The Role of Disseminative Capacity in Knowledge
Transfer Literature:
An Integrative Framework and
Review of Emerging Themes
By
Anna-Lijsbeth M. Klijnstra
University of Groningen – Faculty of Economics and Business MSc BA Strategy & Innovation Management
Supervisor: Dr. P.M.M. de Faria Co-assessor: Prof. dr. J Surroca Date of submission: 22nd of January 2018
Student number: 1928457
2
Abstract: This thesis consolidates the state of academic research on disseminative capacity. Based on a systematic review of the knowledge transfer literature, I synthesize several research perspectives using a thematic analysis, and identify four challenges for the research field. Drawing on these insights, I introduce an overarching multi-dimensional framework of organizational knowledge dissemination linking the individual- and organizational level and provide a reconceptualization of DC from a strategic management perspective. Furthermore, I present future research directions to extent the disseminative capacity construct.
3
Table of Content
Introduction ... 4 Methodology ... 7 Choosing a Methodology ... 7 Data collection. ... 7 Data-analysis. ... 7 Data synthesis. ... 8Literature Search and Selection of Studies ... 8
Table I. Summary of systematic review articles retrieval and analysis ... 10
Findings ... 11
Descriptive Analysis ... 11
Scoping Out the Theoretical Field ... 13
Table II. Theories used in knowledge dissemination research by level ... 14
Table III. Overview of the literature ... 18
Synthesis... 23
Individual Knowledge Transfer ... 23
Ability ... 23
Motivation ... 26
Opportunity ... 28
Interaction effects ... 29
Organizational Knowledge Transfer ... 30
Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer ... 30
Inter-Organizational Knowledge Transfer ... 34
Interaction DC and AC ... 38
Discussion ... 39
Extending the Literature ... 41
Challenges for DC research ... 42
I. Reconceptualization from a Strategic Management Perspective ... 42
Table IV. Dimensions of DC: A reconceptualization of components and corresponding roles ... 46
II. Reification and Integration across Disciplinary Boundaries ... 48
III. Operationalization and Measurement Difficulties ... 48
Conclusion and Research Agenda ... 50
Research Agenda ... 51
References ... 54
4
Introduction
Knowledge has proved to be an elemental source of sustainable competitive advantage, as organizations face intense rivalry, demand for innovation and the necessity to boost value creation (Doz & Prahalad, 1991; Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1991). Various theoretical literature streams have therefore investigated knowledge management as a central research topic in an organizational dimension for many years, such as organizational learning theory (Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Senge, 1990), resource-based theory of the firm (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Williamson, 1999) and knowledge creation theory (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966). The aim of knowledge management is to increase the effectiveness of human capital through knowledge sharing and to improve firms’ flexibility towards change and innovation (Rahe, 2009). Effective knowledge transfer within and between organizations is thereby a basic requirement for innovation and economic processes (Darr et al., 1995; Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2010; Schulz, 2001; Schulze et al., 2014). Therefore, developing dynamic capabilities to integrate and share organizational knowledge is of great importance for competitive advantage. Especially when these knowledge sharing capabilities are hard for competitors to imitate (Grant, 1996; Zahra & George, 2002). Since many researchers are viewing ‘disseminative capacity’ as the inverse complementary of the well-established dynamic capability ‘absorptive capacity’ (Zahra & George, 2002), this research investigates the role of disseminative capacity in the present academic literature. The study examines the role of disseminative capacity in the knowledge transfer research, and investigate if it is a promising construct to enhance our understanding of organizational knowledge transfer, and if it has something to add to knowledge management and strategic management literature.
Although, scholars have widely recognized that both the sender and the receiver are important in the knowledge transfer process (e.g., Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Szulanski, 1996). Knowledge management research has given much more attention to how organizations and individuals receive and integrate knowledge, than to how knowledge is communicated and disseminated (Ishihara & Zolkiewski, 2017; Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2010; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Mu et al., 2010; Schulze et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2010). Past knowledge management studies have thereby primarily focused on absorptive capacity as playing a crucial role in effective knowledge transfer (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Lane et al., 2006; Szulanski, 1996; Zahra & George, 2002), neglecting the effect of the source’s disseminative capacity (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Schulze et al., 2014). Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledge about the dimensions and underlying mechanisms affecting intra-organizational knowledge transfer, like assimilation as a dimension of absorptive capacity (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Jansen et al., 2008; Liao et al., 2003).
To narrow this gap, I study the capability needed by a knowledge sender to effectively transfer knowledge by drawing on the construct introduced by Minbaeva and Michailova (2004), ‘disseminative
5
knowledge, and to transmit the knowledge in a clear manner so that the recipient can understand and apply the knowledge to its context (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Mu et al., 2010;). DC has been studied at the organizational level as: (I) a “part of organization’s AC” by being a requisite for knowledge assimilation “within” the organization (e.g., Liao et al., 2003; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008), and (II) as being the “inverse complement” of the recipient’s AC in the knowledge transfer process “between” organizations (e.g., Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2010; Peng et al., 2014). Both views are not contradicting or interfering with one another, but investigate different roles DC can perform from a different point of view (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).
In this thesis, I will provide an overview of several conceptual attributes of this construct, such as the definition, antecedents and consequences, and level of analysis concerned. The research goal is to generate collective insights through an analysis of findings thereby developing a reliable knowledge base from which to orient future research (Tranfield et al., 2003). It aims to extent and contribute to the knowledge about organizational absorptive capacity, and the source’s DC and its importance for knowledge transfer in general.
This review contributes to the knowledge transfer research in general by drawing on (source’s) DC as the “inverse complementary” of a recipient’s AC in the knowledge transfer process between a source and recipient (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004). This can relate to DC at the individual-, as well as the intra-organizational and the inter-organizational level. At the inter-organizational level, the process of knowledge transfer provides opportunities for collaboration and mutual learning that stimulate innovation and knowledge creation (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998).
Furthermore, this research extends the knowledge about the absorptive capacity, by drawing on the construct of DC (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004). Absorptive capacity (AC) refers to the ability to acquire, assimilate, transform and exploit knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002). The development of AC enables organizations to better appreciate, understand, and evaluate signals from the environmental (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), and better adept to the environment (Zahra & George, 2002). Cohen and Levinthal (1990, p. 131) argue that the AC depends on the transfers of knowledge between and within units of the organization. Due to the fact that the spot where the knowledge first entered, may be quite far removed from the final base where the knowledge could be utilized and exploited to its full potential. Moreover, Zahra and George (2002, p. 189) conceptualize AC as a dynamic capability constructed from a set of organizational processes and routines “that allow it to
analyze, process, interpret and understand the information obtained from external sources”, by which
6
process (Zahra & George, 2002), and utilized in organizational tasks and routines (Whitehead et al., 2016; Xu & Ma, 2008).
The thesis will explore the construct of DC on organizational, as well as individual level. Since, ‘organizational knowledge’ is built from the individual knowledge that is combined, transformed, coordinated and amplified by the collective into organizational knowledge (Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994; Spender, 1996; Whitehead et al., 2016). Perhaps the most significant factor influencing the organizational DC, are the individuals working in the organization: the human capital (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). The knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm states that organizations that have the ability to combine “the knowledge of individuals” in a synergistic way, achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 1996). Furthermore, Cohen and Levinthal (1990, p.132) state that the firm’s AC “depends on the individuals who stand at the interface of either the firm and the external environment
or at the interface between subunits within the firm”. Also, Zahra and George (2002) argue in line with
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) that the acquiring, processing and utilizing of knowledge in organizations comes down to individuals and are influenced by social mechanisms. Although, dominant in rational choice sociology and psychology, the individual focused perspective still takes a minority position in the literature influenced by the knowledge movement (e.g., strategic management).
To conclude, this thesis brings together the different insights from various disciplines by consolidating extent DC research, linking the diversified literature, and identifying research gaps. To establish this, I first conduct a systematic literature review of 27 academic articles to undertake a descriptive and a brief theoretical analysis to scope the field. Then, I synthesize several research perspectives into an overview, by using a thematic analysis. Third, I extend the knowledge on knowledge dissemination by introducing an (I) overarching multi-dimensional framework, (II) reconceptualization of DC from a strategic management perspective as a dynamic capability, and (III) elaborate on the
identified challenges in developing the construct. Furthermore, I present future research directions to
7
Methodology
Choosing a Methodology
To provide a comprehensive overview and a conceptual consolidation of the field of DC based on objectivity of results, a systematic review of the literature is conducted (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). This research follows the principles of systematic literature review suggested by Tranfield et al. (2003). Systematic review is seen as the most high-quality and efficient method for identifying and evaluating extensive literatures (Mulrow, 1994; Tranfield et al., 2003). A systematic review reports the review process openly, which enhances its transparency, clarity and reputability (Pittaway et al., 2004). The review process consists of three components: data collection, data analysis, and synthesis (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010).
Data collection. The research followed during the selection of the studies a number of stages to be systematic, transparent and replicable (Christoffersen, 2013). First, a search through the electronic database of EBSCOhost was executed. Secondly, this initial search was expanded by searching through Google Scholar for articles on knowledge transfer that referred to the three most highly cited articles on DC in the organizational knowledge transfer literature, to insert the article(s) in the database that the first search step was not able to capture (i.e. Minbaeva, 2013). Thirdly, reference lists from the retrieved relevant articles were examined from articles from the first two phases, to detect additional articles that were not captured in the other searches (i.e. Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Michailova & Husted, 2003; Parent et al., 2008). The data collection and selection is summarized in Table I.
8
multiple dimensions and determinants of DC gathered from the consideration set were mapped, and organized by conceptualization and level of analysis (Appendix B).
Data synthesis. The thesis adds value by producing new knowledge based on extensive data collection and thorough analysis (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Based on the analysis, I identified the emerging themes and congruence in the literature per level of analysis, and structured the reporting accordingly. Emergent themes are a basic building block for theory building in social science research. Its requisite to provide rich and detailed insight into the state of the literature. I identified the emergent themes by abstraction – creating categories form the complexity of the data. In the sample, two levels of analysis were the most prominent: individual- and the organizational level. Due to the lack of research on group level in the sample, the group level is aggregated with the individual level.
Literature Search and Selection of Studies
First, relevant studies were identified through a keyword search using the electronic database of EBSCOhost (Business Source Premier). The initial search was undertaken using 13 keywords1 derived from the important concepts surrounding the construct of DC built from the scoping study (i.e. Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Mu et al., 2010; Szulanski, 1996) and knowledge transfer and common used synonyms. Second, the Boolean searches were carried out including: [disseminative], [dissemination], [disseminating], [diffusion], [source], [sender] or [desorptive] in combination with [knowledge and transfer] or [knowledge and sharing] and [capacity or capability or ability]. The EBSCOhost (Business Source Premier) was searched as a main database to identify relevant articles. The keywords were used to search within titles, subject terms or abstracts (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). This resulted in 1369 results. Third, the research has been limited to peer-reviewed academic journal to ensure high quality of publication (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010), published up to 2017 in English. Academic journal articles are considered as repositories of valid knowledge and exhibit high disciplinary standing (Podsakoff et al., 2005). The field has not been limited to studies investigating knowledge transfer theory within the firm, because this limitation wouldn’t be sufficient to capture this phenomenon of communication and knowledge diffusion. Therefore, other perspectives than knowledge transfer theory were accounted for due to the fact that knowledge transfer has drawn the attention of scholars from different fields such as psychology, information systems and business management. The selection was retrieved including 635 articles and exported to Refworks, a referencing database where they were further reviewed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full search protocol can be found in Appendix A.
In subsequent stages of analysis, the number of articles was systematically reduced from 635 to 219 by removing duplicates and the title selection. After the title selection the articles were reviewed following inclusion and exclusion criteria (Keupp et al., 2012), leaving 57 articles remained. The full
9
selection criteria can be found in the Appendix A. Next stage, the journals were checked on Impact Factor to ensure inclusion of papers significantly influential in the academic debate, excluding another 16 articles. To determine the role of DC (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004),the sample was assessed on four categories of use, namely: the referencing to the construct as a background or minor citation and unrelated to knowledge dissemination (not relevant), using it only for theoretical support with tangential links to DC (peripheral), using it in a hypothesis, proposition or research model and the relevance to DC was ambiguous (secondary), or fourth, using it as a theoretical base for articles with a high coherence and contribution considered to be directly related to the inclusion criteria (primary) (Roberts et al., 2012). These categories give a clear view of the direct role of the construct of DC in the literature. This resulted in the exclusion of another 18 articles after reviewing the full texts of the included papers.
Second, a search through Google Scholar was conducted for articles on knowledge transfer that referred to the three most highly cited articles on the DC construct in the organizational knowledge transfer literature to insert articles in the database that the first search step was not able to capture (i.e., Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Mu et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2010). Since Minbaeva and Michailova (2004) is the basis for the construct of DC, the initial search for evidence of DC in the knowledge management literature consisted of articles that reference that article. The same was done for the key articles Mu et al. (2010) and Tang et al. (2010) referenced to, even when they lack a reference to Minbaeva and Michailova (2004). Only one extra article (i.e., Minbaeva, 2013) was retrieved and complemented the articles retrieved from the previous keywords searches, after examination of the role of a concept interrelated to DC in the process of knowledge transfer.
10
Table I. Summary of systematic review articles retrieval and analysis Step 1: Database analysis
Database Number of
documents
Number of relevant documents
Total relevant documents
EBSCOhost 1369 635 635
Step 2: Title analysis
Excluded documents Total relevant documents
duplicates 157 478
Selection criteria 259 219
Step 3: Abstract analysis
Excluded documents Total relevant documents
Selection criteria 178 57a
Step 4: Full article analysis
Part 1: before article review
Primary Secondary Peripheral Not relevant Total relevant documents
42b - - - 42
Part 2: after article review
24 6 6 6 23c
27d - - - 27
a A further duplicate, full text not available and retracted article was removed.
b An article referencing to Minbaeva and Michailova (2004) (i.e., Minbaeva, 2013) was added and 16 articles
were removed because of the publishing in a journal without an impact factor.
c A further duplicate article was removed.
11
Findings
This section provides a descriptive analysis of the sample of 27 papers. Closing with a scope out of the theoretical field and providing a preliminary conceptual map of the existing research literature (Appendix B and C).
Descriptive Analysis
The study field of strategic management, especially research regarding organizational knowledge transfer, is a fairly young field. The oldest article in the sample concerning the knowledge sender dating from 1996. The literature sample constitutes quantitative papers (37 per cent), qualitative papers (7 per cent), case studies (19 per cent) and theoretical papers without validation of the propositions (37 per cent) (Figure I). The literature collected does not include any literature reviews or meta-analyses. Research on knowledge senders’ behavior in relation to knowledge transfer is largely case- and theoretical based (e.g., Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013).
The studies mostly consist out of small samples within a specific context, measuring only one or a few components of a concept (e.g., the effect of cognitive dimension only measured by ‘shared
language’ in Zimmerman and Ravishankar, 2013). The analysis revealed that most studies have a
conceptual and primarily theoretical base, backing the arguments up with a small empirical study (Schulze et al., 2014). Besides Chang et al. (2012), Nakauchi et al. (2017), Peng et al. (2014), Whitehead et al. (2006), Szulanski (1996) and Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), substantial empirical support is largely absent (Figure II). Not surprisingly in this research stream with this evolving new research focus on the knowledge sender’s perspective.
Figure I. Breakdown of articles by type or research
12 Figure II. Breakdown of articles by sample size
Regarding the level of analysis (Figure III) twelve studies are focused on organizational knowledge transfer (i.e., organizational level), eleven studies are focused on individual knowledge sharing (i.e., individual level), and four studies are focused on group level knowledge transfer. No articles were found to study DC from the perspective of the source using a multi-level framework to link different levels of the organization where DC has an impact. Though, four studies where found using a multilevel framework in their research, but still focused one level (i.e., individual level) regarding the knowledge sender (e.g., Reagans & McEvily, 2003).
Simonin (1999) noted once, that the initial research focus of knowledge transfer has shifted from intra-organizational settings to a more inter-organizational setting such as alliances. In the sample only eight (including Xu and Ma, 2008 at the individual level) are focusing on inter-organizational knowledge transfer. However, within the sample of 18 papers (including individual level) primarily focusing on intra-organizational knowledge transfer, eight of these studies are within the context of multinational corporations (MNC) transferring knowledge between headquarters and (partly independent) subsidiaries across national boundaries.
Figure III. Breakdown of articles by level of analysis
13
Lastly the descriptive analysis revealed that only a seven studies, studied DC construct explicitly (i.e., Chang & Smale, 2013; Ishihara & Zolkiewski, 2017; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Mu et al., 2010; Peng et al., 2014; Schulze et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2010), others use synonyms or concepts relating to the source’s DC. Furthermore, most studies (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Ishihara & Zolkiewski, 2017; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Szulanski, 1996) are recognizing or studying the AC construct in combination with DC in their research models..
Scoping Out the Theoretical Field
This section briefly discusses the breadth of theoretical contributions and the main concepts surrounding the construct of DC. The different dimensions and determinants current research has studied can be found in Appendix B. In Table III an overview of the literature is presented.
14 Table II. Theories used in knowledge dissemination research by level
Individual Group Organization
(Intra-organizational) (Inter-organizational)
Relational-based view Ishihara and Zolkiewski
(2017)
Dyer and Nobeoka (2000)
(supply chain)
(Social) network theory Mu et al. (2010)
Reagans and McEvily (2003) Tang et al. (2010)
Nakauchi et al. (2017) Dyer and Nobeoka (2000)
(supply chain)
Peng et al. (2014)
(industry network)
Social cognitive theory Cabrera and Cabrera (2005) Chang and Smale (2013)
(expatriate)
Chang et al. (2012)
(expatriate)
Michailova and Husted (2003) Minbaeva (2013)
Minbaeva and Michailova (2004) (expatriate)
Zimmerman and Ravishankar (2013) (MNC)
Resource-based view, Knowledge-based view
Gonzalez and Chakraborty (2014) (expatriate) Xu and Ma (2008)
(ERP-consultants)
Martin and Salomon (2003)
(MNC) Szulanski (1996) Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) (dependency theory) Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2010) Schulze et al. (2014)ᵇ (R&D alliances) Whitehead et al. (2016) (supply chain) (Organizational) learning theory Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) Meinlschmidt et al. (2016) (supply chain) Peng et al. (2014) (industry network)
Communication theory Huang et al. (2007)
Joshi et al. (2007)
(“connectionistic”
epistemological perspective)
Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) (MNC)
Other theories Nakauchi et al. (2017)
(contingency theory)
Parent et al. (2008)
(system theory)
Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2010)
(transaction cost theory)
15
Conceptualization of DC. Various disciplines have enriched the knowledge about DC and the role of the source in the knowledge transfer process. Each discipline has a different focus to bear on the management of knowledge transfer and dissemination. The contributions made by various research streams have enriched the theory, but also limited the possibility of a uniform approach. It’s therefore not surprising, despite the introduction of the source as an important factor in knowledge transfer many years ago, that there is no readily accepted definition of DC. In Table III an overview of the literature sample is being presented considering the research focus, method used, definitions regarding the construct of DC and the main findings.
Individual DC. Xu and Ma (2008) note that the knowledge transfer is completed when the
recipient is affected by the sender. That’s when the process of knowledge dissemination is over. Tang et al. (2010) and Mu et al. (2010) referring to DC as the ‘ability’ of an individual to send. Not including the ‘motivation’ of the individual. Gonzalez and Chakraborty (2014) are referring to DC as purely the ‘ability’ to disseminate, not the capacity as the outcome of the knowledge dissemination of an individual. Regarding the ‘ability’, the literature doesn’t purely refer to ‘task performance capability’ (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014), but also to the ability to build and maintain relations to communicate and cooperate with (Huang et al., 2007). The interaction is a key factor to disseminate knowledge and influences the speed and magnitude of the knowledge diffusion (Huang et al. 2007; Nakauchi et al., 2017). For knowledge dissemination to happen Gonzalez and Chakraborty (2014) are stating that there is also a need of other ‘competencies’ (i.e., technical skills, managerial skills and intercultural competencies) in combination with the ‘motivation’ to transfer. Zimmerman and Ravishankar (2013) don’t define the ‘ability’ to transfer, but studying the antecedents leading to the ability to transfer. They incorporate the ‘opportunity’, needed to utilize the ‘ability’, in the construct of ‘ability to transfer knowledge’. Furthermore, they included the “willingness” to transfer in their model. Hence, some scholars referring to only ‘ability’ (e.g., Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014), some scholars refer to ‘ability’ in combination with willingness (e.g., Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013), and others focus on the complete knowledge dissemination as output of an individual incorporating ‘ability’, ‘willingness’, and ‘opportunity’ (e.g., Chang et al., 2012).
Organizational DC. Intra-organizational literature sees DC merely as a capability. Ishihara &
16
of AC is in place. While they argue that DC refers to the outward knowledge transfer. Yet, they make a side note that the same arguments they make for inter-organizational knowledge transfer, could also apply for intra-organizational knowledge transfer between units or subsidiaries. Peng et al. (2014) expends the definition of DC. They refer to the accumulation of the DC of the organizations in a network as ‘collective disseminative capacity’. Schulze et al. (2014) conceptualize DC as an organizational level construct, which displays its benefits through the individuals whom are responsible for executing certain capabilities of the firm.
Furthermore, most scholars are referring to DC as the complementary opposite of organization’s AC (e.g., Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2010; Schulze et al., 2014; Whitehead et al., 2016). Whitehead et al. (2016) have even stretched this further by stating that AC and DC have a moderated effect of the other on knowledge transfer. Meinlschmidt et al. (2016) have thereby suggested that AC and DC could substitute each other in a way that they argue that AC and DC have overlapping capabilities which a company can utilize for AC and DC. This is also argued by Easterby-Smith et al. (2008). They suggested that the sender needs AC to appreciate the potential value of knowledge. This identification of knowledge opportunity and assessment are the same capability (Smith et al., 2008). Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) argued therefore that AC is interrelated with intra-organizational transfer capability. Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) also introduced the dimension of a firm’s ‘motivation’ to “teach” knowledge. They have built on the idea that if the organization has an high absorptive capacity, the organization is also equipped with capabilities to diffuse knowledge within the organization. Moreover, some scholars suggested that the DC consists out of more than one capability associated with the sender in the knowledge transfer process (Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2010; Meinlschmidt et al., 2016; Schulze et al., 2014; Whitehead et al., 2016).
Additionally, scholars have emphasized the importance of the conveying of knowledge in a way the recipient can understand and apply it (Schulze et al., 2014; Whitehead et al. 2016). Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) argued the importance of relations and building networks as part of sharing knowledge, and the installation of knowledge sharing routines as a mechanism to do so. Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2010) focused on DC more as a “pushing” capacity. They referred to the ‘desorptive capacity’ as including the capability of actively searching for opportunities to dispatch the (technological) knowledge to. DC consists out of a self-reinforcing cycle of feedback and transfer (Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2010). Like Xu and Ma (2008), scholars studying the DC concept on organizational level have also stated that the knowledge transfer only ends when the recipient has applied the knowledge transfer (Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2010; Whitehead et al.,2016).
17
framework consolidating both levels is missing. Yet, the literature gives enough insights to build one. Due to the level-based split, the papers covering community or group level were consolidated with the individual level. From the literature focused on the individual- and the studies focusing on organizational level emergent themes could be identified. The dimensions and determinants derived from the literature are summarized in Appendix B.
Emerging themes. From the data-analysis, the ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) framework arose (Chang et al., 2012; Minbaeva, 2013). The AMO framework has been designed from basic concepts of psychology: ‘ability’ – capabilities and skills essential to the performance of specific behavior; ‘motivation’ – the incentive toward the behavior; and ‘opportunity’ – situational and contextual constraints relevant to the conduct of the behavior (Minbaeva, 2013). The framework states that these dimensions are the building blocks of successful task performance (Chang et al., 2012). It has been widely applied in human resource management (Minbaeva, 2013), and has been introduced by Argote et al. (2003) as a promising framework to apply in knowledge management research for explaining the creation and transfer of knowledge (as cited in Chang et al., 2012). The literature results extracted from the review on individual level are all addressing one or more dimensions of the framework.
Scholars expanding the conceptualization of DC to an organizational level, are largely drawing on studies conducted on the individual level (e.g., Schulze et al., 2014). The little research that has been done focusing on the source capability at organizational level, have mostly explained DC as a capability (Martin & Salomon, 2003; Schulze et al., 2014). As discussed earlier, literature has conceptualized DC as a capability that consists out of more capabilities. Furthermore, the research can be categorized in scholars focusing on knowledge transfer as a dyadic process (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Szulanski, 1996) and scholars viewing the knowledge transfer as a phenomena occurring within complex networks and systems (e.g., Parent et al., 2008; Peng et al., 2014).
Although, inter-organizational DC literature draws largely on insights form intra-organizational DC, inter-organizational knowledge transfer theory has also its own focus points studying DC. And while the intra-organizational literature ignored the identification of sequential process steps (i.e. attributing the business process level), inter-organizational literature did attempts putting DC in a process theory perspective (Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2010; Meinlschmidt et al., 2016; Whitehead et al., 2016). Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2010) argue that it is a two stage process to disseminate (technological) knowledge across markets. Furthermore, the inter-organizational study field stimulated the knowledge about the differences between manufacturing vs innovative settings. Also, inter-organizational knowledge transfer research is studying the direction of knowledge transfer, like the research on the individual level, and the dynamics complying.
18 Table III. Overview of the literature
Unit of
Analysis Author
Theoretical
foundation Definition Type/Method Sample Variable* Main findings/Statements
Individual Mu, Tang and
MacLachlan (2010)
• (Social) network theory
Disseminative capacity - “the ability of network members (knowledge holders) to efficiently and effectively codify, articulate, communicate and teach knowledge to other network members.” (p. 33)
Conceptual, pattern simulation
n/a • Ability
• Opportunity
High status knowledge holder (with excellent technical knowledge and social skills to communicate) with a lot of ties enhances speed of knowledge dissemination through the network. Ties function as an information channel to other network members about the who has the prominent position in the network. Ties help the knowledge holder to get more and faster knowledge.
Tang, Mu and MacLachlan (2010)
• (Social) network theory
Disseminative capacity – “the ability of knowledge holders to efficiently, effectively, and convincingly frame knowledge in a way other people can understand accurately and put their learning into practice” (p. 1587)
Conceptual, pattern simulation
n/a • Ability
• Opportunity Prominent knowledge holder plays a paramount role in knowledge dissemination under different organizational structures. The more connections, the more likely the knowledge comes available for others in the network. The amplification of connectivity and interactivity has a positive network effect. Hierarchical structures result in converge of homogeneity and speeding up exploitative innovation. Informal social relations enhances the combination of old and new knowledge underlying exploratory innovation. Reagens and
McEvily (2003)
• (Social) network theory
Source’s ability to transfer: ability to convey complex ideas by framing and translating knowledge to diverse audiences.
Quantitative, surveys and demographic data N = 92, employees from US R&D firm • Ability • Motivation:
Network range has a positive impact on the ease of knowledge transfer. Strong ties tend to co-occur with social cohesion. It influences the effort and motivation of the sender. Strong ties facilitated tacit knowledge more than codified, but evidence was weak. Strong ties can enhance motivation and effort to transfer knowledge. Minbaeva and Michailova (2004) • Social cognitive theory • Expatriation
Disseminative capacity – “dependent on the ability and the willingness of organizational actors to transfer knowledge where and when it is needed in the organization” (p. 667)
Qualitative, Semi-structured interviews N = 98, subsidiaries in 11 countries, from 58 Danish MNCs • Ability
• Motivation Individuals’ attitudes and behavior significantly impact knowledge transfer. The willingness to transfer is a part of the disseminative capacity. Many temporary short assignments, lead to more experience in teaching and translating, which improved the ability to disseminate knowledge. More responsibility, task autonomy and role discretion, enhanced the commitment, and in the case of long-term assignments it increased the emotional attachment. This was an incentive to perform better and increased the willingness to put effort in knowledge transfer.
Chang, Gong and Peng (2012)
• Social cognitive theory • Expatriation
Ability-motivation-opportunity framework: Ability, motivation and opportunity as important dimensions for explaining the creation and transfer of knowledge (as cited in Argote, McEvily and Reagans, 2003).
Quantitative, surveys and performance data N = 648, expatriates and local, managers, from 162 British subsidiaries of Taiwanese MNCs • Ability • Motivation • Opportunity
Ability is not enough. The sender needs to be motivated and find an opportunity to utilize its ability. Furthermore, the AC of the recipient plays a role. The effect of the DC of the expatriate (sender) on subsidiary’s (recipient) performance was bigger, than the effect of the recipient’s AC on subsidiary’s performance. Results indicate that the greater AC, the more the sender utilizes its DC.
Chang and Smale (2013)
• Social cognitive theory • Expatriation
Disseminative capacity - ability and motivation of expatriates to transfer knowledge where and when it is needed within the firm (cited from Minbaeva and Michailova, 2004) as that other employees can retain and implement it. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews N = 60, from 4 British subsidiariesof 4 Taiwanese MNCs • Ability • Motivation • Opportunity
19 Unit of
Analysis Author
Theoretical
foundation Definition Type/Method Sample Variable* Main findings/Statements
Cabrera and Cabrera (2005)
• Social cognitive theory
Knowledge sharing behavior – dependent on willingness and ability of individual to share their knowledge and is reflected in collaborative behaviors.
Conceptual n/a • Motivation Intentions to share knowledge are determined by attitudes and
the perception of social norms towards sharing. These attitudes are influenced by several factors, like: trust, feeling of obligation, social norms to open exchanges, strong sense of group identity, perception of clear benefit (reward), reciprocity, perceived efficacy, beliefs regarding individual competencies and skills, and personality traits. An organization can influence these by ensuring a environment conducive to knowledge sharing.
Michailova and Husted (2003)
• Social cognitive theory
Knowledge sender’s behavior depends on the sender’s willingness to share knowledge with other individuals on request.
Multiple-Case Study, semi-structured interviews N = 6, (N= 26 interviewees), Russian sample • Ability • Motivation
The sharing behavior is dependent on the individual’s decision. Six reasons for resistance toward knowledge sharing: protecting competitive advantage, reluctance to spend time, fear of hosting “knowledge parasites”, avoidance of exposure to assessment, coop with uncertainty regarding recipient, and high respect towards hierarchy and formal power.
Minbaeva (2013) • Social cognitive theory
Knowledge-sharing behavior – “individual ability, motivation, and the utilization of opportunity.” (p. 379)
Conceptual n/a • Ability
• Motivation • Opportunity
Elaboration on the ‘ability’, ‘motivation’, and ‘opportunity’ framework used in studying knowledge sharing behavior, as antecedents for individual knowledge-sharing behavior. Gonzalez and
Chakraborty (2014)
• Resource-based view of the firm • Expatriation
Organizational knowledge transfer- bringing knowledge from headquarter to subsidiary using expatriates (senders) as vehicles. For knowledge transfer success, the sender needs competencies (i.e. task-related and intercultural) and the motivation to transfer. Disseminative capacity is a task-related competency and refers to the “the ability to transfer, or the ability to teach or impart knowledge such that other employees can retain it and implement it. This ability includes capacity to control and coordinate the dissemination of techniques and ideas, and to motivate subsidiary employees to be receptive to new structures, processes and techniques.” (p.302)
Conceptual n/a • Ability
• Motivation A multilevel conceptual framework of expatriate knowledge utilization is presented by the authors, including expatriate (sender) and subsidiary (recipient) characteristics.
Xu and Ma (2008)
• Resource-based view of the firm
Knowledge transfer- “process through which one unit is affected by the experience of another. It refers to the communication from a source so that it is learned and used by the recipient.” (p.529) Quantitative, surveys and observations N = 85, Chinese sample • Ability
20 Unit of
Analysis Author
Theoretical
foundation Definition Type/Method Sample Variable* Main findings/Statements
Group Huang, Wei and
Chang (2007)
• Communication theory
Knowledge diffusion – “key to delivering staff invisible knowledge to others, and transferring this knowledge into visible knowledge and therefore, leading to valuable production.” (p.608) Conceptual, mathematical model n/a • Ability • Opportunity • Willingness
Authors present a mathematical model to expand research areas which are too abstract and descriptive. Transfer and diffusion higher level knowledge primarily relies on individual communication and cooperation. Interaction and communication are most effective factors to knowledge dissemination success. A bonus will increase willingness. Joshi, Sarker and Sarker (2007) • Communication theory • Connectionistic epistemological perspective
Knowledge transfer – “occurs when knowledge is diffused from one entity (e.g. an individual, group or organizational) to other entities.” (p. 322) Quantitative, surveys N = 114, Students in information systems development groups, US sample • Ability • Opportunity • Context
Source’s capability (technical expertise), credibility (trustworthy behavior display combined with high performer; enhanced by visibility of performance and gaining trust of other members) and extent of communication (utilizing relationships) plays a role in determining the extent of knowledge transferred to receiver. More knowledgeable was not found significant, perhaps because the expert wasn’t able to codify it understandable.
Nakauchi, Wasburn and Klein (2017) • Contingency theory • (Social) network theory
Knowledge transfer – “process through which knowledge migrates and evolves through transfer across multiple individuals or units constitute an important organizational capability (…..) It’s a process incorporating social interaction, dyadic trust as antecedents to the production of knowledge conducive to value creation” (p.766) Quantitative, surveys and observations N = 609, software development professio- nals, Japanese sample • Ability • Willingness • Opportunity • Context
Accessibility of the knowledge source, network density and collective teaching help knowledge dissemination. Knowledge tacitness inhibits knowledge transfer. The impact of these factors varies significantly depending on knowledge transfer within or across boundaries of a group take place. The strength of ties are especially important when spreading between different social groups, but no effect within the same social group. Zimmerman and Ravishankar (2013) • Social cognitive theory • (Social) network theory
Knowledge transfer ability and willingness – “previously defined as ‘disseminative capacity’ and are seen as preconditions for actual knowledge transfer from the knowledge provider” (referring to citation of Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004) (p. 168)
Case study, semi-structured interviews N = 30, from German MNC with Indian subsidiaries, German Sample • Ability • Willingness • Context
Authors link social capital theory with efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations as drivers of willingness to transfer knowledge and ability to transfer knowledge. Arduous relationships between off- and onshore, causal ambiguity and low AC of recipient hamper knowledge transfer success. The authors found three self-reinforcing cycles of knowledge transfer. They highlight that knowledge transfer success is often the result of the sender’s own effort, which leads to self-reinforcing cycles of social capital and efficacy.
Intra-organizational Ishihara and Zolkiewski (2017) • Relational-based view
Disseminative capacity – the ability to contextualize, format adapt, translate and diffuse knowledge through a social and/or technological network. (cited from Parent et al., 2007). As a key antecedent of organizational knowledge transfer.
Case study, semi-structured interviews N = 22, Japanese subsidiary of US based HQ, Japanese/ US sample • Capability Motivation • Context
Knowledge sender’s disseminative capacity matters. strong ties can mitigate the impact coming from low DC, positive effects on motivation human capital.
Martin and Salomon (2003)
• Resource-based view of the firm
Source transfer capacity – “ability of a firm (or the relevant business unit within it) to articulate uses of its own knowledge, assess the needs and capabilities of the potential recipient thereof, and transmit knowledge so that it can be put to use in another location.” (p.363)
Conceptual n/a • Capability Assess the needs and capabilities, and the strengths and
21 Unit of
Analysis Author
Theoretical
foundation Definition Type/Method Sample Variable* Main findings/Statements
Szulanski (1996) • Resource-based view of the firm
Knowledge transfer as a dyadic exchange of organizational knowledge between a source and a recipient unit in which the identity of the recipient matters (p.28). The characteristic of the source (not perceived as reliable and lack of motivation) do matter as well for internal stickiness of knowledge. Also the organizational context and relationships can enhance knowledge transfer. Quantitive, surveys N = 122, best practice transfers, (N = 271 observations), US sample • Capability • Motivation
Not being knowledgeable, is an important barrier to internal knowledge transfer. Experts (senders) easily initiate knowledge transfer to a receiver and is more likely to influence the receiver. (No significant empirical evidence found). Decision to transfer is largely individual and is driven by at least two behavioral factors: willingness and ability of knowledge senders to share. No evidence motivational/sender importance.
Parent, Roy, and St-Jacques (2007)
• System theory Disseminative capacity – “denotes the ability to contextualize, format, adapt, translate and diffuse knowledge through a social and/or
technological network and to build
commitment from stakeholders.” (p.87)
Conceptual n/a • Capability
• Context
Authors take a system theory perspective and bear it on knowledge transfer. They introduce the ‘dynamic knowledge transfer capacity’ model to add to the knowledge transfer literature with a more holistic approach. The model constitutes of: generative-, disseminative-, absorptive-, and adaptive/responsive capacity. Disseminative capacity constitutes the diffusion and is driven by ‘need’ and ‘prior knowledge’. Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) • Communication theory
“knowledge flow is a function of the following five factors: value of the source unit's knowledge stock, motivational disposition of the source unit, existence and richness of transmission channels, motivational disposition of the target unit, and absorptive capacity of the target.” (p. 122)
Quantitative, surveys N = 374, subsidiaries within 75 MNCs, US/ Europian/ Japanese sample • Capability • Motivation • Context .
Determinants knowledge outflows from subsidiary: value of subsidiary’s knowledge stock, its motivational disposition (incentive focused) to share knowledge and the richness of transmission channels (socialization- or formal integrative mechanisms). Sharing dependence on both source and recipient.. Lack of absorptive capacity moderate effect on source ability & willingness to share on knowledge transfer outcome. No evidence motivation importance.
Inter-organizational
Peng, Dey and Lahiri (2014)
• (Social) network theory • Organizational
learning theory
Disseminative capacity- “ability to impart knowledge as a “teacher” to a “student” intentional or unintentional.” (p.14) Collective disseminative capacity – “the
combined ability of all current adopters in the ego network to efficiently and effectively pass on information about the technology to the ego, intentionally or unintentionally.” (p.14) Quantitative, longitudinal N = 5000, hospitals, 13 years • Organization determinants
The authors focuses on the web of network relations between the sending firms and the recipient, by incorporating and generalizing the disseminative capacity concept. Furthermore, they note the reality of intentionally and unintentionally knowledge sharing. They found significant support that AC and DC both play a major role in the adoption and dissemination speed of technology. AC and DC substitute for each other and DC plays a more significant role for recipients with a low AC, than vice versa.
Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2010)
• Resource-based view of the firm • Transaction cost
theory
Desorptive capacity – “refers to the ability to identify technology transfer opportunities based on a firm’s outward technology transfer strategy and to facilitate the technology’s application at the recipient. (…..) it determines the potential volume of technology transfer based on a firm’s technology portfolio and consists of two process stages: identification and transfer.” (p. 158)
Conceptual n/a • Capabilities
• Process stages • Outcome • Context
22 Unit of
Analysis Author
Theoretical
foundation Definition Type/Method Sample Variable* Main findings/Statements
Schulze, Brojerdi and Von Krogh (2014)
• Resource-based view of the firm
Disseminative capability – “ability of knowledge holders to convey knowledge in a way that a recipient can comprehend it and put it into practice (……) regarded as an organization-level construct that demonstrates its benefits through its individual members’ capabilities, relationships, and actions in R&D alliances” (p.87). “It’s the complementary inverse of an organization’s absorptive capacity” (p.92).
Quantitative surveys N = 59, R&D alliances, German sample
• Capabilities The authors argue that based on the (extensive) literature background they conducted from intra-organizational literature, there are five capabilities a firm needs to perform. The results reveal that two of them (i.e. provide contextual and background knowledge, and (directive) support application) yield positive effects in an operational setting within the firm, but negative in an innovative setting in a R&D alliance. In R&D alliance setting: sent knowledge without providing context and background information, and no (directive) application support.
Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) • (Social) network theory • Relational-based view
Knowledge sharing occurs “through inter-organizational routines that are purposefully designed to facilitate knowledge transfers across organizational boundaries” (p. 348).
Case study Semi- structured interviews and surveys and archival data N = 51, US, Japanese sample • Context • Capability .
The authors study the Toyota supply-chain network on how it is designed to facilitate the sharing of tacit knowledge about know-how. A highly interconnected network with strong ties can facilitate tacit knowledge transfer by producing trust. Redundant ties make it easier for members to locate potentially valuable knowledge. They identified the institutionalized knowledge-sharing routines.
Easterby-Smith, Lyles and Tsang (2008)
• Resource-based view of the firm • Organizational
learning theory
Intra-knowledge transfer capability – needed to making information available to the recipient in an efficient manner.
Conceptual n/a • Context
• Capability
AC and Intra-organizational transfer capability are interrelated, since an organization with high AC, should also be equipped for knowledge dissemination within its own boundary. They describe the inter-organizational dynamics, such as power relations (power asymmetry, bargaining power, dependency relation), trust (credibility) and risk (spillovers), structures (relation form) and mechanisms, and social ties (informal between individuals to alleviate cultural differences).
Whitehead, Zacharia and Prater (2016)
• Resource-based view of the firm
Distributive capability – “the ability of a knowledge source to transfer commercially relevant knowledge to known recipient in order to effectuate positive performance outcomes” (p. 1309). It includes “the intellectual capital of the firm and its ability to leverage that intellectual capital” (p. 1315) and “the ability of the firm to acquire, assess and apply partner knowledge to the selection, personalization and transmission of knowledge to the recipient” (p. 1315).
Quantitative surveys
N = 310, US sample
• Capability The authors introduced the ‘distributive capability’ as an accumulation of abilities associated with a sender in the knowledge transfer process to a recipient. They suggested two capabilities, namely, the capability of the sender to disseminate knowledge, i.e. distributive knowledge transmission (DKT), and the sender’s capability to assess the supply chain partner, i.e. distributive partner knowledge (DPK). They found in their study that both DKT and DPK have a direct influence on collaborative engagement, and an indirect influence on operational outcomes in a collaboration. Meinlschmidt, Foerstl and Kirchoff (2016) • Organizational learning theory
Desorptive capacity –“refers to a firm’s outbound knowledge transfer and external knowledge exploitation (….) is defined as the ability to identify transfer opportunities based on a firm’s outward transfer strategy and to facilitate its application at the recipient” (draws on Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2010) (p. 202). Multiple-Case Study semi-structured interviews, longitudinal N = 4, multiple industries, German sample • Capability
23
Synthesis
In this section, a more thoroughly theoretical analysis is given by presenting an overview of the conceptual developments. While the earlier considerations make the consolidation of research a bit more challenging, an overarching assessment could be an opportunity to clarify the fragmented field and giving new detailed insights regarding the interconnectedness between different dimensions, characteristics, antecedents and components.
DC can be studied as a multi-dimensional construct located within the micro-level as well as the organizational level. This section is structured per level of analysis according to the emergent themes within the literature sample. It starts with elaborating on the insights derived from research at the individual level, drawing on the ability-motivation-opportunity framework (Chang et al., 2012; Minbaeva, 2013). Followed by the research insights derived from the literature studying the organizational level.
Individual Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge transfer processes are embedded within the organizational, social (interactions), and relational context (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Huang et al., 2007). Individual members of organization are an important source of creating the organizational knowledge base (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Mu et al., 2010; Szulanski, 1996). They are accountable for any applying knowledge that becomes utilized in routines. Individuals possess knowledge that is attitudinal (e.g. empathy, cultural sensitivity), cognitive, (e.g. cognitive complexity), behavioral (e.g. management skills), relational (e.g. relational patterns, social networks), and have certain abilities, motivations and opportunities to act on it, which significantly impact knowledge transfer on an organizational level (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Michailova & Husted, 2003; Minbaeva, 2013; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). Therefore, individuals are playing important roles in the process of knowledge dissemination. This is why the concept of DC has been introduced and extended on the individual level (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Mu et al., 2010).
Since research yielded enough insights to employ the AMO framework arisen from the sample (Chang et al., 2012; Minbaeva, 2013), the elaboration on the individual level research is structured accordingly.
Ability
24
to transform mindsets of recipients by overcoming surface-level (i.e., language barriers) and deep-level (i.e., values and learning styles) barriers, by using social skills (i.e., communication and conflict resolution, managing and functioning in new cultural settings). Knowledge senders cannot transfer their knowledge to others, if they lack the abilities needed to accomplish the knowledge transfer (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004). Scholars have identified nine abilities comprising the ability to disseminate and antecedents which enhances them.
First, a sender needs to be able to get understanding of the knowledge needed to be (potentially) transferred (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Being a high-performer in combination with the displaying of trustworthy behavior, contributes to the credibility and trustworthiness (Joshi et al. 2007; Mu et al., 2010). Also, through understanding the knowledge, the sender can select the right knowledge for the task in different contexts, because it knows the knowledge’s value in other contexts (Nakauchi et al., 2017; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). When a knowledge sender understands why a certain action results in a specific outcome, routines and tacit-knowledge can be reproduced more accurately (Joshi et al., 2007).
However, being able to understand and thereby attaining expertise, doesn’t always enhances the ability to disseminate. More expertise, can make it difficult to translate the knowledge understandable to the less capable (Joshi et al., 2007). Hence, senders need to be able to translate and articulate (encode) the knowledge understandable in the right ‘language’ (Chang et al., 2012; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004 ; Xu & Ma, 2008). Besides coding in the right language, language fluency enhances the quality of interactions and understanding of the recipient (Chang & Smale, 2013; Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). This ability is closely related to the ability to
decontextualize, to abstract knowledge enough so it can be transferred to a different context (Minbaeva
& Michailova, 2004; Nakauchi et al., 2017).
25
know if a sender it is the right recipient, it needs to be able to make assessments of (potential) recipients’ AC (Xu & Ma, 2008).
Furthermore, the sender needs to be able to control and coordinate the knowledge transfer to the right receiver and through the right channel (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014). Also, a sender needs to be able to teach or ‘impart’ the knowledge, to ensure the understanding and ability of the recipient to apply the new knowledge in a way it motivates the recipient to be receptive (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Xu & Ma, 2008; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). By supporting the application, the transfer will cost less time and the recipient will benefit from experiences of the sender, which makes the transfer more effective (Xu & Ma, 2008).
Lastly, the ability to incorporate feedback is identified to realign the codification of the knowledge to the right level, so the recipient can better understand it (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Xu & Ma, 2008).
Gonzalez and Chakraborty (2014) have described a specific group of antecedents namely, (inter-)cultural competencies. (Inter-)cultural competencies addressed were cultural intelligence - knowledgeability to cultural differences; cultural agility - to adapt and collaborate; and intercultural experience – to estimate the outcome, have realistic expectations. They are especially important when transferring knowledge internationally, but also between different (groups) individuals with their own attitudes, norms and values (Minbaeva, 2013; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). It’s referring to the ability to social adjust in various contexts, a critical competence to utilize the task-related abilities. The shared contextual understanding between sender and receiver, enhances the ability of the individual to transfer knowledge, which enhances knowledge transfer success. This success reinforces the shared understanding of the context wherein knowledge is being used (Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013).
26 Motivation
For an organization to manage its knowledge assets and activities effectively, it needs to have employees who are motivated to seek for opportunities to exploit the knowledge base, and who are willing to share and apply new knowledge to their own work (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004). This ‘motivation’ variable is adopted in DC conceptualization by Minbaeva & Michailova (2004) from the socio- and psychological literature. Motivation refers to the willingness to perform a specific task (Chang et al., 2012). In behaviorism scholars tend to look to the ‘observable’ when measuring motivation. Motivation involves the intensity (effort made), the choices of direction (direction of effort), and the persistence (Chang et al., 2012). The motivation consists of a combination of socio- and psychological processes that result in the willingness and intention to behave in a certain way, while the actual effort or persistence are the realized behavior as an outcome of the motivation (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Chang et al., 2012). Regarding the DC, motivation refers to the willingness and intention to devote time and energy (Nakauchi et al., 2017), and the persistence showed to overcome conflicts and difficulties when transferring knowledge.
The intentions to share knowledge are determined by attitudes and the perception of social norms towards sharing behavior. Cabrera and Cabrera (2005) identified nine psycho- and sociological factor influencing these attitudes: trust (Chang & Smale, 2013; Joshi et al., 2007; Michailova & Husted, 2003; Nakauchi et al., 2017; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013), feeling of obligation (Minbaeva, 2013; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004), social norms to open exchanges (Michailova & Husted, 2003; Minbaeva, 2013; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013), strong sense of group identity and vision (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Nakauchi et al., 2017), perception of clear benefit (reward) (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Huang et al., 2007; Michailova & Husted, 2003; Xu & Ma, 2008; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013), reciprocity (Joshi et al., 2007; Michailova & Husted, 2003; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Xu & Ma, 2008; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013), perceived efficacy (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013), beliefs regarding individual competencies and skills (Chang & Smale, 2013; Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Huang et al., 2007; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013), and personality traits (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004).
27
formal power, because of fear of losing position of privilege and superiority. Therefore, Michailova and Husted (2003) are suggesting that an individual may be perfectly able to share knowledge, but don’t share because of unwillingness to transfer knowledge.
Effort. The antecedents for the amount of effort an individual wants to put in the knowledge dissemination are studied by several scholars (e.g. Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). Reagans and McEvily (2003) found that the social cohesion around a relationship impact the willingness of individuals to invest energy, effort and time in transferring the knowledge. By decreasing the competitive and motivation impediments, social cohesion can ease knowledge transfer (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Cooperative norms and reputation are two general explanations for why strong ties with third-party connections significantly impact and function as an incentive to cooperate (Minbaeva, 2013; Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). At the one hand, individuals are receptive for reputation advantages and damages, and don’t want the recipient spreading the perceived ‘uncooperative behavior’ and cause a limitation of their ability to connect with the network in the future (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Cohesion can enable third parties to coordinate their actions in response to the behavior of a network member (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). On the other hand, strong social cohesion promotes the formation of cooperative (social) norms and a feeling of shared group identity (Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014; Nakauchi et al., 2017; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). Social (sharing) norms influence members to send, because they may expect others to do the same (Joshi et al., 2007; Michailova & Husted, 2003; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Xu & Ma, 2008; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). Furthermore, the social norms can help overcome potential conflicts (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005).
Zimmerman and Ravishankar (2013) stressed, the self-efficacy believe as important determinant for the willingness to transfer. Change and Smale (2013) found that if the sender perceived a lack of expertise, it influenced the ability to teach and convince, this belief of lack of efficacy let to unwillingness. Employees aren’t likely to put an effort in transferring their knowledge, if they don’t believe they have the ability to accomplish this transfer (Chang & Smale, 2013; Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014). Zimmerman and Ravishankar (2013) found that the believe of their ability to succeed, was highly related to the perceptions of the recipient’s AC. If the sender believed that the recipient wouldn’t (or hardly) be capable of understanding the knowledge, then the sender believed it wouldn’t have the capability to overcome this lack of AC at the recipient’s side. If this believe of self-efficacy was also referring to the ability to communicate and overcome intercultural communication boundaries (Chang & Smale, 2013; Gonzalez & Chakraborty, 2014). If basic communication is a problem already, then this affects the willingness of the source to send tremendously (Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013) be willing to overcome this language barrier
28
affected by performance, workload, and tasks and jobs (Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). Zimmerman and Ravishankar (2013) distinguish personal outcomes expectancy (e.g. rewards, reciprocity) and expectations regarding relational outcomes (e.g. strengthening social ties, friendship). They found two self-reinforcing cycles within the knowledge transfer process which enhances the motivation to transfer knowledge. Firstly, when the self-efficacy believes enhances, the willingness to transfer increased, more effort was made which increased the knowledge transfer success and thereby the believe of the employee in its ability to transfer knowledge successfully. The second one they found was the cycle of the relational dimension (i.e., trust and shared team identity) that affected the willingness to transfer, enhanced the effort made, which enhances the trust and shared team identity.
Opportunity
Opportunity consists of uncontrollable factors surrounding the employee and enable or hamper in a specific task performance (Chang et al., 2012). Opportunity seeking refers to the search and utilization of opportunities and resources available in a specific place that enable task performance like knowledge dissemination (Chang et al., 2012). Opportunity is needed for the individual to be able to utilize its ability to transfer knowledge (Minbaeva, 2013; Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013).
Relations. Zimmerman and Ravishankar (2013) suggest that the dimensions of social capital
theory can be valuable for conceptualizing the antecedents for knowledge transfer. They find in their case study that the structural dimension (i.e. tie strength and network stability) in combination with the relational dimension (i.e. trust and shared team identity) and the cognitive dimension (i.e. shared contextual understanding) impact the ability (opportunity) to transfer knowledge. The relational
dimension is playing a key role in the amount of opportunities that make their appearance. Through the structural dimension (as elaborated below), the relationship dimension has its effect on the frequency
and depth of communication (Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). Without contact, it’s impossible to transfer knowledge deliberately. Weak ties and network instability decreases trust and a feelings of shared identity, which decreases the intensity and frequency of interaction (Zimmerman & Ravishankar, 2013). The opportunity to transfer resides often in social relationships (Chang et al., 2012; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Opportunity seeking behavior can be enhanced by sufficient communication channels, opportunities for dialogue, building informal ties, and learning possibilities (Chang et al., 2012). Not just interactions, but quality of interactions are needed to seek opportunities (Chang & Smale, 2013). Individuals need to overcome four types of distances among people: geographical, cultural, technology and social (status and power) (Huang et al., 2007). Joshi et al (2007) are emphasizing on the extent of communication as a manner to accomplish this. They found that communication was important for as well the transmission, as the absorption within a team. Utilizing relationships play determinant role in the speed and magnitude knowledge is diffused (Joshi et al., 2007).
Network structure. Network research states that the position of the individual in the network,
