This paper questions the popular claim that knowledge management (KM) is becoming the most universal management concept in history. It does this by exploring a cross-cultural context that brings to light the unique features and associated problematics of differing KM styles: the American, the Japanese, the European and the Chinese. It presents evidence that, despite growing overlaps, heterogeneity among KM styles is likely to continue due to differences in histories, cultures and institutional forces, which render a universal concept of KM unrealistic, counterproductive and undesirable. Consequently, the paper posits, KM will benefit not from a universal concept, but from an interactionist strategy that facilitates the construction, connection and sharing of cross-cultural contexts, through which cultural differences and diversity are important sources for KM competence rather than obstacles to be overcome.