CROSS-BORDER KNOWLEDGE SHARING
How intrinsic and extrinsic motivation impacts international
knowledge sharing behaviors in the context of strategic alliances.
Master Thesis Business Studies – International Management track July 3rd, 2014
Lisanne M. Scheffens - 10432582 Hoofdweg 344/1
1056DB Amsterdam
lisannescheffens@gmail.com
Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School (ABS) First supervisor: E. Dirksen MSc
3
ABSTRACT
Multinationals have long been defined in the context of their ability to share and utilize knowledge across borders, which gives them an advantage over domestic firms. The link between the individual workers where the knowledge resides and the organization where this knowledge can be used for economic and competitive value is the focus of this thesis. Three extrinsic motivational factors (organizational structure, organizational climate and ICT infrastructure) and four intrinsic motivational factors (need for competence, need for self-determination, need for relatedness, and enjoyment and interest in work) are explored. Thirteen respondents in the strategic alliance function at various companies were approached for a semi-structured interview on the extrinsic motivation part of knowledge sharing. The intrinsic motivational factors were captured with the use of a short survey. The results show the importance of international knowledge sharing for the role of the respondents. Even though international knowledge sharing does happen at a regular basis, it is still somewhat of a daunting task as there are massive amounts of information to be managed. Working with different cultures, data security and insufficient search tools are barriers that make international knowledge sharing a very complex subject. In order for organizations to fully optimize the potential of leveraging their employees’ knowledge across borders it is not as straightforward as having high intrinsic motivation and just facilitating these knowledge flows. It is important to include this knowledge-sharing attitude in the mission and vision and core values of the organization in order to fully capture the benefits. In addition, sharing knowledge across borders must also fit with the particular role that an employee occupies.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 11
2.1 KNOWLEDGE... 11
2.1.1 Knowledge flows in multinational corporations ... 14
2.1.2 The management of knowledge ... 16
2.1.3 Knowledge sharing ... 17 2.2 MOTIVATION... 20 2.2.1 Extrinsic motivation ... 21 2.2.2 Intrinsic motivation ... 23 2.2.3 Motivational factors ... 25 2.3 STRATEGIC ALLIANCES ... 26 2.3.1 Rationale ... 27
2.3.2 Knowledge transfer in strategic alliances ... 28
2.3.3 Context for research ... 29
3. RESEARCH GAP AND RESEARCH QUESTION ... 31
4. DATA AND METHOD ... 35
4.1 Research design and data collection method ... 35
4.2 Respondent selection/recruitment ... 36
4.3 Description of research participants ... 37
4.4 Interview process ... 37
4.5 Data analysis ... 39
4.6 Strengths and limitations ... 40
5. RESULTS ... 43
5
5.1.1 Role in organization ... 43
5.1.2 Use of international knowledge and knowledge characteristics ... 43
5.1.3 Organizational structure ... 46
5.1.4 Organizational climate ... 48
5.1.5 ICT infrastructure ... 50
5.1.6 Improvements and (potential) barriers ... 52
5.1.7 Personal level ... 54
5.2 SURVEY RESULTS ... 54
6. DISCUSSION... 57
6.1 Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation ... 57
6.2 Tacit vs. explicit knowledge ... 58
6.3 Domestic vs. international sharing... 59
6.4 Technological progress ... 60
6.5 Propositions ... 61
7. CONCLUSION ... 63
7.1 Limitations ... 63
7.2 Managerial relevance ... 65
7.3 Suggestions for future research ... 66
8. REFERENCES ... 69
9. APPENDICES ... 75
APPENDIX 1: OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS ... 75
APPENDIX 2: SURVEY ... 77
APPENDIX 3: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SUBJECTS ... 78
7
1. INTRODUCTION
Multinational firms have long been defined in the context of their ability to share and utilize knowledge across borders. This gives them a competitive advantage over other (domestic) firms who lack this ability to source, generate, transfer and utilize knowledge (Michailova & Mustaffa, 2012). It is in this aspect that such an organization can create superior returns. The knowledge is not necessarily tied to the corporation’s headquarters, but can also be created in their subsidiaries. Within the multinational firm, there are multiple ways in which the knowledge between different subsidiaries or headquarters moves around. This in part depends on the type of knowledge to be transferred. As Nonaka (1994) demonstrates in his research, knowledge can be subdivided in two types of knowledge: explicit and tacit knowledge. Whereas explicit knowledge, such as manuals and procedures, can be codified and more easily shared, tacit knowledge, such as knowing how to drive a bike, is more personal and hard to communicate to others. Explicit knowledge can be seen as the tip of the iceberg (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). While most both explicit and tacit knowledge resides in individuals, it is the task of the organization to stimulate the actual sharing and utilization of this knowledge. This process is not easy and there are several manners in which this knowledge can be transferred to others.
In his research, Spender (1996) has defined the organization as a body of knowledge, knowledge about resources, objectives, values, policies etc. This knowledge is highly personal and a human asset. Extending this view, Grant (1996) stipulates that an organization is an institution for integrating knowledge, in which knowledge application is its main feature. This knowledge needs to be transferred across individuals, space and time. Knowledge flows within a multinational corporation can move in different ways. As all other resources, the importance of knowledge as a strategic asset continues to grow with the increasing globalization, cultural diversity and volatile pace of life that impact everyday life. The battle
8 for knowledge and means of communication continues to intensify all over the world due to increasing cost and performance pressures. The importance of managing knowledge throughout the organization is something many organizations are well aware of. With the increasing competition in domestic and international markets, making use of the knowledge base present in the organization can make a huge difference. This includes enabling employees to share their knowledge and experiences with their colleagues. Knowledge is a highly personal asset and resides in the human being. However, organizations can only create a competitive advantage when they are able to utilize individual and collective knowledge to its full potential. Only when employees are willing and able to share their knowledge, organizations can implement policies and practices to manage this important resource effectively. This implies that in this dynamic and complex environment, managing knowledge resources and knowledge flows is something that needs attention, as this is what the multinational firm could give a competitive advantage over a domestic firm. However, facilitating knowledge transfer and knowledge flows between different subsidiaries is not enough. Employees must be stimulated to share their knowledge, and organizations must find out which factors promote or impede knowledge sharing behaviors. The link between the individual workers where the knowledge resides and the organization where this knowledge can be used for economic and competitive value (Hendriks, 1999) is absent in current research on international knowledge flows. Much research has been done on in which ways knowledge flows throughout the whole multinational organization, but all lack the focus on the individual employee and what motivates them to share their knowledge. For this reason the main research question asked in this study focuses in these aspects and is articulated as follows: ‘How does intrinsic and extrinsic motivation impact individual cross-border knowledge
9 This research will focus on knowledge transfers between different subsidiaries of a multinational corporation at an individual level, because ultimately the movement of knowledge within the organization depends on the knowledge sharing behaviors of individual employees. However, as argued by Davenport and Prusak (1998) knowledge sharing is not a natural behavior, as individuals value their knowledge as important and valuable, and knowledge gives them power. Additionally, as Agrawal, Muhammed and Thatte (2008) stipulate, knowledge is sticky and it resides in in the individual mind. A link needs to be made between this individual mind and the organizational level, where this knowledge can be used for innovations; higher quality in products and services and more satisfied customers, and provide economic, social and competitive value. Specifically, this research focuses on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of individual employees, and how these motivational factors impact actual knowledge sharing behaviors at an international level. Furthermore, this research seeks to find out whether the role of top management has an impact on international knowledge sharing behaviors. By focusing on what impact organizations have on this individual knowledge sharing behavior, firms can contribute by creating conditions and stimulating those motivational factors that promote knowledge sharing behavior, and remove the barriers that obstruct this behavior. The research will focus on the context of strategic alliances, at first because in the current changing competitive landscape it is short-sighted to think that a firm possesses all the knowledge and skills to make it by themselves; and secondly because in strategic alliances there is always some sort of knowledge sharing involved, even if gaining access to another’s organization’s knowledge may not be the main rationale. Strategic alliances are of great importance in staying competitive and achieving their common objective.
At the basic level, focusing on the individual level of knowledge transfer will give insights into how employees are motivated to transfer knowledge to other colleagues and
10 employees across borders. This by looking at intrinsic motivation, or the reasons from within, as well as looking at extrinsic motivation, looking more at how employees are stimulated by creating a favorable knowledge sharing context. Since a multinational corporation can get its competitive advantage by sharing knowledge across borders, it is the role of top management to make sure this knowledge is actually transferred. By stimulating employees from within, and creating the right environment, organizations can create economic and competitive advantage.
This research will start with a review of the literature written about knowledge and knowledge sharing behaviors. It will focus on past and current research and evaluate the subject. The same will be done on the subjects of motivation and strategic alliances. Next a theoretical framework will be presented on which this research will be constructed. What follows is an extensive data analysis based on the interviews held with the selected employees/managers. The results will be discussed and this research will conclude with some limitations and implications for practice.
11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The advantage that multinational corporations have in comparison to domestic firms is their ability to acquire and utilize knowledge across borders. To gain this competitive advantage, firms must find mechanisms to fully utilize this knowledge-base (Jackson, Hitt, & Denisi, 2003). But what is knowledge and why is it important? And how can firms effectively manage this important resource? This chapter is divided into two parts; the first part will focus on exploring existing research on knowledge and the management of this resource. Subsequently it will go into more detail on the aspect of knowledge sharing. The second part of this chapter will explore research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and will consequently identify several motivational factors important within the subject of individual knowledge sharing.
2.1 KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge has long been recognized as an important resource in many firms (Spender, 1996). The classical definition as proposed by Plato is that a statement must meet the three requirements of being justified, true, and believed before it can be considered as knowledge. Davenport and Prusak (1998) define knowledge as ‘a fluid mix of framed experience, contextual information, values, and expert insights that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms.’ (p. 5) Knowledge is socially embedded in the context where it takes shape and this creates meaning (van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Where in the past the focus was mostly on the more traditional factors of production, knowledge is now seen as an important strategic resource. At the heart of an organization’s functioning is what the organization and its employees know (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). An important aspect that
12 needs to be considered is what kind of knowledge we are talking about. It could be technology, market knowledge, organizational best practices, routines, competencies, or product/process innovations. What should be noted from this is that knowledge can take many forms, with key components such as experience, truth, judgment, rules of thumb, and values and beliefs. Nonaka (1994) distinguishes between tacit and explicit knowledge, where he moves beyond the knowledge that can just be written down in text and incorporates the dynamic and complex nature of knowledge. He poses knowledge as a continuum with tacit at the one end and explicit knowledge at the other end, where no knowledge is completely tacit or explicit. A similar notion on forms of knowledge is made in distinguishing between know-what, know-how and know-why (Polanyi, 1967) (Garud, 1997) (Cook & Brown, 1999). Know-what is knowledge about a certain subject, know-how is experience in how doing certain things and know-why is about understanding the basic assumptions underlying certain phenomena. However, just distinguishing between explicit/tacit or know-what/know-how/know-why knowledge is not enough because it says nothing about who possesses and uses that knowledge. There is also the need to make a distinction between different levels of knowledge. Knowledge does not reside in the individual alone, but can take collective forms as well.
Individuals create and share knowledge and these individual parts can make up organizational knowledge to form a network of individual and collective knowledge (Newell, Robertson, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2002) (Cook & Brown, 1999). This knowledge does not necessarily has the same meaning for every individual. Both individuals and groups are learning entities and both can possess some kind of knowledge, both tacit and explicit. While individual knowledge can be about how to approach a certain subject, a team, community of practice or organization can posses a body of knowledge which is concerned with what is regarded as being acceptable or unacceptable practices (Cook & Brown, 1999). However,
13 organizational learning is only possible through the individual employees who learn and interact with each other (Senge, 1990; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). As conceptualized by Spender (1996) and Cook and Brown (1999), knowledge can be grouped along the explicit/tacit dimension and on individual/group level (see figure 1).
Individual Social
Explicit Conscious (concepts) Objectified (stories)
Implicit Automatic (skills) Collective (genres)
Inkpen and Dinur (1998) note that knowledge needs to be transformed from an individual to a collective state, and that specific learning processes take place at various levels. At the individual level this happens through interpreting and sense making, at the group level it is integrating, and at the organizational level it is integrating and institutionalizing (Inkpen & Crossan, 1995). At these different levels, a distinction can be made between explicit and tacit knowledge. At the individual level with low knowledge tacitness, conscious knowledge, knowledge is easily transferrable and has a low complexity. At the other end of the spectrum, organizational knowledge with a high level of tacitness, collective knowledge, is less transferrable and highly complex (Inkpen & Dinur, 1998). If tacit knowledge is to be spread in the organization, it first needs to be converted into comprehensible numbers and words. In the process of reversing this explicit knowledge back
Figure 1 Different types of organizational knowledge
Sources: Spender, J.-C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal , 17, 45-62. Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science , 10 (4), 381-400.
14 to tacit knowledge, knowledge with an organizational character is created (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). With this complex nature of knowledge, it is imperative that we move beyond the notion of knowledge as an economic asset and perceive knowledge as a versatile concept of growing importance.
2.1.1 Knowledge flows in multinational corporations
In multinational corporations, where does the knowledge reside? In previous research, the focus has long been on headquarters as the main source of knowledge in multinational corporations, and where the relationship between headquarters and a subsidiary was viewed as a principal-agent relationship (Björkman, Barner-Rasmussen, & Li, 2004). However, as defined by Almeida et al. (2002), an MNC is ‘an international network that creates, accesses, integrates, and applies knowledge in multiple locations’ (p. 148), which entails that it is not only headquarters that creates and develops new knowledge, but that different subsidiaries can play an important role in knowledge creation too. Consequently, knowledge is not just transferred from HQ to subsidiaries but vice versa as well. Mudambi and Navarra (2004) conceptualize four knowledge flows within an MNC. The first knowledge flow is from subsidiary to parent (knowledge transfer), secondly flows from location to subsidiary (learning), the third flow is that from subsidiary to location (spillovers) and the final flow is that from the parent (and other MNC units) to the subsidiary. They then state that these knowledge flows can be used to exert bargaining power within the corporation. Similarly, Birkinshaw et al. (1998) state that subsidiaries are increasingly contributing to firm-specific advantages of the MNC. It is said that subsidiaries are increasingly ‘tapping into leading-edge ideas, undertake important research and development work, and become active participants in the formulation and implementation of strategy’ (p. 221). In contrast, Monteiro et al. (2008) focus on subsidiary isolation, where perceptions by other subsidiaries and by self play an
15 important role. It is claimed that when these perceptions are low, there will be no knowledge inflows or outflows, which causes the subsidiary to become isolated. As a consequence, these subsidiaries will have lower performance than other subsidiaries that do engage in knowledge-transfer activities.
As stated above, there are four main knowledge flows recognized in an MNC. There are several aspects of knowledge flows that need to be considered. First, there is the need to distinguish between vertical and horizontal knowledge flows. Vertical knowledge flows are between headquarters and their subsidiaries, and horizontal knowledge flows occur between different subsidiaries. A second important aspect is to discern between knowledge inflows and knowledge outflows.
Foss and Pedersen (2002) argue that intra-MNC knowledge transfer is influenced by the ‘intensity of knowledge production and knowledge absorption of subsidiaries, the sources of knowledge and the organizational instruments and conditions that surround the transfer of knowledge within an MNC’ (p. 53). They distinguish between three main sources of knowledge: (1) knowledge that is produced mainly through investing in the internal production of knowledge, (2) knowledge that is to a large extent created on the basis of knowledge inputs from network relations to external partners, and (3) knowledge that is to a large extent created on the basis of knowledge inputs from a local cluster. The first type of knowledge (internal knowledge) is most likely to be transferred across different subsidiaries, as this knowledge has already been transferred to other units. The second type of knowledge (network knowledge) is less easily transferrable as it is locally embedded. The third type of knowledge (cluster knowledge) is the least likely to be transferred as it may be of little use in other subsidiaries. In a similar line of reasoning, Andersson et al. (2005) imply that the degree of embeddedness in its business network is an important factor explaining its importance for other subsidiaries’ competence development, partly because a higher embeddedness implies a
16 significant ability to absorb new knowledge from the environment. Another research that distinguishes between different levels of flows of knowledge is that of Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), in which they perceive three different levels: nodal, dyadic, and systemic. The nodal level focus on the individual unit, the dyadic level is concerned with the ‘joint behavior of unit pairs’ and the systemic level is about the behavior of the entire network.
2.1.2 The management of knowledge
The management of knowledge has been defined by Pan and Scarbrough (1999) as ‘the capacity (or processes) within an organization to maintain or improve organizational performance based on experience and knowledge. Knowledge is understood here as multi-layered and multi-faceted, comprising cognition, actions and resources’ (p. 360). In a similar manner, Sabherwal and Becerra-Fernandez (2003) define knowledge management as ‘organizing and making important knowledge available wherever and whenever it is needed’ (p. 227). Within the knowledge management domain, several processes exist. Alavi and Leidner (2001) distinguish between four processes: (1) knowledge creation, knowledge storing and retrieval, (3) knowledge transfer/sharing, and (4) knowledge application. The most important aspect for a multinational corporation with several subsidiaries in different countries is their capacity to transfer knowledge from one subsidiary to another, from headquarters to subsidiaries or from subsidiaries to headquarters. Of course this knowledge needs to be managed at an individual, group and organizational level (Sabherwal & Becerra-Fernandez, 2003). Within multinational corporations there is the need to manage massive amounts of knowledge. Advances in information technology have made it possible to facilitate this flow of knowledge throughout the organization, though these enabling
17 technologies are not enough by themselves. They can create an internal knowledge market, but cannot facilitate knowledge sharing without the behavior of individual employees.
2.1.3 Knowledge sharing
Agrawal, Muhammed and Thatte (2008) have knowledge sharing defined as ‘an act of deploying individual and collective organizational knowledge to those important areas of organization where people needs it most and make effective use of that knowledge in taking actions and making decisions. In this definition, knowledge sharing provides a link between individuals that possess know-how and the organization where that knowledge achieve its social and economic values, which in terms leads to overall organization learning.’ (p. 22) This definition again highlights the important of managing knowledge as an important strategic resource
An important strategic decision for top management in multinational corporations is how to design organizational mechanisms to stimulate knowledge flows (Björkman, Barner-Rasmussen, & Li, 2004). Previous research has mainly been focusing on control and coordination issues within the concept of knowledge transfer, and has been overlooking the influence of organizational mechanisms on knowledge transfer within the multinational corporation. There should be a combination of outcome based and behavioral control mechanisms in stimulating knowledge transfer. Björkman et al. (2004) found that multinational headquarters can utilize organizational mechanisms conversations, training programs and reports to enhance knowledge transfer.
Knowledge transfer automatically implies some sort of knowledge creation as well, as knowledge is socially embedded in a context, and applying knowledge in a new context implies creating new meaning, learning and adapting. As emphasized by Hendriks (1999) and shown in figure 2, knowledge is tied to a knowing subject and this implies that there is some
18 knowledge reconstruction needed and that knowledge cannot simply be seen as a commodity that can be handed around. He explains that knowledge sharing consists of the two processes of externalization and internalization. Therefore, the process of knowledge sharing cannot be seen as merely transferring one person’s knowledge to another but as a shared process of knowledge creation, in which individuals make sense of certain events and consequently give meaning to them. In his research on knowledge creation, Nonaka (1994) proposes a four-stage model in which new knowledge can be created. An important part in this process of knowledge creation is the interplay of tacit and explicit knowledge, which implies that knowledge can be shared to create new knowledge. During the interaction between two or more individuals, Nonaka (1994) describes four patterns of interaction in which knowledge can be transferred and converted into new knowledge: (1) from tacit to tacit (socialization), (2) from tacit to explicit (externalization), (3) from explicit to explicit (combination), and (4) from explicit to tacit (internalization). Explicit knowledge has a high codifiability and thus it can be stored in for example databases, which means that for employees it is easier to share explicit knowledge than it is to share tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, can only be shared, if even possible, in the interaction between people. In other words, while tacit knowledge can only be shared through the process of direct interaction, explicit knowledge can be shared indirectly as well.
19
Figure 2 Model of knowledge sharing
For employees to share their knowledge, the benefits of sharing that knowledge has to exceed the cost related with the transfer of knowledge. An individual only engages in knowledge sharing after calculating the expected rewards and expected costs concerned with this transfer. These benefits can be at an individual, group or organizational level, such as high reciprocity, improved processes or a higher effectiveness in general. However, knowledge sharing requires a certain amount of time and effort. Employees need to perceive a higher benefit and be willing and able to share their created or acquired knowledge with others. The successful transfer of knowledge is therefore determined by the perceived difficulty of the task, our previous experiences and the motivation for success. (Nokes & Belenky, 2011)
Source: Hendriks, P. (1999). Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of ICT on the Motivation for Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management , 6 (2), 91-100.
20 2.2 MOTIVATION
‘To be motivated means to be moved to do something’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Human motivation has long been researched, and many theories on different forms of motivation have risen. Over time, two types of motivation theories have emerged; there are content theories, which focus on what motivates people in terms of individual needs and goals, and there are process theories, which deal with how intentions eventually lead to behavior (Agrawal, Muhammed, & Thatte, 2008). One of the most renowned content theories in this field of work is Herzberg’s (1959) work on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, also known as the two-factor theory. This theory makes a distinction between motivators, which can lead to positive job attitudes, and hygiene factors, which on their own do not lead to job satisfaction, but can cause demotivation if deficient. This research will make us of this two-factor theory, as it is widely accepted and empirically verified.
Azjen (1991) links human behavior with the concept of an individual’s intention to perform a certain activity. In his words, ‘ intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior; they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior’ (p. 181). In the context of knowledge sharing, this can be seen as the intrinsic motivational factors. Together with the top-down stimulation and control, which make up the extrinsic motivational factors, this can be seen as the actual execution of the desired behavior. In an organizational context, this desired behavior can be influenced by playing into these motivational factors and increase an individual’s intention to engage in cross-border knowledge sharing. Consequently, it is important to reveal what makes up these extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors. In a similar manner Szulanski (1996) makes a distinction between employees’ personal belief structures and institutional structures as the source of motivational forces. Also making the
21 separation between two factors is Pinder (1998), who defines motivation as “a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration” (p. 11). The definitions of motivation mentioned here all identify the dual influence of environmental forces and forces deeply-rooted in the person. For the purpose of this research, these external and internal forces will be labeled extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.
2.2.1 Extrinsic motivation
As mentioned, extrinsic factors of motivation are also known as hygiene factors. Improving these hygiene factors means creating a favorable context for employees in order to share their knowledge. Herzberg included factors such as supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, company policies and administrative practices, benefits and job security (p. 113). Many different extrinsic factors have been researched and linked with motivation.
According to economic exchange theory, people will engage in certain behavior once the reward exceeds the cost of that behavior. In the context of knowledge sharing, Bock, Zmud, Kim and Lee (2005) propose anticipated extrinsic rewards, such as monetary incentives, educational opportunities and promotion options, as having impact on knowledge sharing intentions. Furthermore they state that organizational climate is widely recognized as a critical driver for knowledge sharing. Similarly Bock and Kim (2002) focus on expected rewards as an extrinsic motivator, and level of information technology usage as an enabler for knowledge sharing behavior. Despite the fact that different approaches have different outcomes in terms of how extrinsic rewards impact actual behavior, this factor is still included in this research; as it is well possible that this relationship is significant in the other direction with extrinsic rewards actually hindering the development of knowledge sharing attitudes. It
22 may well be that extrinsic rewards works as a temporary trigger, but will not create a lasting commitment for sharing knowledge. (Bock & Kim, 2002) (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005) (Lin, 2007) Another difficulty with extrinsic rewards is the proxy used for choosing the right reward and the difference in perceptions for this between management and employees. In addition to expected organizational rewards, Lin (2007) adds the notion of reciprocal benefits, where a higher knowledge sharing intention is formed when employees feel as if they can obtain reciprocal benefits by sharing their knowledge.
Following van den Hooff and Huysman (2009), organizational and technical infrastructures within an organization do not directly influence the process of knowledge transfer. However, these infrastructures can create a context in which employees can be managed in a top-down way to facilitate the transfer of knowledge. The authors discuss three main factors that can be considered to influence extrinsic motivation in terms of knowledge sharing. The first factor is organizational structure, which entails the way in which the organization structures the knowledge sharing initiatives. This can also include reward systems or other external systems. The second factor is organizational culture / climate, which means the way in which an organization establishes an open knowledge-friendly culture with a focus on openness, innovation and willingness to share. Thirdly there is an ICT infrastructure that has to be in place to help employees access this knowledge. According to Hendriks (1999) there are four main functions of ICT: removing barriers, providing access to information, improving the processes involved in knowledge sharing, and locating knowledge carriers and seekers. Technologies like electronic databases, and audio and video recordings have the function of capturing and disseminating knowledge trough the organization, while communication systems such as intranets or groupware applications function to eliminate temporal and spatial barriers. (Agrawal, Muhammed, & Thatte, 2008) The ICT infrastructure has a more supporting role in the process of knowledge transfer. Extending this view,
23 Hendriks (1999) focuses on the information and communication technology used within the firm and states that knowledge sharing can be enhanced by ICT by lowering barriers such as time and space barriers and it can improve information access for employees. (Agrawal, Muhammed, & Thatte, 2008) What needs to be considered is the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. With regard to explicit knowledge, ICT can be directly used as a method for knowledge transfer. However, for sharing tacit knowledge, ICT should function more as enabling people to share their tacit knowledge directly, and not as a method of codifying that knowledge.
2.2.2 Intrinsic motivation
In addition to these external forces, there are several internal forces that drive people to behave in a certain way. These ‘first-level factors’ can include antecedents such as the need for recognition, achievement, possible growth, advancement, responsibility, challenge of work, promotional opportunities, or status (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). It is the need to satisfy the ultimate goal of man for self-actualization, or self-realization. It is said that only by performing a particular task that an individual can get rewards that will reinforce his motivation to perform a particular task. In their research, Deci and Ryan (1985) define intrinsic motivations as being ‘based in the innate orgasmic needs for competence and self-determination. It energizes a wide variety of behaviors and psychological processes, for which the primary rewards are the experiences of effectance and autonomy’ (p. 32). They then go on to state that these needs for competence and self-determination drive people to constantly seek and conquer challenges in life. Deci and Ryan (1985) define competence as ‘the accumulated result of one’s interactions with the environment, of one’s exploration, learning and adaptation’. (p. 27) In other words, it is the inherent desire to deal effectively with the environment. People engage in challenging tasks to test their abilities and extend one’s skills
24 (van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, de Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). The need for self-determination can best be described as the basic desire to be in control of one’s fate, feeling a personal freedom in making decisions (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Other researchers have described this factor as operational autonomy, although that is more a task characteristic. Tampoe (1993) has defined this in the context of knowledge workers by stating that this operational autonomy is concerned with a work environment in which the activities given to the employees can be completed with individual freedom. The need for competence and need to be self-determining are closely related, as to have self-determination an individual must have the capability do deal with factors in their environment. According to Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002), a third factor also determines whether certain behavior is self-determined and self-motivated. The need of relatedness is concerned with the need to be in contact with other people, the need to belong and be a member of a group.
All motivational forces surface at three levels: at individual level for example self-interest and personal gain, for group benefit such as reciprocal behaviors and relationships with others, and for organizational benefit like organizational commitment and organizational gain (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). Intrinsic motivational factors investigated by many researchers are anticipated reciprocal relationships and sense of self-worth (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005); expected associations and expected contribution (Bock & Kim, 2002); knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others (Lin, 2007); organizational commitment (van den Hooff & de Leeuw van Weenen, 2004); altruism and reputation (Hsu & Lin, 2008); self interest and reciprocity (constant); and personal growth, operational autonomy, and task achievement (Tampoe, 1993). Additionally, Herzberg (1959) identified five factors that may act as motivators, namely challenge of work, promotional opportunities, recognition of job done, sense of achievement and sense of responsibility. All these factors
25 have in common that the reward for a certain activity is in the activity itself, in other words, the activities are not a means to an end but an end in themselves. (Ryan & Deci, 2000)
2.2.3 Motivational factors
As stated earlier, there are many motivational factors that have been investigated by many researchers over time, not all being relevant in the context of this research. For the extrinsic factors of motivation, this research will focus on three main factors: the first factor, organizational structure, is concerned with how the organization has structured their knowledge sharing activities. This includes reward systems such as monetary incentives, educational opportunities and promotional options. The second factor, organizational climate, has to do with the culture present in the work office and whether the climate is open with the emphasis on innovation and stimulating a willingness to share. It focuses on the existence of social contexts within the organization (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). The third extrinsic factor is the ICT infrastructure within the organization. It deals with how information technology such as intranets or databases are set up to make sure employees can come in contact with their colleagues, both locally and across borders. It is merely the transportation and the warehouse for the transfer of knowledge, which removes time and space barriers across the supply chain. These three factors are the hygiene factors, the factors engaged in creating a favorable context for knowledge sharing initiatives, also known as knowledge enablers.
The intrinsic factors of motivation focus on the individual incentives that drive people to behave in a certain way. The first intrinsic factor used in this research is the need for competence, which is closely related to self-efficacy, and is concerned with whether a person beliefs if he or she is able to reach a certain goal or complete a certain task. It includes terms as preference for challenge, curiosity and independent mastery (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It also
26 includes the need for achievement and challenge of work. The second intrinsic motivator is the need for self-determination, or operational autonomy. It is the psychological freedom of choice that people have in making decisions, and engaging in activities. The third factor is the need for relatedness, as people feel a need to belong to a group. It includes feelings such as trust, reciprocity, and recognition from others. A final motivation factor in addition to the factors used in the Self-Determination is enjoyment and interest in work. This enjoyment can come from enjoyment in the experience itself or the enjoyment in helping others.
2.3 STRATEGIC ALLIANCES
As Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) presented in their famous book on knowledge creation, the unique manner in which Japanese organizations strive for continuous innovation is the link they make between what is outside and what is inside of their organization. Important knowledge is not something that can be found exclusively inside the boundaries of the organization. In the current competitive landscape it is not possible anymore to think that a company possesses all the knowledge, skills, and competencies to succeed all by itself. Rapid and intense changes in technology, economic activity and globalization have driven companies to enter into competitive races for the world (globalization) and for the future (technology) (Doz & Hamel, 1998). Staying competitive means partnering up with others to achieve what organizations cannot do on their own. To maintain and enhance competitiveness, forming external links with partners has been integrated in the strategies of many firms. These external links are not limited to national boundaries, but can bridge national borders and continents (Doz & Hamel, 1998). In other words, as firms are responding to challenges in the competitive environment, their resource patterns, including knowledge, changes and their market position changes along with it. Important with strategic alliances in comparison with other forms of alliances is that it is initiated to achieve a common goal or
27 common objectives while remaining independent. So it is different from normal collaborations in terms of their mutual interdependency (the fact that it is mutually beneficial) and their shared objective. They maintain their autonomy while focusing on new opportunities. So the main difference with for example a joint venture is that both partners do not form a new entity but remain independent from each other.
2.3.1 Rationale
As defined, the function of strategic alliances is to gain access over another firm’s resources, of which knowledge is a very important one. It is a dynamic and strategic way in which an organization can grow (Simoons, 2013). Ireland, Hitt and Vaidyanath (2002) define strategic alliances as ‘cooperative arrangements between two or more firms to improve their competitive position and performance by sharing resources.’ These alliances provide access to information, technology, resources, and markets, which is hard to firms to do on their own in the trend of globalization. Following this resource-based view, Ireland, Hitt and Vaidyanath (2002) stress that ‘alliances are used to develop value-creating resources that a firm cannot create independently, where resources is used to address all assets, capabilities, processes, information and knowledge used to enhance efficiency and effectiveness’ (p. 428). It is about building new competencies and creating new opportunities by focusing on core competencies and searching for complementary strengths outside the boundaries of the organization. (Doz & Hamel, 1998)
It is important to note that stressing the importance of partnerships to stay competitive does not mean that firms can never do it alone. It does mean that teaming up with other organizations can mean that you achieve that goal quicker and in a more effective manner.
Despite of their ability to increase flexibility and reduce the level of risks, many strategic alliances fail. They have the ability to drive performance but achieving this is
28 difficult because managing an alliance is a challenging task. Differences in expectations, changing environments and bad luck are all reasons for not achieving the ultimate purpose of a partnership. There has to be an alignment or fit between alliance partners, which must be on a strategic, relational and operational level. There also has to be a level of trust within the partnership (Simoons, 2013). The individual goals of the partnering firms must be linked to the strategic mission of the alliance. (Inkpen A. , 1998)
2.3.2 Knowledge transfer in strategic alliances
Companies enter into a partnership or strategic alliance for one of three main reasons: knowledge transfer, market development and efficiency (Simoons, 2013). However, important to note is that the actual sharing of knowledge between two partners is not restricted to the first reason. In every strategic alliance there is some form of knowledge transfer, as the partner firm has or knows something that the other does not. Firms consist of a knowledge base wherein alliances can become the base for a long-term learning process, and a mechanism for organizational knowledge transfer (Kogut, 1988). This provision of knowledge and information in turn can be used to adapt to changing competitive environments and stimulate organizational learning (Ireland 2002). Alliances can be used to leverage core competencies with external help (Inkpen A. , 1998). When firms with different skill sets and knowledge bases are brought together, unique learning opportunities can be created.
Of course sharing knowledge also comes with difficulties, since it is an organization’s most valuable resource so firms must be aware of the risks that come with giving others access to their knowledge base. Complicating the process of integrating knowledge of both partners is the situation of mutual interdependence, in other words, both partner firms depend on each other to accomplish a certain goal, so they are both vulnerable to each other (Ireland,
29 Hitt, & Vaidyanath , 2002). But simultaneously firms have different ways of working and different structures and different architectures in managing their knowledge base/flows. Inkpen (1998) has described three aspects of the leaning opportunities that an organization must master in order to effectively learn from their partner. At first, the desired knowledge must accessible, and easily transferred and acquired. Secondly, a firm must have the absorptive capacity to recognize and utilize knowledge transfer, and the requisite systems and processes in place. Thirdly, firms must be modest enough to be open to learn from what is outside their own capacity and acknowledge that other firms may possess valuable information. Furthermore, an organization must also have the right personnel in place to disseminate the appropriate information and simultaneously protect the organization’s knowledge base, and have the right procedures and processes in place for supervising the knowledge flows (Ireland, Hitt, & Vaidyanath , 2002). This is both the case for the more easily monitored explicit knowledge, but even more so for tacit knowledge used for integrating complementary resources. So as mentioned before, the presence of trust is very important within a partnership, especially for successfully sharing the information and knowledge that is socially embedded in individuals and organizations.
Thus, as Ireland, Hitt and Vaidyanath (2002) put it rightly ‘alliance success is largely a function of how effectively and efficiently partners develop, transfer, integrate, and apply knowledge. Knowledge transfers facilitate mutual learning and partner cooperation that stimulate the development of new knowledge’ (p. 436). Strategic alliances are basically a mechanism for external organizational learning.
2.3.3 Context for research
Alliance management might be even more important for an international corporation than within a domestic context. As emphasized in much research, knowledge has become one
30 of the most important resources for competitive success, because firms that know more, and can effectively use that knowledge, can develop a sustainable competitive advantage, whether that be knowledge about customers, markets, products, competitors, or other types of knowledge. This knowledge needs to be created, stored, transferred and leveraged in order to gain advantage of it. In the current dynamic competitive landscape, firms are often part of a network in which this knowledge is moved around, within and across organizational boundaries. Strategic alliances are an important configuration in which knowledge can be leveraged and new knowledge can be acquired while remaining an independent entity. It becomes an organizational capability to integrate know-what, know-how and know-why from partners, and this can become a source of competitive advantage. In other words, strategic alliances are an important source of sharing and creating knowledge to deal with challenging and complex environment. (Ireland, Hitt, & Vaidyanath , 2002) (Inkpen A. , 1998) . Cohen and Levintal (1990) emphasize the importance of outside sources of knowledge to the innovation process. Recognizing, assimilating and applying external information can increase a firm’s innovative capabilities in order to deal with the complex environment. Similarly, Doz and Hamel (1998) stress that as firms are competing in global markets, internalization of knowledge can create value. With firms competing for the world with globalization, and for the future with technologies, the essence becomes in developing key competencies and collaborations are becoming the essential way of achieving that.
31
3. RESEARCH GAP AND RESEARCH QUESTION
In the literature on knowledge sharing behavior, domestic knowledge transfers have been the main focal point and additionally how individual intentions impact these behaviors. However, as multinational corporations claim to be superior to domestic companies in terms of their ability to acquire and utilize knowledge across borders (Michailova & Mustaffa, 2012), transferring their knowledge to subsidiaries in other countries must be considered as one of their priorities. However, this does not imply that these knowledge transfers actually take place effectively and efficiently (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). This is in part dependent on the individual employees who need to take part in initiatives to share their knowledge. It is imperative that research focuses on intra-MNC knowledge. At the same time, the emphasis needs to be placed on the actors involved in knowledge flows and on different aspects of organizational behavior in relation to knowledge flows. This because informal mechanisms such as social networks can play an important role in stimulating and facilitating knowledge flows between different subsidiaries (Michailova & Mustaffa, 2012). Organizational behavior encompasses various topics such as human behavior, change, leadership, working teams etc. Employees need to be stimulated to share their knowledge, not only to other employees but to other subsidiaries as well.
So, when researching knowledge flows within MNC, it is important to look at an individual level. Much research has been done on subsidiary role in the MNC network (contributory role and subsidiary isolation), and at the level of the MNC as a whole. However, individual employees are at the heart of these knowledge transfers. It is important that employees from different subsidiaries (in different countries) are able to share their knowledge in order for the MNC to exploit their main competitive advantage they have over purely domestic firms.
32 There are several ways of investigating why employees would transfer their knowledge. However, research needs focus on intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, since hardly any research has been conducted on the impact of different kinds of motivation on knowledge sharing behaviors at an international level. When we talk about intrinsic motivation, it is about motivation that comes from within. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is the motivation that can be stimulated by an external source. This external source can be several things, and is more about the context in which this knowledge sharing behavior takes place. By leading employees in particular ways and giving them the opportunities to transfer their knowledge, will employees feel encouraged to share their knowledge? All these internal and external motivational factors are important in considering how individual employees can share their knowledge across borders and how their knowledge sharing intentions can be stimulated, while simultaneously looking at what drives them to perform such behaviors.
In short, the relevance of this research derives from the link it provides between the level of individual workers where the knowledge resides, and the level of the organization, where this knowledge can achieve its economic and competitive value (Hendriks, 1999). Little research on this particular link has been done, especially not at an international level. People cannot just be obliged to share their knowledge, and it is not just about the technical systems in place. The employees must use these systems in an effective manner and the employees must recognize its usefulness as well. In addition, attention must be pointed towards the informal mechanisms that have an important role in stimulating knowledge flows. This research focuses on answering the following research question:
How does intrinsic and extrinsic motivation impact individual cross-border knowledge sharing in the context of strategic alliances?
33 Several expectations on the results of this research are formed, including:
Proposition 1: the greater the intrinsic motivation the more knowledge employees will share. Proposition 2: in absence of extrinsic motivators, employees will be less likely to share their
knowledge.
Proposition 3: international knowledge transfer will happen to a lesser extent than domestic
knowledge transfers.
Proposition 4: transferring tacit knowledge will depend more on intrinsic motivation. Proposition 5: transferring explicit knowledge will depend more on extrinsic motivation. Proposition 6: firms will actively stimulate international knowledge sharing in a top-down
35
4. DATA AND METHOD
In this section the methodology of this research will be elaborated upon. In the next parts the research design and data collection method; the recruitment selection process, description of research participants, the interview process, the data analysis and the strengths and limitations of the research design will be discussed. This section was included in this research to explain why the chosen research design was used and to give insight into how key decisions were made in the process getting from data to results, findings and insights. All this with the goal to increase understandability, objectivity and credibility.
In this research, a qualitative approach is used. Qualitative research is used when the phenomenon under investigation is about answering how, what or why questions rather than how many or how much, which is often the case in quantitative research (Hancock, 1998), (Pratt, 2009). Certain expectations arise from the literature studies, and propositions can be created about what is most likely to be expected from the data collected. These propositions are then compared with the actual data and the presumptions are consequently confirmed or invalidated and an answer to the research question can be articulated.
4.1 Research design and data collection method
One of the characteristics of qualitative research is that it studies phenomena in their natural environments which cannot be measured or quantified (Gephart, Jr., 2004). The organizational setting is very important in the context of this research. The opinions and perceptions of the research participants are used to map the process of international knowledge sharing in the context of strategic alliances. The process, structures, and persons behind the actual knowledge sharing are studied in ‘the context in which they naturally occur’.
36 As explained in the previous section (research gap and research question), investigating international knowledge sharing at an individual level is a relatively unexplored area of research, especially when focusing on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The goal of this research is to examine and articulate processes and focus on depth and detail on how these knowledge transfer process actually take place. The perspective of the individual employee is taken in exploring the subject, and in advance no restrictions were given. This means that to gain insight in what happens at that level, an open and exploratory view must be adopted. All these factors make a qualitative approach appropriate (Pratt, 2009) (Gephart, Jr., 2004).
To describe how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation impacts the cross-border knowledge sharing process, a single semi-structured interview was chosen as the primary research approach and was conducted with each research participant. This interview was mainly focused on the extrinsic part of motivation of the research. After the interview, each research participant was sent a small survey, consisting of twelve statements on the intrinsic motivation behind knowledge sharing, as identified in the literature review (see appendix 2). The reason a survey was chosen to study this particular aspect was to exclude bias from the researcher and let the respondents prioritize the important aspects of their individual reasons to share their knowledge.
4.2 Respondent selection/recruitment
The specific respondents were chosen because of their expertise in the context in which this research takes place. All participants are working within the context of strategic alliances, even though their respective functions might differ slightly. To come in contact with the respondents, the direct network of the researcher was consulted and asked for connections with employees who work in the strategic alliance function in diverse firms. Several contacts
37 were introduced by acquaintances and e-mails were sent to set up the interview, which were expected to take up 20-30 minutes. Most of the respondents were obtained from the direct network of the researcher. After the interview, some participants were asked/offered to bring the researcher in contact with more possible respondents to interview. The advantage of this snowball sampling approach (Waldorf & Biernacki , 1981) is that enough respondents were acquired; the possible disadvantage is that it is mostly of the same network of firms so the results are more difficult to generalize.
4.3 Description of research participants
To ensure confidentiality and anonymity of information given in the interviews, the respondents are labeled from A up to and including M, with their respective functions and employer attached in appendix 1. Thirteen people were interviewed, from six different companies. The companies were mainly active in the information technology industry, ranging from IT outsourcing and consultancy to the production of software that enables virtualization and cloud computing. One respondent worked at a multinational consumer goods company, which deviates from the rest of the respondents. All participants are active within the operational setting of strategic alliances in an international context, whether this was labeled as a global alliance director or head of financial services. All are related to business development and the managing of an important (strategic) partnership for a specific regional area (e.g. EMEA) or at a global level.
4.4 Interview process
After a first initial e-mail contact, a date was set for the actual interview. Two of the interviews were executed face-to-face, because the respondents were situated in the Netherlands and an appointment was easily made, and these participants were visited at their
38 offices. For the rest of the eleven respondents, a telephone call, conference call, or Skype session was set up because it was practically (geographically) not possible to plan a meeting. These respondents were situated in the following countries: UK, US, France, India, and South Africa.
The interview itself was a semi-structured interview with open-ended questions about three main themes: their role in the organization, whether and how they used international knowledge sharing for their role and how (international) knowledge transfer was structured and managed within the organization. See appendix 3 for the main themes and the
questions. The interviews were in-depth and detailed to accurately discover what is essential
in this knowledge sharing process with that person and make sure all themes were addressed. The interview started with the question whether the researcher was given permission to record the conversation and all respondents agreed. All respondents were asked the same general questions but clarification was asked when certain aspects remained unclear. So in this way all the relevant subjects were addressed but room was left open for further clarification. A minimum sample of 12 respondents was chosen beforehand to see the bigger picture and make sure the results and findings stabilized (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson , 2006). The interviews lasted from 20-50 minutes and were all recorded on a tape recorder. Afterwards a literal word-by-word transcription of the interview was typed and saved and used in NVIVO, a coding software program.
The survey focusing on the intrinsic motivation of knowledge sharing consisted of twelve statements (see appendix 2) of which the respondents had to fill out to which degree they agreed with the statement or not. This was chosen to place a neutral focus on the motivational factors identified in the literature. The statements were ranked on a five-point Likert scale (Likert, 1932), where 1=completely disagree, 2= disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree. The participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire and sent it
39 back to the researcher.
This duality in research approach was chosen to increase validity and reliability. Although it is up to the researcher to organize the data and findings in a structured way, and interpret what it means in this particular context, it is still necessary that the research has a certain confidence level.
4.5 Data analysis
A deductive manner of getting from data to findings is used, where from the beginning certain categories or themes were developed (in this case based on the existing literature) and from there the data collected are fitted into these categories/themes. In addition, other categories that emerge during the research may be added to the analysis and categorization.
As stated, before the data are analyzed all interviews taken are to be transcribed word-by-word. This process of re-living what has been said in the interviews allows the researcher to become acquainted with the material (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). In analyzing the gathered data the software program NVIVO was used.
The first step in data analysis is to organize all data. The survey results were gathered in an excel sheet and averages were calculated for each statement. With regard to the interviews, each interview was transcribed in a separate word file. The next step is to categorize the data in a systematic way, by making separate categories (codes) for each of the subjects addressed. It is important that these categories (or coding system) are internally homogeneous and externally heterogeneous. For this research this means that with the interviews each of the extrinsic motivational factors (organizational structure, organizational climate, and ICT infrastructure (knowledge enablers)) were labeled as a code, and all of the different aspect as uncovered in the research will fall under this main category. The same goes
40 for the intrinsic motivational factors in the survey; each statement was included in one of the four intrinsic motivational factors (need for competence, need for self-determination, need for relatedness, and enjoyment and interest in work). It is important that all the data can fall in a particular category, so during the coding more categories and codes can be added and put into separate categories (see appendix 4 for coding scheme) After this initial pre-work of organizing all the data, the transcriptions of the interviews can be coded.
Each interview was extensively analyzed and coded one time to start with. During the coding process, the researcher has taken notes and developed new categories when important data cannot be put in one of the existing categories. After this, the researcher analyzed each interview two more times to code the remaining data and checked if the coding has been done right.
After this data analysis, the qualitative data will be attempted to structured in order to draw conclusions and illustrate the findings. The organizing of the data must be done in order for the results to be properly interpreted.
4.6 Strengths and limitations
In doing qualitative research, it is important to clarify why certain decisions are made in the development of the research design. Reliability and validity are two constructs that need to be addressed in order to make the research viable. Reliability is about the measuring-instrument capturing the same results under the same conditions (repeatability of measurements) with internal consistency (Tracy, 2010), (Creswell & Miller, 2000). The survey was the same for each of the participants, so capturing the same results. For the semi-structured interview, the themes and subjects addressed were fixed; questions were flexible according to the responses of the participants. The same factors were explored. Validity is
41 about the accuracy of your measurements, if your measurements actually measure what they are supposed to. To check external validity, replication logic was used by replicating how the interview was introduced, structured, and taken. This way, all respondents had the same expectations of what was going to be the main focus of the interview and what was expected from them in terms of information wanted. In this aspect, a learning effect of the researcher occurred, and whereas with the first interview it was slightly unclear what the exact boundaries of the investigation were, with the following interviews this was set out more clearly in the introduction. To check internal validity, differences in expectations and findings are covered in the discussion section of this research; logic models of explanation are used. The researcher returns back to the data multiple times and provide rich descriptions of what was said (Creswell & Miller, 2000) in order to make sure that all the categories, explanations and interpretations make sense. Furthermore, all concepts used as factors are theoretically underpinned based on previous research. The statements used for the survey are validated through its extensive use in research.
In general the advantage of doing qualitative research in a relatively unexplored area is that it is useful in studying a small amount of cases in depth and detail through the ability to keep asking questions. It is a practical solution for describing complex phenomena from the viewpoint of personal experiences from insiders. The phenomena of international knowledge sharing are locally (organizationally) embedded. The qualitative research method is used to study dynamic processes and how and why this occurs in a particular manner (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). This stimulates openness and the discovery of people’s individual experiences. The scope of the questions asked can be revised during the process of gathering data when new information arises.
The advantage of using the survey for the intrinsic motivation aspect of international knowledge sharing is the objectivity without the researcher biasing the responses. The
42 interviewer cannot affect the answers of the participant. The benefit of using a semi-structured interview is that the interviewer can keep asking critical questions and with this create depth and detail. Since this is a descriptive/exploratory study where it is not entirely clear which aspects are or are not relevant in the process of international knowledge sharing, a certain amount of flexibility is required in the process of asking questions in order to draw the proper conclusions.
The main disadvantage with qualitative data analysis is since the processes are locally (organizationally) embedded; it becomes harder to generalize in a wider context or to other settings. This makes it also harder to make predictions about the different organizational and motivational factors studied. It takes more time to collect the data, and the analysis time is time consuming. Another difficulty with qualitative data research is that the process is not standardized, since the interviews are only semi structured and room is left open for flexibility, which can damage reliability (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). It is difficult to make systematic comparisons. The quality of the research is dependent on the skills of the researcher
43
5. RESULTS
After the coding and data analysis was completed, a structured overview of the results was created. This chapter presents the results of both the interview and survey in line based on the different themes as identified in the literature review.
5.1 INTERVIEW RESULTS 5.1.1 Role in organization
All respondents had various roles related to the strategic alliance manager function. This termination varied from ‘Country manager for Scotland and director of SO’s for
international services in UK’ for respondent A, to ‘running a number of our partners in EMEA and active leader of group centered around Europe’ for respondent C, and ‘global alliance market maker and director’ for respondent G. The roles that all respondents take on
within the different companies in this research have to do with managing a (part of a) strategic partnership on a multinational level. This means that the respondents are active in higher hierarchical levels of the organization and have the responsibility of managing a team of people in multiple countries. Since this team has a shared responsibility, knowledge needs to be shared and this knowledge travels across borders to make this team work together effectively and efficiently and get the most out of the desired partnerships.
5.1.2 Use of international knowledge and knowledge characteristics
The following straightforward remark by respondent A illustrates the importance of cross-border knowledge sharing in the context of strategic alliances: ‘we use international
knowledge sharing a lot’. He illustrates this with the example of when he wants to talk to a
client about business intelligence; he will look for a project that has been done elsewhere in the same line of business to use as references and case studies on a global scale. Similarly, the
