural
interactions.
Third, there is a need to understand how
relational proximity
influenced
knowledge transfer contributes to innovation as the ultimate concerns of policy makers and
enterprises.
Despite
the
limitations,
six
out
of
the
seven
elements
of
cognitive
and
cultural proximity
examined including historical trajectories
are relevant
for
learning
between cross
border
actors: managers and customers.
The
study
also
indicates
that
understanding
cross border
knowledge
transfers
requires
a
fine
grained
analysis
of
relational proximity between similar
neighbouring
national
cultures.
Two
questions
derive
from
this
study.
First,
whether
and
how
do
differing
levels and combinations of
these
specific
elements
determine
the
extent
of
knowledge
transfer
and
ideation
between actors
in
cross
border
regions?
Second,
to what
extent do
cultural
differences
determine
whether
a
particular
cross border
cultural
mix,
in
terms
of
the
learning
and
marketing orientations
of
service
managers
and
innovativeness
of
its
customers, is
more
likely
to
be
‘imitative’
or creative?
Three
main
policy
implications
can
be
drawn
from
this
study.
First,
the
importance
of
cognitive
and
cultural
distance,
which
is
often
deeply
embedded
in
national
stereotyping,
underline
the
limitations
to
more
technocratic
and
top-down
approaches
to
cross border
regional
initiatives.
Secondly,
while
the
service
innovation
literature
has
paid
increasing
importance
to
the
role
of
consumers
as
sources
of
innovation,
there
can
be
significant
15

barriers to
realising
these
in
cross
border
regions,
where
the
scope
for
cross cultural
learning
from everyday
cross border
customer
mobility
is
particularly
significant. Thirdly,
these
barriers
may
be
overcome
by
a
policy
mix
including practical
measures
such
as
translation
assistance as well as educational
and
training
policies
orientated
particularly
to
enhancing
cultural
communication
skills
and countering
stereotypes.
References
Akçomak, I.S. & Ter Weel, B. (2009), "Social capital, innovation and growth: evidence from
Europe", European Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 544-67.
doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.10.001
Alam, I. (2002), "An Exploratory Investigation of User Involvement in New Service
Development", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.
250-61. doi:10.1177/0092070302303006
Alam, I. (2010), "Does service innovation process differ across cultures?", Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, pp. 460 - 72.
doi.org/10.1108/13555851011090501
Aponte, S. & Zapata, D. (2013), “A model of organizational learning in practice”, Journal of
Management and Economics for Iberoamerica, Vol. 29, No. 129, pp 439-444.
doi:10.1016/j.estger.2013.11.009
Auer-Rizzi, W. & Berry, M. (2000), "Business vs. cultural frames of reference in group
decision making: interactions among Austrian, Finnish, and Swedish business
students", Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 264-88.
doi:10.1177/002194360003700304
Basile, R., Capello, R. & Caragliu, A. (2011), "Interregional knowledge spillovers and
economic growth: the role of relational proximity ", in Kourtit, K., Nijkamp, P. and
Stough, R.R. (Eds.), Drivers of Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Regional Dynamics
Series: Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 21-43.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17940-2_5
Bhagat, R.S., Kedia, B.L., Harveston, P.D. & Triandis, H.C. (2002), "Cultural variations in
the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework", The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 204-21.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2002.6588000
Bjorkman, I., Stahl, G.K. & Vaara, E. (2007), "Cultural differences and capability transfer in
cross-border acquisitions: the mediating roles of capability complementarity,
absorptive capacity, and social integration", Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 658-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4540448
Boschma, R.A. (2005), "Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment", Regional Studies,
Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 61-74. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320887
Broekel, T. & Boschma, R. (2012), "Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the
proximity paradox", Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 409-33.
doi:10.1093/jeg/lbr010
Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. (1990), "Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning
and innovation", ASQ, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 128-152. doi:10.2307/2393553
Creswell, J.W. (2012), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five
Approaches Third Edition, third ed., Sage, London.
Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G. & van den Oord, A. (2008),
"Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological
distance, betweenness centrality and density", Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 10, pp.
1717-31. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.010
16

Greunz, L. (2003), "Geographically and technologically mediated knowledge spillovers
between European regions", The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 657-
80. doi:10.1007/s00168-003-0131-3
Hippel, E.V. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations Across Nations, second ed., Sage Publications. CA, Thousand
Oaks.
Holt, R. & Macpherson, A. (2006), Small Firms, Learning and Growth: a Systematic Review
and Reconceptualization, ESRA Advanced Institute of Management, London.
Howells, J., S, B.T. & Uyarra, E. (2007), "Innovation in business services: from
technological adoption to complementary changes in skills, technology and
organisation", in Rubalcaba-Bermejo, L. and Kox, H. (Eds.), Business Services in
European Economic Growth, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 144-62.
doi:10.1057/9780230228795
Hsieh, H.-F. & Shannon, S.E. (2005), "Three approaches to qualitative content analysis",
Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 1277-88.
doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
Huber, F. (2012), "On the role and Interrelationship of spatial, social and cognitive proximity:
personal knowledge relationships of RD workers in the Cambridge information
technology cluster", Regional Studies: The Journal of the Regional Studies
Association, Vol. 46, No. 9, pp. 1169-1182. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.569539
Hussler,
C.
(2004)
Culture
and
knowledge
spillovers
in
Europe:
new
perspectives
for
innovation
and
convergence
policies?
Economics
of
Innovation
and
New
Technology
Vol.
13, No. 6, pp.
523-541.
doi:10.1080/1043859042000234302
Ibert,
O.
(2010)
Relational
distance:
sociocultural
and
time
-
spatial
tensions
in
innovation practices.
Environment
and
Planning
A
42, pp.
187-204.
doi:10.1068/a4247
Javidan,
M,
Stahl
G.K.,
Biodbeck
F,
& Wilderom C.P.M.
(2005)
“
Cross-border
transfer
of
knowledge:
cultural
lessons
from
project
GLOBE”.
Academy
of
Management
Executive
Vol.
19, No. 2, pp. 59-76.
doi:10.5465/AME.2005.16962801
Jukarainen
P.
(2005),
The
attitudes
of
youth
toward
the
other
side-
The
Finnish-Swedish
and
Finnish-Russian
borders.
In:
Ganster
P
and
Lorey
DE
(eds)
Borders
and
Border
Politics
in
a
Globalizing World.
Lanham,
MD:
SR
Books.
Kaasa, A. & Vadi, M. (2010), "How does culture contribute to innovation? evidence from
European countries", Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 19, No. 7,
pp. 583 - 604. doi:10.1080/10438590902987222
Kallio, A., Harmaakorpi, V. & Pihkala, T. (2010), "Absorptive capacity and social capital in
regional innovation systems: the case of the Lahti Region in Finland", Urban Studies,
Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 303-319. doi:10.1177/0042098009346373
Kedia, B.L. & Bhagat, R.S. (1988), "Cultural constraints on transfer of tchnology across
nations: implications for research in international and comparative management", The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 559-71.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1988.4307424
Koschatzky, K. (2000), "A River is a River – Crossborder networking between Baden and
Alsace", European Planning Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 429-49. doi:10.1080/713666422
Kuusisto, A. & Riepula, M. (2009), "Customer interaction in service innovation:a checklist
for service innovators ", in Kazi, A.S., Wolf, P. and Troxler, P. (Eds.), Supporting
Service Innovation through Knowledge Management: Practical Insights and Case
17

Studies, A book by the KnowledgeBoard Community and the Swiss Knowledge
Management Forum for the Global Knowledge Community pp. 166-84.
Liamputtong, P. (2010), Performing Qualitative Cross-Cultural Research Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. doi:10.1080/14780887.2011.578539
Lundén, T. & Zalamans, D. (2001), "Local co-operation, ethnic diversity and state
territoriality – The case of Haparanda and Tornio on the Sweden – Finland border",
GeoJournal, Vol. 54, pp. 33-42. doi:10.1023/A:1021184430515
Lundquist, K.-J. & Trippl, M. (2013), "Distance, Proximity and Types of Cross-border
Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Analysis", Regional Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.
450-460. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.560933
Lundquist, K.-J. & Winther, L. (2006), "The Interspace between Denmark and Sweden: the
industrial dynamics of the Öresund cross-border region", Geografisk Tidsskrift,
Danish Journal of Geography, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 115-129.
doi:10.1080/00167223.2006.10649549
Mattes, J. (2012), "Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: innovation between
spatial and non-spatial factors", Regional Studies, Vol. 46, No. 8, pp. 1085-1099.
doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.552493
Mention, A.-L. (2011), "Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the
service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty?", Technovation, Vol. 31, No.
1, pp. 44-53. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.08.002
Menzel, M.-P. (2005), "Networks and technologies in an emerging cluster: the case pf
bioinstruments in Jena ", in Karlsson, C., Johansson, B. and Stoug, R. (Eds.),
Industrial Clusters and Inter-Firm Networks, Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham,
UK, pp. 413-52.
Moyes, D., Whittam, G. & Ferri, P. (2012), "A conceptualisation of the relationship capital of
rural small service firms", Local Economy, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 136-151.
doi:10.1177/0269094211428867
Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998), "Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage", The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 242-166.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.533225
Paasi, A. & Prokkola, E-K. (2008), "Territorial dynamics, cross-border work and everyday
life in the Finnish–Swedish border area", Space and Polity, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 13-29.
doi:10.1080/13562570801969366
Peng, K. & Akutsu, S. (2001), "A mentality theory of knowledge creation and transfer", in
Nonaka, I. and Teece, D.J. (Eds.), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation,
Transfer and Utilization, Sage, London.
Prokkola, E-K. (2008), “Resources and barriers in tourism development: cross-border
cooperation, regionalization and destination building at the Finnish-Swedish border”,
Fennia, Vol. 186, No. 1, pp. 31-46. hp://ojs.tsv./index.php/fennia/arcle/view/3710
Ringberg, T. & Reihlen, M. (2008), "Towards a socio-cognitive approach to knowledge
transfer", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 912-935.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00757.x
Ruotsala,
H.
(2009)
From
crime
to
cultural
heritage
cross-border
activities
and
relationships
in
the
Tornio
River
valley.
Anthropological
Journal