perspective’ ‘ A study of influences to successful knowledge transfer from a headquarters Intra-firm knowledge transfer in the MNC: Master thesis MSc. International Business & Management

by E.L. Douma

S2761955 e.l.douma@student.rug.nl

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

January, 2017 [Word count 14.378] Supervisor: Dr. Lindahl Co-assessor: Dr. De Jong

Master thesis

MSc. International Business & Management

Intra-firm knowledge transfer in the MNC:

ABSTRACT

This research studies the influences of successful knowledge transfer between multinational headquarters (HQs) and subsidiaries. Although the phenomenon knowledge transfer is being researched frequently, the research on the role of HQs within the intra-firm knowledge transfer has been scarce. This study aims to fill this gap by focusing on the unique role and position of HQs in multinational corporations (MNC’s). Since the HQ is recognised as a unique unit facing several organisational benefits and challenges that set it apart from other units. This suggests that HQs may face different influences in the process of knowledge transfer. Most studies have only focused on possible influences on the process of knowledge transfer in general, this study looks explicitly at the perspective of HQ managers. Hence, the purpose of this study is to identify influences on the process of knowledge transfer recognised by HQ managers through a multiple-case study. Ten HQ managers were interviewed about their experience with knowledge transfer within MNC’s. The main findings are that eight influencing factors have been identified, namely: trust, shared vision, tie strength, feedback, transparency, guidance, HQ management style, and bonus culture. However, this study focuses on the five new identified influences feedback, transparency, guidance, bonus culture, and HQ management style. These factors have a different impact on the success of knowledge transfer, whether positive or negative. However, the chosen management style plays a crucial role in the process of knowledge transfer. Which has also impact on the other influences. The list of influences on the process of knowledge transfer which is provided in this study can serve as a stepping stone for further research in this important and interesting area.

KEYWORDS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Before you lies the research I have conducted to finalise my International Business and Management study at the University of Groningen. I wouldn’t have been able to deliver this thesis with the level of quality it has now without the help and guidance of several people. Especially in times of setback or struggle, I was lucky enough to be surrounded by people willing to hear all my thoughts and frustrations and to help me get back on track again. I am heavily indebted to all the people who have always been there for me and who have really helped me pull this through. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to thank them and express my gratitude.

First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Lindahl from the Uppsala University, who has guided me throughout the whole process and gave me advice in moments of uncertainty. Dr. Lindahl motivated me during our feedback sessions and forced me to rethink about the assumptions I made during the process. Secondly, I would like to thank all the managers who took the time to participate in the research despite their demanding schedules. I am sincerely grateful to you for enlightening me with the interesting experiences you have gathered over the years in the field of international business.

Furthermore, I am very thankful to my closest friends for supporting me throughout the process, but also for providing me with the necessary distraction throughout.Special thanks to my study mate Vasilis Papagiannis for not only supporting me along the project but also for his spirit. Further, special thanks for my friend Melanie Kant who helped me get in contact with several managers in this research.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents who have provided me with all the possibilities to accomplish my studies and who always help me to the fullest. They are always my biggest fan and source of support.

Groningen, January 2017 Elsemiek Douma

TABLE OF CONTENT

2.2.1 Inter- and Intra-firm knowledge transfer………...………...12

2.3 The importance of knowledge transfer……….……..……13

2.3.1 The attitude towards knowledge transfer………...…..14

2.4 The process of knowledge transfer……….……14

2.4.1 The role of the headquarter……….16

2.5 Influences ... 17

2.5.1 Possible influences on knowledge transfer ... 17

3. METHODOLOGY ... 19 3.1 Research design……….19 3.2 Research strategy………...19 3.2.1 Multiple-case study ... 20 3.3 Research sample………...….20 3.4 Data collection………...21 3.5 Data analysis………..22

3.6 Validity and reliability………...23

4. FINDINGS ……….24

4.1 Identifying the factors……….………...24

4.2 Frequency analysis………..………..24

5. ANALYSIS ………35 5.1 Influencing factors………...35 5.1.1 Bonus culture………..…35 5.1.2 HQ Management style………....36 5.1.3 Guidance………....37 5.1.4 Transparency………..…38 5.1.5 Feedback ………39 5.2 Conceptual model ……….40 6. DISCUSSION………....41 7. CONCLUSION ……….43

7.1 Scientific relevance and managerial implication ………...44

8. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH………...45

REFERENCES………..46

APPENDIX ………55

APPENDIX Ⅰ : Interview questions ………...55

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Frequency analysis of possible negative influences………..25

Table 2: Frequency analysis of possible positive influences ………..26

Table 3: Cross-case analysis………....27

Table 4: Influence factor bonus culture – Illustrative quotations………....29

Table 5: Influence factor management style – Illustrative quotations………….…………....30

Table 6: Influence factor tie strength – Illustrative quotations………....31

Table 7: Influence factor trust – Illustrative quotations………...31

Table 8: Influence factor shared vision – Illustrative quotations………...32

Table 9: Influence factor feedback – Illustrative quotations………...33

Table 10: Influence factor transparency – Illustrative quotations………....33

Table 11: Influence factor Guidance – Illustrative quotations………...…..34

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF OBSERVATIONS

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of ‘knowledge transfer’ has been discussed multiple times in the international business (IB) literature. Looking at knowledge transfer, it is often seen as the movement of knowledge within a network. It is the know-how and information shared between different units of an organisation (Gupta, & Govindarajan, 2000; Tsai, 2001). In other words, transfer of knowledge is the process of giving other access to knowledge and exchanging it. This process of knowledge transfer is described by Szulanski (1996, p.28) as the “dyadic exchange of organisational knowledge between a source and a recipient unit in which the identity of the recipient matters”. Over the last several years, interest is also shown in the importance of knowledge transfer in organisations and particularly in multinational corporations (MNC’s) (Albino, Garavelli, & Schiuma, 1998; Gupta, & Govindarajan, 2000), since the creation and application of knowledge is the basis of sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 1996). For MNC’s, such as McDonald’s and Starbucks, the ability to engage in intra-firm knowledge facilitates growth opportunities (Uygur, 2013; Winter, Szulanski, Ringov, & Jensen, 2012).

Even though many studies have argued that the ability to transfer knowledge is a primary source for a corporation’s competitive advantage and growth (Barlett & Ghoshal, 1990; Kogut & Zander, 1992), research shows that knowledge integration within MNC’s is far from perfect. This is primarily due to knowledge transfer demand of a collaborative effort. It is not only depending on the recipients absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) but also to a greater extent, the knowledge sender’s attitudes and behaviour (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004). The transfer of knowledge within MNC’s poses therefore several challenges to business (Uygur, 2013). To overcome these challenges, several factors have been recognised that have an influence on the process of knowledge transfer (Cummings & Teng, 2003; Dhanaraj, Lyles, Steensma, & Tihanyi, 2004; Duan, Nie, & Coakes, 2010).

it is also unclear which challenges HQs specific face with transferring knowledge and how this influences the process. Thus, it is unknown what influences if knowledge transfer succeeds or fails from an HQ perspective due to the lack of previous study.

Therefore, several authors suggested further research on the role of HQs within the intra-firm knowledge transfer process (Ciabuschi, Martín, & Ståhl, 2010; Egelhoff, 2010; Yamin & Holm, 2011). To have a better understanding of the role of the sender in the headquarter-subunit transfer, the perspective of HQs managers will be studied. Given that it has been claimed that such transfers are different compared to other knowledge transfers (Ciabuschi et al., 2010; Mudambi, 2002). What are according to the manager’s important influences that result in a successful knowledge transfer? Are there unknown challenges that are unique to the HQ within the process of knowledge transfer? Given these uncharted questions, this paper aims to fill the literature gap of the role of HQs within the knowledge transfer process by looking at the point of view of HQ managers. Furthermore, this study aims to identify the unique influences that HQs experience as a sender in the process of knowledge transfer. The gap of which influences are recognised by HQ managers that influence the knowledge transfer process will therefore be filled. The aim is to look beyond knowledge transfer from a general level by answering the following research question:

‘Why do knowledge transfers from MNC HQ to subsidiaries succeed or fail from the perspective of HQ managers?’

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In the following section, the theoretical grounding of the paper is set to gain a better understanding of the essence of knowledge transfer which is the focus of this paper. This is done by first explaining the theoretical concept of knowledge and knowledge transfer followed by the important role of knowledge transfer for MNC’s. Moreover, the role and relationship of the HQ with the subsidiaries are studied within the process of knowledge transfer. Lastly, some influences recognised within the literature for knowledge transfer are briefly highlighted.

2.1 Knowledge

Knowledge transfer is widely emphasised as a strategic issue for firm competition (Albino et al., 1998). Within the literature, the terms ‘knowledge sharing’ or ‘organisational learning’ are often used synonymously ‘knowledge transfer’. To examine knowledge transfer, it is necessary to first discuss what is implied by this specific concept, since knowledge transfer has been conceptualised by many authors in various ways. To get a better understanding of knowledge transfer, a closer look will be given first to knowledge itself. Similar to Roberts (2000), I argue that an extensive philosophical discussion of the nature of knowledge is beyond the scope of this paper. However, since there are different forms of knowledge, a definition for knowledge will be given. Roberts (2000) separates knowledge from information and data. Data is considered as “a series of observations, measurements, or facts”. (Roberts, 2000, p.430) Where information is seen as “data that have been arranged into a meaningful pattern”, whereas knowledge is “the application and productive use of information. Since it involves an awareness or understanding gained through experience, familiarity, or learning” (Roberts, 2000, p.430).

Knowledge will be defined within this paper as a mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insights that provide a framework for incorporating and evaluating new experiences and information (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p.5). Therefore, within this study, the focus will be on the transfer of knowledge in the form of operational information. Thus, largely procedural types of knowledge such as product designs and distribution know-how. Yet it is also the knowledge that is locked within processes, product, cultures, routines, or structures (Horvath, 2000).

2.2 Knowledge transfer

Knowledge transfer occurs when knowledge is distributed from the individual to others. Knowledge can be transferred through processes of socialisation, education, and learning (Roberts, 2000). Looking at knowledge transfer within this study the definition of Szulanski (1996, p.28) will be used, namely:

‘a process of dyadic exchanges of knowledge between the sender and the receiver’.

The process of transferring knowledge can be recognised as a learning process from the experience of others (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003). In other words, transferring knowledge can be broken down to the replication of the sender’s knowledge to the recipient with the aim to improve the performance of the firm (Martinkenaitė-Pujanauskienė, 2015; Szulanski, 1996). Thus, knowledge can be embedded for example in managerial processes and principles, procedures, and coordination routines (Kostova, 1999; Tanriverdi & Venkatraman, 2005). From a macro perspective, the explicit goal of transferring knowledge is to have the parent firm’s knowledge adopted and used in the subsidiary and newly acquired business units (Martinkenaitė-Pujanauskienė, 2015).

2.2.1 Inter- and intra-firm knowledge transfer

addition, when the knowledge is shared within a hierarchy, it is recognised as intra-firm knowledge transfer. Thus, when knowledge transfer takes place within the borders of a firm. Intra-firm knowledge transfer is also considered between joint ventures, acquisitions, and MNC’s.

Research has shown that the firm is an attractive alternative for the market in terms of resource exchange because the existence of shared values and organising principles in an intra-firm context facilitate effective knowledge sharing (Li, 2005). Looking at MNC’s, Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) mention that the primary reason MNC’s exist is because of their ability to transfer and exploit knowledge effectively and efficiently within the firm than through external market mechanisms. According to Minbaeva (2007), intra-firm knowledge transfer within MNC’s is only possible when there are close relationships established between the senders and receivers. However, despite the idea that MNC’s exist only because of their superior ability to engage in internal knowledge transfer, this does not imply that these knowledge transfers are taking place effectively and efficiently on a routine basis (Gupta, & Govindarajan, 2000). To have a better understanding of knowledge transfer within MNC’s, this research will be focused on the intra-firm knowledge transfer. More specific, the role of the sender in headquarters-subunit transfers in MNC’s will be studied.

2.3 The importance of knowledge transfer

As is argued within the IB literature, knowledge transfer and knowledge itself are one of the most important resources for firms (Zheleva & Viklund, 2014). To exemplify, O’Dell, Grayson, and Eissaides (1998) also used the statement “if we only knew what we know” for their study. The statement refers to the awareness of the advantages of sharing knowledge within MNC’s network. In addition, the statement shows the underlining importance of the collaboration, communication and knowledge transfer between HQs and subsidiaries (O'Dell et al., 1998). Moreover, it is a sustainable competitive advantage since intra-firm knowledge is often difficult to duplicate for other companies (Van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008).

MNC’s. It is, therefore, important for MNC’s to successful transfer their knowledge between the units (Zheleva & Viklund, 2014). Szulanski (1996) also stated that transferring knowledge contributes to the development of capabilities within the organisations which are difficult to copy. Intra-firm knowledge transfer enables MNC’s to generate new ideas for new product development for example, as it stimulates the combination of existing and newly acquired knowledge (Tsai, 2001; Van Wijk et al., 2008).

According to Szulanski (2000), the opportunity to transfer knowledge only occurs when there is a knowledge gap and there is information available in another part of the organisation, which can fill the gap. Nevertheless, stating that knowledge only occurs when there is a gap to fill is not true. Since corporations also engage in knowledge transfer within the corporation borders to develop parts of the organisation that can function better if new processes are applied (Zheleva & Viklund, 2014).

2.3.1 The attitude towards knowledge transfer

2.4 The process of knowledge transfer

As discussed, knowledge is often tenacious and the transfer of knowledge has shown to be difficult and complex (Monteiro, Arvidsson, & Birkinshaw, 2008). Therefore, knowledge transfer demands a collaborative effort. It is not only depending on the recipients absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) but, to a greater extent, on the knowledge sender’s attitude and behaviour, known as disseminative capacity (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004). Figure 1 (p.15) shows a schematic diagram of knowledge transfer between the sender and receiver (Minbaeva, 2007).

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of knowledge transfer (Source: Minbaeva, 2007)

Since knowledge transfer occurs in multiple directions and dimensions, it has been discussed in different ways in the business literature. Within knowledge transfer, there are four domains: (1) knowledge outflows to subsidiaries, (2) knowledge outflows to the HQ, (3) knowledge inflows from subsidiaries, and (4) knowledge inflows from the HQ (Gupta, & Govindarajan, 2000). Thus, knowledge transfer can occur from HQ to subsidiary, subsidiary to HQ, and subsidiary to subsidiary.

specific perspective of HQs on this process. To get a better understanding of this process the unique role of the HQ will be studied.

2.4.1 The role of the headquarter

To have a successful knowledge transfer, it is important for the sender to communicate their knowledge in such a way that the receiver can understand it (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004), which is known as the disseminative capacity of the sender. According to Minbaeva and Michailova (2004), their needs to be the ability and willingness of organisational actors to share their knowledge.

Several authors highlighted within their study that the HQ is a unique corporate unit compared to others (Chandler, 1990; Collis et al., 2007; Egelhoff, 2010). For example, the HQ often has the authority, a unique aspect from other corporate units (Chandler, 1990; Collis et al., 2007). To have the ultimate say over the MNC gives a considerable amount of power. This can make the HQ more influential than other units thus burdening the HQ with a critical role in coordinating, promoting, and maintaining knowledge transfer (Ciabuschi et al., 2010; Egelhoff, 2010; Mudambi, 2002).

For the HQ, there are three areas to promote knowledge transfer. Namely, through the distribution of decision-making rights, resource allocation and direct intervention (Ciabuschi et al., 2010). Ciabuschi et al. (2010) argue that HQs can improve knowledge transfer activities by providing extra resources to subsidiaries. The changing competitive environment and increased uncertainty created the need for HQs to become more integrated with activities and developments in their organisations. To ensure effective knowledge transfer, HQs should support their subsidiaries directly by providing expertise and commitment (Ciabuschi et al., 2010). However, there have been arguments within the literature that when the HQs intervenes and formalises knowledge transfer, other parties become intrinsically unmotivated to create or absorb the new knowledge (Minbaeva, 2007; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Thus, to a degree, this will result in less effective knowledge transfer.

within the HQs-subsidiaries transfer. The different influences that HQs recognises within the process of knowledge transfer need to be better understood and explored. More specifically, within the scarce existing research on the role of the sender in headquarters-subunit transfers in MNC’s, the perspective of HQs managers has not been studied before. Which influences identify managers in the process of knowledge transfer?

2.5 Influences

As mentioned earlier, knowledge transfer is an opportunity to improve the performance of MNC’s (Barlett & Ghoshal, 1990; Gupta, & Govindarajan, 2000; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Szulanski, 1996). Within the literature, there are several influences described that may have an impact on the knowledge transfer between HQs and subsidiaries.

2.5.1 Possible influences on knowledge transfer

Previous research highlighted among others that tie strength, trust and shared vision have an influence on knowledge transfer (Gupta, & Govindarajan, 2000; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Li, 2005). Within the efficiency of knowledge transfer, tie strength has been found to be fundamental. The strength of an interpersonal tie is described as “a combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy and reciprocal services which characterise the tie” by Granovetter (1973, p 1361). Thus, tie strength imitates the closeness of the relationship between the parties that exchange the knowledge (Zheleva & Viklund, 2014). When corporations have a high frequency of communication, and interaction it strengthens the tie between them. It is stated by several researchers that a strong tie strength translate to a higher efficient knowledge transfer, while a difficult relationship usually means a less efficient knowledge transfer (Szulanski, 2000). Furthermore, within the process of knowledge transfer, trust also influences the relationship between the units (Szulanski, Cappetta, & Jensen, 2004), and therefore the process.

collaboration (Ambos et al., 2006). Trust exist when one party has confidence in a substitute’s reliability and integrity (Li, 2005). Moreover, when the sender puts the effort in making sure the receiver has understood the knowledge well, the more successful the transfer will be (Lane, Salk, & Lyles, 2001). However, trust also has some drawbacks. A high level of trust can cause blindness which also influences the knowledge exchange (Lane et al., 2001; Van Wijk et al., 2008) since it can hinder the exchange of knowledge.

Looking at another factor which also has an influence on the success of knowledge transfer is shared vision, often combined with shared systems (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005). With the concept of shared vision, literature refers to shared values, mutual goals, and understanding in a cooperative relationship (Li, 2005). This is important to occur within the units to exchange since recognition and combination of strategic resources can only be realised if the corporations have systems and cultures that are comparable (Li, 2005). Moreover, according to Van Wijk et al. (2008) shared systems support mutual understanding and provide a crucial bonding mechanism. This helps the different units to integrate knowledge, therefore shared systems certainly have an effect on the transfer of knowledge (Van Wijk et al., 2008). Thus, shared vision and system support the development of a strong social bond between the HQ and subsidiary (Dhanaraj et al., 2004).

3. METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the methodology of this research is presented. This section briefly describes the research design and methods used. This is done by using the research onion model from Saunders (2011). This section will explain the research design, research strategy, research sample, data collection and analysis methods. In addition, the last section is dedicated to the validity and reliability of the research. The purpose of this chapter is to explain why a

multiple-case study is chosen.

3.1 Research design

With regards to this research, there are two possible approaches to made: (1) the deductive approach and (2) the inductive approach. For this study, the inductive approach is used. The inductive research approach is suitable for exploratory research for theory development in areas that are under-researched (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), which is the case within this study. Therefore, several interviews with HQ managers took place. The obtained data is examined to detect important factors that enable a successful knowledge transfer from HQ manager’s perspective.

3.2 Research strategy

3.2.1Multiple-case study

For this study, a multiple case-study is used to answer the research question (Feilzer, 2010). Case studies are often used to generate new theories (Eisenhardt, 1989) and provide deeper insight into the specific nature of the phenomenon. Furthermore, a multiple-case study is argued to provide a more robust basis for theory building (Yin, 2009). Therefore, a multiple-case study is used to generate new theory, as little is known empirically about the perspectives of HQ managers. Moreover, multiple-case studies result in more generalizable findings than single-case studies. Drawing on qualitative data contributes to the understanding of the complex phenomena that are less accessible through quantitative data (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Thus, the qualitative approach of multiple-case studies contributes to understanding challenges that managers face while transferring knowledge from the HQ to the subsidiary. Further, it contributes to finding out which influences are resulting in a successful knowledge transfer in the eyes of the HQ. Thus, this approach allows us to consider the phenomenon from the HQ managers’ perspective as the sending unit (Hennink et al., 2010).

3.3 Research sample

This study contributes to the knowledge transfer literature by focusing on the HQ managers of MNC’s. Qualitative research interviews will serve as the primary data collection tool in the case study at hand. To examine the perspective of HQ managers towards the influences on knowledge transfer, ten managers from MNC’s were interviewed. Where the transfer cases the managers have experience with international intra-frim knowledge transfers. For the multiple-case study, a sample size guideline between eight and twelve was proposed after taking into consideration the limitations of time, financial resources, and the difficulty of gaining entry to participants for this study (Baker, Edwards, & Doidge, 2012). In addition, Ritchie et al. (2013) stress that within qualitative research the sample size stays relatively small since within qualitative research, it is typical to study only a few individuals or cases (Creswell, 2002). Moreover, the general difficulty of gaining access to HQ managers also had influences on the small sample size.

study, several HQ managers are interviewed from different MNC’s. Although the case study consists of a sample of different MNC’s within different industries, they all have subsidiaries abroad. Therefore, the cases can be compared to each other. In addition, MNC’s were selected based on size (> 1.000 employees) and location (the Netherlands). Moreover, the managers within the HQs are working or have worked on international projects within the MNC where knowledge has been transferred, thus the transfer cases from the HQ managers are international knowledge transfers. The representatives from the HQs were all positioned in the top management, to ensure interviewing the executives most closely involved with the transfer with the aim of understanding how HQs successful transfer knowledge.

3.4 Data collection

relevant follow-up questions. Although the interviewer is free to ask appropriate follow-up questions to build a deeper understanding of the phenomenon, to overcome interview bias, the interviewer will steer the interview as little as possible (Yin, 2009). The main challenge of interviews is to limit bias (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). A key approach used in this research to limit bias is conducting the interviews with highly knowledgeable participants who experience the phenomena first-hand.

3.5 Data analysis

3.6 Validity and reliability

Case studies are criticised for several reasons, such as the likelihood of the researcher influencing what is observed and reported, and using ill-defined methods of data collection (Yin, 2004; 2009). To guarantee the quality of the results, four elements need to be considered, namely construct validity, transferability, reliability, and objectivity (Morrow, 2005; Yin, 2004). Looking at construct validity, it ensures that the used measure corresponds to the concept of research (Yin, 2004). Morrow (2005) stresses within a qualitative research this also corresponds with credibility. Credibility stands for the idea of internal consistency and constructs validity. This research concept can be tested according to Yin (2004) via different ways such as using multiple data sources. Within this study, different data sources were used, such as multiple interviews, websites, and related documents to increase the validity. Further, to secure the evidence the researcher follows the analysis from original data to data coding (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010). For this reason, all interviews were recorded and transcribed within 48 hours after the interview, to guarantee that no data was lost. Thus, the level of consistency is increased by a in depth description of source data and by a detailed, rich description of the personal experience of the participants (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010). The rich description of the personal experience of the participants is presented in the additional appendix document.

Looking at the second element, transferability, the degree of generalisability is highlighted (Morrow, 2005). Multiple-case studies are used within this study to increase the generalisability of the findings since the results are more accurate than single-case studies. Further, the third element focusses on the reliability of findings. It is known that interviews often bring some difficulties, such as asking the right questions at the right time, language barrier and staying objective as a researcher (Thomas, 2004; Yin, 2004). However, the reliability of this study is increased through careful tracking of the research design and to lead the interview as little as possible. Lastly, the interviewer’s characteristics and attitude can influence the respondents’ answers and behaviour, also known as interviewer bias. Therefore, the interviewer strives to act professionally from the start of contact with the respondents to reduce bias and increase the

level of objectivity. This has been achieved by approaching potential participants professionally

4. FINDINGS

This chapter presents the key findings that emerged from the interviews. The raw data that is collected from the ten interviews is too broad to directly identify the influencing factors. Therefore, a two-stage method (Cooper et al., 2003) is applied to narrow down the size of data. Within the first two-stage, the influencing factors are identified by extensively analysing the interviews. In the second stage, the influencing factors between the interviews are analysed and finally summarised by a cross-case analysis.

4.1 Identifying the factors

To analyse the qualitative data concisely, all the interviews are registered into the interview transcripts. From the interview transcripts, an initial line-by-line coding framework is formed that is used to codify raw textual data. All possible influences mentioned by the respondents that could influence the knowledge transfer process are fine-tuned and coded. The initial coding framework is shown in the additional appendix document together with an example of the process of coding the interview transcripts.

4.2 Frequency analysis

During the interviews, several factors are discovered influencing the process of knowledge transfer. Some influences were frequently repeated during the interview and mentioned by several participants. While other influences are solely applicable to some personal perspective of managers. To determine which influences are most frequently mentioned during the conducted interviews, a frequency analysis is applied. The frequency analysis is shown in table 1 (p. 25) and 2 (p.26). The most frequent mentioned influences are analysed. These factors are expected to be the most important influencing the process of knowledge transfer between HQs and subsidiaries. Influences that score higher than six frequencies are analysed. Looking at the frequency analysis of possible negative influences in table 1 (p. 25), the results show that influencing factor ‘attitude of the receiver’ has a full frequently score of ten. The influencing factor ‘culture’ score an eight out of ten. However, within the ‘culture’ factor different cultures are recognised where the influencing factor ‘bonus culture’ scores a six out of ten. Furthermore, the factor ‘attitude of the

sender’ score a seven out of ten. Within this influencing factor, a specific aspect was frequently mentioned,

Table 1: Frequency analysis of possible negative influences (source: author)

Looking at the frequent analysis of table 2 (p. 26), it shows that influencing factors ‘tie strength’ and ‘social

network’ score a full frequently score of ten. The factors ‘trust’ and ‘shared vision’ both score a nine out

of ten. Moreover, the factors ‘freedom’ and ‘transparency’ also score high, since it has both a score of eight. Next to that, the factors ‘feedback’ and ‘guidance’ score a seven out of ten. However, some of the influencing factors turn out to be quite similar or components of each other. Therefore, the influences ‘feedback’ and ‘freedom’ are merged into ‘feedback’. Further, the influences ‘tie strength’ and ‘social network’ are merged into ‘tie strength’.

Table 2: Frequency analysis of possible positive influences (source: author)

4.3 Cross-case analysis

The cross-case analysis is a method that makes the comparison of commonalities of cases easier (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The frequently mentioned influences by the HQ managers are used for this analysis. The results of this cross-case analysis can be found in table 3 (pp. 27-28). The table shows the most important findings from each manager compared with the eight most frequently scored influences: bonus culture, HQ management style, freedom, transparency, guidance,

trust, tie strength and shared vision. Appendix II shows the illustrative quotations of the identified

taken into account; Listen; Responsibility; Available; Carry the process; Clear; Accountability; Guidance (+) Training; Personal coaching; Work together; Cooperation Work together; Support; Supervisor; Escort; Support; Cooperation; Two-sided; Support; Training; Support; Training; Training; Support; Support; Training; Workshops; Trust (+) Trust; Foundation; Invest; Honest; Confidence; Trust; Building relationship; Network; Trust; Time; Benefits; Important role; Trust; Commitment; Believe; Trust; Foundation; Trustworthiness;

Commitment; Foundation; Commitment; Trust; Commitment; Tie strength (+) Personal relationship; One team; Solidarity; Short communication lines; (In)Formal; Activities; Type of relation; Strong relationship; Bonding; Strong ties; Short communication lines; Activities/Projects Type of relation; Short communication lines; Teamwork; One team; Personal network; Teambuilding; Short communication lines; Personal relationship; Follow each other for a day; Meetings; (In)Formal Type of relation; Teamwork; Commitment; (In)Formal; Solidarity; Meetings; Internal; Activities; Type of relation; International business groups; (In)Formal; Meetings; Projects; Activities; Strong relationship; Strong ties; Personal relationship; Solidarity; Bonding; Type of relation; Personal relationship; Activities; Informal; Meetings; Cooperation; Short communication lines; Activities; Bonding; Personal relationship; (In)Formal; Type of relationship; Personal relationship; Bonding; High level; (In)Formal; Cooperation; Shared vision (+) Shared goals; Looking the same direction; Shared goals; Planning; Intangible; Shared goals; Looking the same direction; Joint vision; Shared goals; Shared systems Directions; One vision;

Bonus culture

Looking at the cross-case analysis, six out of ten mentioned that the bonus culture has negative influences on the knowledge transfer process. Several HQ managers recognise the bonus culture nowadays more and more. The interviewees explain that this concept is introduced to stimulate managers/employees to work harder and achieving their targets. The influences of the culture could create tensions between the units. HQ managers see that some involved managers from subsidiaries are more focused and concerned about the short-term impacts than the long-term impacts. Since the managers need to invest time and energy into adopting the knowledge and spread it within the firms, it could influence their own targets negatively in the short term. Thus ultimately resulting in some resistance which has an effect on the process of knowledge transfer. Table 4 (p. 29) illustrates some quotations of HQ managers on the influence bonus culture.

Table 4: Influence factor bonus culture – Illustrative quotations (source: author)

HQ management style

Seven of the interviewed managers indicated that the applied management style by the HQs have an enormous influence on the process of knowledge transfer. Therefore, it also has an influence on the success of the knowledge transfer. However, this influencing factor identified by the HQ managers can influence the process of knowledge transfer both beneficially and detrimentally. The personal management style and preference of the HQ has an extensive influence on the process according to several interviewees. If the HQ adopts a management style where it wants to keep in control, this often negatively influences the relationship between the units. The HQ managers explained that with a controlling style the subsidiaries can read this as a low level of trust towards them. Moreover, with a controlling style, there is often no room for the subsidiaries to provide input. Therefore, the attitude from the subsidiaries will be closed which

Bonus culture Illustrative quotations

Respondent #2 “A lot of companies work with bonuses nowadays. So, what you are seeing now is that managers

are sometimes not directly prepared or willed to effectively transfer the knowledge. Since this will have a direct influence on their salary.”

Respondent #3 “One of the biggest challenges that I have experienced is the bonus culture. This new culture

has enormously influenced the way of working and thinking of people within the units. It influences the attitude of the receivers.”

Respondent #4 “I do not really believe in cultural differences. However, the current target culture within

could result in a less effective knowledge transfer. Conversely, an open management style from the HQ facilitates the cooperation between the units according to the interviewees. Consequently, several HQ managers mentioned that it is important to be open-minded within the process. Thus, the attitude of the HQ is important for a successful knowledge transfer. The adopted management style decides the level of cooperation between the units. Table 5 (p. 30) shows several illustrative quotes from HQ managers.

Table 5: Influence factor management style – Illustrative quotations (source: author)

Tie strength

All ten managers mentioned tie strength and social network as an important factor influencing the knowledge transfer process. Both factors highlight the importance of a strong relationship between the units. With tie strength, the managers refer to the importance of being one team and having short communication lines while with the social network the HQ tried to improve the relation with the units by social events. Thus, making the relation more personal since it is expected that this contributes to the process of knowledge transfer. Despite both influences have been mentioned separately, these two influences can be merged to one influence since both describe the relation between the HQ and subsidiaries. Therefore, the social network will also be referred to as tie strength further within this study. Having strong ties between the units with the same interests would positively influence the knowledge transfer according to several managers. Since the relationship between the HQ and subsidiaries has a central role in the process of knowledge transfer. The interviewees mentioned that the MNC needs to feel as one team, despite the distance and differences between the units. This contributes to the success of the knowledge transfer. The importance of a strong relationship is illustrated in table 6 (p. 31).

HQ Management style

Illustrative quotations

Respondent #3 “Headquarters need to take different roles within the process every time to make the process

run as smoothly as possible.”

Respondent #1 “Maybe that also depends on the personality of the managers themselves. I am personally

quite directive. When I believe we need to go a certain direction I give guidance to it but I expect that others will pick it up and carry the process.”

Respondent #5 “It is important too that the managers itself are also excited, and therefore can also make

others enthusiastic about the process.”

Respondent #9 “It is important that the managers are also present within the process. Moreover, the

Trust

For nine HQ managers, it is crucial to have trust within the process of knowledge transfer. Nine of the ten interviewees mentioned the influencing factor trust. The basis for a good relationship between the units relays, for example, on trust according to several HQ managers. The HQ managers try to create trust through the extensive communication with each other. Therefore, it is important to create several opportunities to meet with each other despite the distance. Moreover, by giving the subsidiaries trust and control, they feel more responsible for the success of the knowledge transfer as they too carry the process of knowledge transfer and do not want to fail. In addition, the interviewees mentioned that an environment with a low level of trust does not improve the relation between the units. Through several quotes, shown in table 7 (p. 31), the HQ managers highlight the importance of the influencing factor trust.

Table 7: Influence factor trust – Illustrative quote (source: author) Tie strength Illustrative quotations

Respondent #1 “Creating one group despite the distance through activities is important. Therefore, it is

extremely important to maintain the contacts. Thus, regularly talk to each other and ask how it goes. To successfully transfer knowledge this is extremely important.”

Respondent #8 “It is important that you take away the obstacles to have a good cooperation between the units.

People need to get to know each other. When people know each other the process of knowledge transfer is also easier passed on.”

Respondent #4 “It is the HQ responsibility to create the ‘us’ and ‘we’ feeling through the whole corporation.

When you can accomplish this within the organisation, you stand very strong.”

Respondent #7 “Our multinational corporation has known growth because of the strong relationship between

the units. There is a very strong and direct relationship between the HQ and subsidiaries. Through this strong relationship knowledge is successfully transferred and implemented.”

Trust Illustrative quotations

Respondent #5 “You should trust the subsidiaries to carry the process of knowledge transfer. As an HQ you should support them but also give them the responsibility for it.”

Respondent #2 Through meetings, you were creating a certain network, where you also had the chance to get to know each other better. This network was also built on the basis of trust.”

Respondent #7 “Moreover, it wouldn’t be a positive environment to work in if you don’t trust each other and you

want to control everything as an HQ. This will not improve the cooperation between both parties.”

Respondent #3 “Having a personal relationship also stimulates the trust level between each other. Trust plays a

Shared vision

Nine of the ten HQ managers mention that shared vision has an influence on knowledge transfer. A shared vision between the HQ and subsidiaries contributes to the process of knowledge transfer. According to several HQ managers, it is important to be unified team with the subsidiaries. Therefore, it is necessary to have the same vision and goals. HQs should work intensively together with the subsidiaries to achieve the same goal. To create a shared vision which everyone believes in, it is important to talk to each other. The involved units need to understand the expectations from one another. A shared vision, therefore, can contribute to the success of a knowledge transfer. Table 8 (p. 32) shows through some illustrative quotations the HQ managers perspective towards a shared vision.

Table 8: Influence factor shared vision – Illustrative quotations (source: author).

Feedback

Another influencing factor mentioned by the HQ managers is freedom. Which had a lot in a comment with also the frequently mentioned influencing factor feedback. With both influences, the HQ managers refer to the importance of providing subsidiaries space to react and familiarise with the process. Further, there should be enough space for the subsidiaries to provide some comments or feedback. Therefore, both identified influences will be discussed further as one influencing factor, namely feedback. According to various HQ managers, the feedback will get more helpful when you go deeper into the organisation. By providing the subsidiaries time to react and make use of their suggestions, you create more willingness of the receivers to carry the process. By using the feedback of the subsidiaries smart to improve the process of transferring the knowledge, it can positively influence the success of implementation. Several interviewees mentioned that there should be an open culture, so the involved units have the room to discuss, disagree, and make possible suggestions. Table 9 (p. 33) shows the perspective of the HQ managers towards feedback.

Shared vision Illustrative quotations

Respondent #10 “One goal, but different paths to follow. Corporate culture, shared drivers and a shared vision

contribute to the effectiveness of the knowledge transfer.”

Respondent #6 “Through the working groups, you also try to create a shared goals. Through these guidelines,

you try to create solidarity between the units.”

Respondent #9 “It is important to have one uniform goal. It doesn’t matter how the units accomplish it, as long

everybody has the same vision and goals. Through having one vision you give the others freedom to work on their own way.”

Respondent #7 “Despite the distance, it is important to have the same vision. Both units should be on the same

Table 9: Influence factor feedback – Illustrative quotations (source: author)

Transparency

According to the managers, a crucial influencing factor is the level of transparency. Eight of the ten interviewees mentioned transparency. To effectively transfer the knowledge, the HQ needs to be clear about their intention and take the responsibility when needed according to some managers. Transparency refers to the openness of the HQ towards the whole process of knowledge transfer. For subsidiaries, it must be clear who is involved in the process and who is responsible. By being transparent the HQ welcomes the opportunity for others to provide feedback and suggestions. Some quotations from the HQ managers in table 10 (p. 33) show their view towards the influencing factor transparency.

Feedback Illustrative quotations

Respondent #1 “Based on the reactions of the subsidiaries you can see if you are still going the right direction.

Thus, you can see through their reactions if you need to adjust the process.”

Respondent #9 “Every time we asked for feedback. Through the output of the different units every time, we were

able to adjust the project to everybody’s needs. The feedback contributed to making it able to successfully transfer knowledge.”

Respondent #2 “(…) the feedback of the subsidiaries was taken into account. Therefore, the subsidiaries

accepted the changes faster, since they also actively were involved in the knowledge transfer process.”

Respondent #5 “It is important the HQ takes into account how a certain process will fit within the subsidiaries.

Therefore, you also need to provide enough space to others to make it also applicable to their markets or units.”

Respondent #7 “It is important for the process of knowledge transfer to continuous have conversations between

Guidance

Guidance is also a notable influencing factor according to seven managers. HQs need to provide guidelines and support towards the subsidiaries. The HQ should adopt a coordinating role to distribute the new knowledge in the different units according to the interviewees. It is the HQ responsibility, according to some managers, that knowledge can effectively be transferred. Therefore, the HQ should provide tools and support when required. The HQ, therefore, needs to guide the process according to the interviewees. The HQ should regularly look where everybody stands within the process and provide support to grow further. Guidance thus can influence the process of knowledge transfer. The managers also highlighted the importance of guidance, which is shown in table 11 (p. 34).

Table 11: Influence factor guidance – Illustrative quotations (source: author)

Several influencing factors have been identified with the help of the cross-case analysis. As mentioned earlier, the HQ is a unique unit in the MNC. It is expected to face unique challenges compared to the other units (Chandler, 1990; Collis et al., 2007). The identified influencing factors trust, shared vision, and tie strength have been studied before within the knowledge transfer existing literature. It is known from the existing literature that trust, shared the vision and tie strength play an important role, these factors all influence the process of knowledge transfer. The HQ managers also recognised these factors and mentioned that these influences are crucial for a successful knowledge transfer. They also highlight the important role and central of the HQ on these influences. However, the focus of the analysis will be on the additional new identified influences by the HQ managers, namely feedback, transparency,

guidance, bonus culture and HQ management style. Since these influences haven’t been

discussed explicitly before within the literature of knowledge transfer between the HQ and subsidiary.

Guidance Illustrative quotations

Respondent #3 “In other words, the supervision and guidance of the different knowledge transfers are the

responsibility of the headquarter.”

Respondent #4 “Only providing a short presentation about the new procedures for example and tell where you

want to go as MNC is not enough. You need to give the subsidiaries the right tools as HQ. You need to push them into the right direction.”

Respondent #7 “You can not expect from the subsidiaries that they directly take everything over and implement

5. ANALYSIS

Within this section, the analysis of the gathered data is explained. Several influences are identified and discussed. In the first section, the identified influences on the knowledge transfer process from HQ to subsidiaries are analysed through several propositions. In the second section, the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable is conceptualised in a model.

5.1 Influencing factors

The identified factors influencing the success of knowledge transfer between the HQ and subsidiaries are discussed below. Namely, the influences bonus culture, HQ management style,

guidance, transparency, and feedback. The HQ has an influence on these factors from their

unique position within the process of knowledge transfer. Therefore, several propositions are presented.

5.1.1 Bonus culture

The effect of the bonus culture on the performance of employees has been studied already. It is even argued that the bonus culture can be damaging for companies (Amin, 2011). Recent research has unveiled some hidden complexities behind money and motivation. According to Kohn (1999), rewards and bonuses can kill intrinsic motivation and lower performance levels (Amin, 2011). Moreover, Smithers (2015) argued that the bonus culture takes over the workplace and is causing significant efficiency losses, particularly in the long run. Hence, there is a negative relationship found between bonus culture and employee performance. This suggests that the relationship, at its core, may be the same as the relationship that has been found within this study. Namely, the negative influence of the bonus culture in HQ-subunit transfers. Looking at the perspective of the HQ managers towards the bonus culture, it negative influences the knowledge transfer. Therefore, it can be said that a strong bonus culture has negative influences on the knowledge transfer. This line of argument leads us to propose the following:

Proposition 1: The stronger the bonus culture, the lower the success of knowledge transfer

between MNC HQ and subsidiary.

5.1.2 HQ Management style

Research already showed a close relation between the practice of a given management style and its effect on the cooperation within an organisation (Bugdol & Jedynak, 2015). Touray (2014) discussed several management styles and its impact on the organisation. It highlights that a participative leadership, comparable with an open management style, stimulates the cooperation between units. Although a manager will make the final decision, he or she invites other members of the team to contribute to the decision-making process (Touray, 2014). Employees and team member, therefore, feel more in control of their own destiny and so are motivated to work hard than just a financial reward (Touray, 2014). Moreover, a manager’s approach can affect the productivity of the organisation (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004). Also, the effects of the management style on the performance of the organisation has been studied (Bugdol & Jedynak, 2015). Taking this into consideration with the relation that has been found within this study, it could be suggested that management style has an influence on knowledge transfer. Therefore, it can be concluded that a more open management style positively influences the success of the process of knowledge transfer. This leads to the following proposition:

Proposition 2: The more open the management style of the HQ, the higher the success of

knowledge transfer between MNC HQ and subsidiary.

5.1.3 Guidance

Guidance is a commonly recognised influence by the HQ managers. Guidance indicates the level of support of the HQ gives to the subsidiaries with implementing the new knowledge. According to the interviewees, the HQ is responsible for providing enough support within the process of knowledge. The HQs cannot expect from the subsidiaries to copy everything directly without any support. The interviewee's highlight that it is the task of the HQ to make the subsidiaries familiar with the new knowledge. Providing the subsidiaries tools and support contributes to the success of the knowledge transfer. While leaving the subsidiaries to struggle with the new knowledge by themselves will result in a less effective knowledge transfer.

being open is not enough. Therefore, the supervisor serves as the enabler of their success. This may suggest that the relationship between the supervisor and employee may be the same as the relationship that has been found within this study. Namely, the relationship between the HQ and subsidiaries and the role of guidance. Looking at the perspective of the HQ managers towards guidance, a high level of guidance is expected to positively influence the knowledge transfer. This line of argument leads us to propose the following.

Proposition 3: The stronger the level of guidance, the higher the success of knowledge transfer

between MNC HQ and subsidiary.

5.1.4 Transparency

Transparency indicates the level of openness of the HQ managers towards the subsidiaries about the process of knowledge transfer. Almost all HQ managers highlighted the importance of transparency on knowledge transfer. The HQ managers mentioned that the HQ needs to be clear about its intentions. Moreover, it is important that it is known who is responsible for the process of transferring the knowledge. According to the HQ managers, a high level of transparency brings also the benefit that it creates the subsidiaries the chance to come with feedback.

Several studies have also argued that transparency is key to performance (Gebler, 2011). Gebler (2011) discussed that transparency embodies open communication and honesty. Thus, transparency is the organisation being upfront and visible about the actions it takes. Being honest and transparent also contributes to the level of trust between the units. Lauby (2009) even argues that when you neglect to include something that others might have thought to be important, will negatively impact your credibility. In addition, the more a company shares information, the more employees feel like a team (Rick, 2016). Consequently, this increases the shared responsibility for the success of the company. Hence, it is argued that a high level of transparency contributes to the performance of a company (Rick, 2016). Taking this into consideration with the relation that has been found within this study, it could be suggested that transparency has an influence on knowledge transfer. Therefore, it can be concluded that a high level of transparency positively influences the success of the process of knowledge transfer. This leads to the following proposition.

Proposition 4: The higher the level of transparency, the higher the success of knowledge

5.1.5 Feedback

To let the new knowledge successfully absorb within the subsidiaries it is important that there is freedom of expression. Feedback indicates the level of freedom the subsidiaries have to come with a possible suggestion. Suggestions to improve the process of knowledge transfer. Currently, it is common that everyone gives their opinion about something. Within the knowledge transfer process, it is therefore also important that the subsidiaries get the freedom to react to the knowledge transfer. There should be a two-sided interaction within this process. To absorb the knowledge successfully, it is crucial that it also fits within their units. To give the subsidiaries space to give their feedback, and if necessary adjusting the process, the HQ can create capacity. When the opinion of the subsidiaries also has been taken into account it is more likely for them to invest in letting it succeed. Since the process of transferring the knowledge also becomes theirs. They contributed to the process and therefore they also want it to succeed. Moreover, through being open-minded as HQ towards the suggestions of subsidiaries it creates also motivation. Motivation to actively participate in the process and having the goals. Further, by providing the freedom for suggestions a mutual learning environment is also created. The effect of feedback on job performance has been studied. Among others, Geraghty (2013) discussed how effective feedback impacts job performance since effective feedback is critical to the success of each employee, team, and company (Geraghty, 2013). Moreover, it motivates employees to improve their job performance by encouraging effort. Furst (2009) also argued that feedback provides an opportunity to evaluate the progress and more importantly, identified barriers that hindered this. The relationship between feedback and job performance might be the same as the relation between feedback and knowledge transfer. Taking the perspective of the HQ managers into account, and the known effect of feedback on job performance, it could be suggested that the amount of feedback has an influence on knowledge transfer. This line of argument leads us to propose the following:

Proposition 5: The greater the amount of feedback, the higher the success of knowledge

5.2 Conceptual model

The relationship between the influencing factors on the success of knowledge transfer between MNC HQ and subsidiary is described in the conceptual model. The identified influencing factors are independent variables while the success of the knowledge transfer process is the dependent variable. As described above some factors influence the process positively and others negatively. Depending on the level or amount it is present within the process of knowledge transfer.

Figure 2: Conceptual model (source: author)

6. DISCUSSION

Previous research highlighted the importance of the influencing factors tie strength, trust and shared vision on knowledge transfer already (Gupta, & Govindarajan, 2000; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Li, 2005). These factors have an important role to successfully transfer knowledge within MNC’s. The interviewees argue that the HQ has an important and central role on these influences. The HQ should work intensively together with the subsidiaries and work together towards the same goal. The HQ should ensure that the MNC feels like one team, despite the distance and differences between the units. The HQ is also responsible for a high level of trust between the units. Since this basis for a good relation between the units rely on trust according to several HQ managers. Hence, the stimulating role of the HQ on these influencing factors seems to be of great importance to successfully transfer knowledge. These factors describe the HQ-subsidiary relationship and its influences on the knowledge transfer.

subsidiaries to come with feedback These four new identified influences describe the important role of the HQ. While other influences were described in general towards the relation with knowledge transfer, describe these influences what affect the HQ itself explicit can have on the process of knowledge transfer. It tells something about the level of influence of the HQ on the process. Since only the HQ has the opportunity to steer these influences through its unique position within MNC’s.

7. CONCLUSION

This chapter presents the conclusion of the research. The paper views the perspective of HQs managers towards knowledge transfer. Since most studies have only focused on possible influences on knowledge transfer in general, this study looks explicitly at the perspective of HQs managers to create a better understanding of the role of HQs within the intra-firm knowledge transfer process. The study was done through an explorative, qualitative multiple-case study. The ten multiple-cases provide useful insights for the knowledge transfer literature. With the findings of this study the following research question is answered:

‘Why do knowledge transfers from MNC HQ to subsidiaries succeed or fail from the perspective of HQ managers?’

Besides the important influences of trust, shared vision, and tie strength, which were also mentioned in the literature review, several new influences have been identified. Through the interviews, the influences bonus culture, HQ management style, feedback, guidance, and

transparency are recognised with each influence having its own effect on the process of

knowledge transfer. Since the bonus culture negatively influence the knowledge transfer while the others positively influence the knowledge transfer. These five new identified influences are especially interesting for the study on the role of HQs within the intra-firm knowledge transfer process. Since only the HQ has the opportunity to steer and effect these influences through its unique position within MNC’s.

7.1 Scientific relevance and managerial implication

This paper has several theoretical and managerial relevancies. Overall, this study is provoking existing literature in a sense that it offers data which shows the perspective of HQ managers towards the knowledge transfer from HQs to subsidiaries. Since the study is exploratory in nature and qualitative studies are scarce, the findings should be a basis for further research and the discussion about knowledge transfer. In addition, the list of influences on the process of knowledge transfer which is provided in this study is extensive and detailed. Therefore, can it serve as a stepping stone for further research in this important and interesting area.

Although knowledge transfer is a well-researched phenomenon in the literature, the identified influences and the role of the HQ is a relatively new research subject. This paper shows the relevance of knowledge transfer in studying the unique role of the HQ from an HQ manager perspective. This will contribute to the literature which has mainly focused on knowledge transfer in general when studying factors influencing the process. This study showed that the HQ faced unique challenges from an HQ manager perspective. Which contributes to the idea that the HQ is a special unit and thereby can be expected to face special challenges. The influences of trust, tie strength, and shared vision have already been studied within the IB literature. However, this study also shows the important role of the HQ on these influences. The new identified influencing factors contribute to understanding the process of knowledge transfer and how this effect the process. The influences management style, bonus culture, feedback, guidance, and transparency have not been discussed before in the literature. This paper highlights the important role of these influences and contributes therefore to understanding the process.

8. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite the findings, the paper also contains some weaknesses. First, the process of taking interviews brings some limitations. Qualitative studies contain a large amount of data, it could lead to their misuse because of the lack of qualitative measures (Eisenhardt, 1989). Further, the results of this study are based upon how the researcher interpret the data. Moreover, time is also recognised as a limitation of this study. Conducting interviews is time consuming, especially in transcribing textual data and extensively analysing on basis of coding frameworks. Longitudinal research would allow the researcher to observe processes for a longer period. Moreover, due to the limited time, only a small sample has been studied. Only managers in the Netherlands are asked about their perspectives. Therefore, the results cannot be generalised to other countries without taking some sceptical notion. Additional research should, therefore, provide a larger sample. Moreover, through the difference in company size, industry, and the role of managers within the MNC’s the results cannot be generalised to certain industries. However, this provided the opportunity to explore a broad scope. Therefore, future researchers could explore the implication of these differences on knowledge transfer.