Top

Management International Review

Published in:

01-08-2010 | Research Article

Headquarters’ Influence on Knowledge Transfer Performance

Authors: Ass. Prof. Francesco Ciabuschi, Ass. Prof. Oscar Martín Martín, Ass. Prof. Benjamin Ståhl

Published in: Management International Review | Issue 4/2010

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This paper investigates headquarters’ value-adding role in knowledge transfer. Transfer performance is considered in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness, and a model that includes headquarters’ distribution of decision-making rights, resource allocation, and direct intervention is tested on 141 innovation transfer projects.
The findings indicate that headquarters have both positive and negative influences on the efficiency and effectiveness of transfer processes. There is thus a need to consider the inherent trade-offs in the choices made in promoting knowledge transfer.

previous article Headquarters’ Attention and Its Effect on Subsidiary Performance

next article The Effect of Quantity, Quality and Timing of Headquarters-initiated Knowledge Flows on Subsidiary Performance

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Management International Review

MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL REVIEW is a double-blind refereed journal that aims at the advancement and dissemination of research in the fields of International Management.

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

It should be noted that speed is an increasingly important aspect of strategy that is often invested in heavily; in that sense, it could be considered a separate construct or a dimension of effectiveness. While this is valid when it comes to, for example, time to market or establishing a market footprint in a competitive environment with rapidly developing technology, we argue that in a purposeful, directed, and delimited transfer project, adhering to a timeframe is an aspect of efficiency, as delays are usually costly. This is another consequence of considering specific transfer efforts rather than aggregate knowledge flow.

Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2007). Innovation and control in the multinational firm: A comparison of political and contingency approaches. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 473–486.CrossRef

Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. (1996). Subsidiary embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation. International Business Review, 5(5), 487–508.CrossRef

Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2007). Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: A business network view. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 802–818.CrossRef

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.CrossRef

Astley, G. W., & Zajac, E. (1990). Intraorganizational power and organizational design: Reconciling rational and coalitional models of organization. Organization Science, 2(4), 399–411.CrossRef

Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 221–241.CrossRef

Birkinshaw, J., Bouquet, C., & Ambos, T. (2007). Managing executive attention in the global company. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 39–45.

Björkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Li, L. (2004). Managing knowledge transfers in MNCs: The impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 443–455.CrossRef

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314.CrossRef

Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 239–257.CrossRef

Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.

Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244.CrossRef

Campbell, A., Goold, M., & Alexander M. (1994). Corporate-level strategy: Creating value in the multibusiness company. New York: Wiley.

Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chandler, A. (1991). The functions of the headquarters unit in the multibusiness firm. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2), 31–50.CrossRef

Chang, S.-Y., & Rosenzweig, P. M. (1998). Functional and line of business evolution processes in MNC subsidiaries: Sony in the USA, 1972–1975. In J. Birkinshaw & N. Hood (Eds.), Multinational corporate evolution and subsidiary evolution (pp. 299–328). New York: MacMillan.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial L squares approach to structural equation modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRef

Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1998). Creating corporate advantage. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 70–83.

Cool, K. O., Dierickx, I., & Szulanski, G. (1997). Diffusion of innovations within organizations: Electronic switching in the Bell System, 1971–1982. Organization Science, 8(5), 543–559.CrossRef

Daft, R. L. (1998). Organization theory and design. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements: Media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRef

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Denrell, J. (2003). Vicarious learning, under-sampling of failure, and the myths of management. Organization Science, 14(3), 227–243.

Dess, G. C., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265–273.CrossRef

Diamantopoulos, A. (1999). Viewpoint: Export performance measurement: Reflective versus formative indicators. International Marketing Review, 16(6), 444–457.CrossRef

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(May), 269–277.CrossRef

Doz, Y. L., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. J. (2001). From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Journal, 14(1), 57–74.CrossRef

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRef

Forsgren, M. (1997). The advantage paradox of the multinational corporation. In I. Björkman & M. Forsgren (Eds.), The nature of the international firm (pp. 69–87). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Foss, N. (1997). On the rationales of corporate headquarters. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(2), 313–338.

Galunic, C. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1996). The evolution of intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Organization Science, 7(3), 255–282.CrossRef

Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(350), 320–328.CrossRef

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1988). Creation, adoption, and diffusion of innovations by subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 365–388.CrossRef

Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (1987). Strategies and styles: The role of the center in diversified corporations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.CrossRef

Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. T. (2005). When using knowledge can hurt performance: The value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 1–24.CrossRef

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3), 232–248.CrossRef

Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. T., & Løvås, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 776–793.CrossRef

Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC: A heterarchy. Human Resource Management, 25(1), 9–35.CrossRef

Holm, U., & Pedersen, T. (2000). The emergence and impact of MNC centers of excellence: A subsidiary perspective. London: Macmillan.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRef

Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 308–324.CrossRef

Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233.CrossRef

Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17(5), 251–267.CrossRef

Lin, H. F. (2007). A stage model of knowledge management: An empirical investigation of process and effectiveness. Journal of Information Science, 33(6), 643–659.CrossRef

Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86–112.

Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B. L., Datta, D. K., & Rasheed A. A. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of cross-border knowledge transfer: An empirical examination. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 714–744.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems & prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.CrossRef

Poppo, L. (2003). The visible hands of hierarchy within the M-form: An empirical test of corporate parenting of internal product exchanges. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 403–430.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.

Postrel, S. (2002). Islands of shared knowledge: Specialization and mutual understanding in problem-solving teams. Organization Science, 13(3), 303–320.CrossRef

Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. (1987). The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision. New York: Free Press.

Randøy, T., & Li, J. (1998). Global resource flows and MNE network integration. In J. Birkinshaw & N. Hood (Eds.), Multinational corporate evolution and subsidiary development (pp. 76–101). New York: MacMillan.

Roth, K., & Morrison, A. J. (1992). Implementing global strategy: Characteristics of global subsidiary mandates. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 715–735.CrossRef

Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 389–408.CrossRef

Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 36(2), 111–147.

Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 27–43.

Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., & Jensen, R. J. (2004). When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, 15(5), 600–613.CrossRef

Teece, D. J. (1977). Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological know-how. Economic Journal, 87(346), 242–261.CrossRef

Tenenhaus M., Vinzi E. V., Chatelin Y. M., & Lauro C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.CrossRef

Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.CrossRef

Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. P., & Lyles M. A. (2008). Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 830–853.CrossRef

Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207.CrossRef

Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Werts, C., Linn, R., & Joreskog, K. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 25–33.CrossRef

White, R. E., & Poynter, T. A. (1990). Organizing for world-wide advantage. In C. A. Bartlett, Y. Doz, & G. Hedlund (Eds.), Managing the global firm. London: Routledge.

Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76–92.CrossRef

Title: Headquarters’ Influence on Knowledge Transfer Performance
Authors: Ass. Prof. Francesco Ciabuschi
Ass. Prof. Oscar Martín Martín
Ass. Prof. Benjamin Ståhl
Publication date: 01-08-2010
Publisher: SP Gabler Verlag
Published in: Management International Review / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-8249
Electronic ISSN: 1861-8901
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-010-0042-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Management International Review

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

Headquarters’ Attention and Its Effect on Subsidiary Performance

Keeping the Global in Mind

How the Parent Headquarters Adds Value to an MNC

How Do MNC Headquarters Add Value?

The Effect of Quantity, Quality and Timing of Headquarters-initiated Knowledge Flows on Subsidiary Performance

Regional Management as a System