17 Energy Efficiency Within Sustainable Development in Asia …
265
sit in the middle between government and the industrial and commercial sectors and
are an important element within a wider boundary infrastructure. They further, among
other things, knowledge provenance, provision, distribution, and interaction at the
boundaries, while also supporting in many ways professionalism and communities
of practice. However, unfortunately, as in the case with many ESCO associations
in developing Asia, development and translation into practice of these characteristics and cross-border functionalities have not been achieved yet. Moreover, in cases
where the role of an ESCO association is actually taken over by a ministry section
or department of the government (cf. (Murakoshi and Nakagami 2009; Langlois
and Hansen 2012; Pham et al. 2011)), it is highly doubtful that those hallmarks of
professional associations can actually be achieved.
Development of professionalism and preferences, and respect for individual
endeavor and expert decisions, are mostly found in individualistic cultures. Also
the acceptance of professionalism can be expected to be much higher in societies
where individuals at different power levels feel less threatened. In such a cultural
context, where probably a loosely knit social structure is prevalent, there is also
usually more trust and a tendency towards further imposition of laws and regulations. These socio-cultural conditions stand quite in contrast to their counterparts in
vertical collectivistic Asian cultures where large power distances mostly still prevail.
Interpersonal and inter-organizational interaction, and thus knowledge exchange and
perspective taking at departmental, organizational, and sector-specific boundaries,
are also somewhat impeded in collective societies with large power distances. In such
societies, information disclosure is restricted as much as possible, in order to avoid
conflict, reduce open competition, and preserve the prevailing power structure and
the necessary security. This is also consistent with the concerns of collectivists for
those closely involved with them, namely the in-groups, co-workers, organizations,
etc. they belong to, rather than external parties.
Knowledge created by individuals is embedded in different forms in documents,
routines, tasks, processes, and organizational structures, which in turn contribute,
among other things, to the formation of perspectives and understandings within
social worlds and communities of practice. As, in the end, it is individuals who
create knowledge from information and context, and also transfer and exchange
both information and knowledge, culture-related preferences for certain elements
of the cognitive style should be taken into account, as those have an impact on the
effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge-related processes.
In Asia, particularly in East Asia, an holistic thinking style is prevalent, which
combines with a tendency to perceive causality in the entire context of behavior. In
the literature (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Norenzayan et al. 2002), this is referred
to as contextualism, as contrasted with situationalism, and leads to quickly analyzing
and recognizing pieces of information that are becoming part of a larger whole in an
associative sense (cf. (Nisbett et al. 2001)). This stands in contrast to the predominant tendency in the West, where causality of behavior is located in the individual
and analytical thinking is preferred over holistic thinking, with the latter requiring
pieces of information to first be retained and scrutinized (gradual piecemeal-based
approach), before any contribution to forming new knowledge can be attempted
265
sit in the middle between government and the industrial and commercial sectors and
are an important element within a wider boundary infrastructure. They further, among
other things, knowledge provenance, provision, distribution, and interaction at the
boundaries, while also supporting in many ways professionalism and communities
of practice. However, unfortunately, as in the case with many ESCO associations
in developing Asia, development and translation into practice of these characteristics and cross-border functionalities have not been achieved yet. Moreover, in cases
where the role of an ESCO association is actually taken over by a ministry section
or department of the government (cf. (Murakoshi and Nakagami 2009; Langlois
and Hansen 2012; Pham et al. 2011)), it is highly doubtful that those hallmarks of
professional associations can actually be achieved.
Development of professionalism and preferences, and respect for individual
endeavor and expert decisions, are mostly found in individualistic cultures. Also
the acceptance of professionalism can be expected to be much higher in societies
where individuals at different power levels feel less threatened. In such a cultural
context, where probably a loosely knit social structure is prevalent, there is also
usually more trust and a tendency towards further imposition of laws and regulations. These socio-cultural conditions stand quite in contrast to their counterparts in
vertical collectivistic Asian cultures where large power distances mostly still prevail.
Interpersonal and inter-organizational interaction, and thus knowledge exchange and
perspective taking at departmental, organizational, and sector-specific boundaries,
are also somewhat impeded in collective societies with large power distances. In such
societies, information disclosure is restricted as much as possible, in order to avoid
conflict, reduce open competition, and preserve the prevailing power structure and
the necessary security. This is also consistent with the concerns of collectivists for
those closely involved with them, namely the in-groups, co-workers, organizations,
etc. they belong to, rather than external parties.
Knowledge created by individuals is embedded in different forms in documents,
routines, tasks, processes, and organizational structures, which in turn contribute,
among other things, to the formation of perspectives and understandings within
social worlds and communities of practice. As, in the end, it is individuals who
create knowledge from information and context, and also transfer and exchange
both information and knowledge, culture-related preferences for certain elements
of the cognitive style should be taken into account, as those have an impact on the
effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge-related processes.
In Asia, particularly in East Asia, an holistic thinking style is prevalent, which
combines with a tendency to perceive causality in the entire context of behavior. In
the literature (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Norenzayan et al. 2002), this is referred
to as contextualism, as contrasted with situationalism, and leads to quickly analyzing
and recognizing pieces of information that are becoming part of a larger whole in an
associative sense (cf. (Nisbett et al. 2001)). This stands in contrast to the predominant tendency in the West, where causality of behavior is located in the individual
and analytical thinking is preferred over holistic thinking, with the latter requiring
pieces of information to first be retained and scrutinized (gradual piecemeal-based
approach), before any contribution to forming new knowledge can be attempted