Jie 033 0079

The Role of Context in Transferring Knowledge: A Meta-
Synthesis of Qualitative Case Studies on Multinational

Enterprises (MNEs)
Maike Simon, Susanne Royer
Dans Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 (n° 33) , pages 79 à 103
Éditions De Boeck Supérieur
DOI 10.3917/jie.033.0079
© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)
Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse

https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2020-3-page-79.htm
Découvrir le sommaire de ce numéro, suivre la revue par email, s’abonner...

Flashez ce QR Code pour accéder à la page de ce numéro sur Cairn.info.
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le
cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque
forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est
précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.
The Role of Context in
Transferring Knowledge:
A Meta-Synthesis of
Qualitative Case Studies on
Multinational Enterprises
(MNEs)
Maike SIMON
Europa-Universität Flensburg (Germany)
maike.simon@uni-flensburg.de
Susanne ROYER
Europa-Universität Flensburg (Germany)
royer@uni-flensburg.de
ABSTRACT

In this paper, our goal is twofold: First, we investigate how the headquar-
ters (HQ) choice of knowledge transfer mechanisms is linked to (1) different
types of organizational knowledge and (2) structural conditions. Second, we
apply a meta-synthesis approach to cumulate empirical findings of a set of
qualitative case studies which, due to the difficulty of the interpretation and
generalization of results, generally tend to remain isolated, and their potential
to advance knowledge in the field is largely ignored. By synthesizing primary
case study evidence across a set of nine qualitative case studies, we show that
HQ used a large set of measures to indirectly influence knowledge transfer in
more decentralized companies. Put differently, by making conscious choices
of how to transfer knowledge, MNEs can overcome structural impediments
to its transfer. The technique used in this paper can be a source of inspiration
for other researchers in this and related fields.
KEYWORDS: Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms, Structural Conditions, MNEs, Meta-
synthesis, Qualitative Case Studies, Theory Extension.
JEL CODES: F23
n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 79

DOI: 10.3917/jie.033.0079
Introduction: Framing the

Research Question
It has been widely accepted in literature and practice that knowledge is
the most strategic resource of firms (Grant, Baden-Fuller, 1995; Grant, 1996).
Knowledge differs from traditional resources since it is often context-sensi-
tive, observer-dependent and not fully owned by one firm, and can therefore
be hard to transfer and to imitate (Venzin et al., 1998). Generally, knowledge
can be described as explicit (or articulated) and tacit (or implicit) (Hedlund,
1994; Nonaka, Takeuchi, 1995). The more codifiable the knowledge is, the
easier is its transfer (Zander, Kogut, 1995; Argote et al., 2003). The ability of
firms to transfer valuable tacit knowledge, however, is recognized as being a
potential source of competitive advantage (Szulanski, 1996; Argote, Ingram,
2000). Accordingly, the management of knowledge flows, stocks and pro-
cesses has become an issue of key interest to researchers and practitioners in
strategic management and international business (Foss et al., 2010).
Over the past few decades, much research attention has been directed to
knowledge flows within and across organizational boundaries, broadening
the understanding of antecedents and the consequences of knowledge trans-
fer (Argote et al., 2000; Inkpen, Tsang, 2005; Van Wijk et al., 2008; Easterby-
Smith et al., 2008; Michailova, Mustaffa, 2012). One focus of research has
been the multinational enterprise (MNE), which is regarded as superior in

terms of managing knowledge across units and locations relative to other
forms of governance (Almeida et al., 2002). MNEs can, for example, transfer
implicit or tacit knowledge in an efficient way across national borders (Kogut,
Zander, 1993).
Even though MNEs are considered to have particular strengths in knowl-
edge transfer between units and across borders, transferring knowledge is also
here not without challenges: many of these can be explained by conceptu-
alizing the MNE as a network, an inter-organizational system of differenti-
ated units (Hedlund, 1986; Ghoshal, Bartlett, 1990; Nohria, Ghoshal, 1994),
in which subsidiaries may have different roles and mandates (Cantwell,
Mudambi, 2005; Cantwell, Mudambi, 2011), and thus do or do not have
interdependencies and different interests and, under certain conditions, even
show entrepreneurial behavior (Birkinshaw, 1997). As a result, the relation-
ship between subsidiaries can be cooperative and competitive at the same
time (Tsai, 2002). These considerations show that the MNE has to transfer
knowledge not only across national boundaries, but also across internal struc-
tural barriers, for example arising from a lack of interdependencies among its
units. While previous research has indeed acknowledged that the transfer of
80 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

The Role of Context in Transferring Knowledge
knowledge can be supported by an organizational design which encourages

interpersonal communication and interaction (Claver-Cortés et al., 2007), it
can be reasoned that, in the absence of such a favorable organizational envi-
ronment, MNEs adopt knowledge management practices to overcome struc-
tural barriers to knowledge transfer. Since structural barriers and, accord-
ingly, appropriate knowledge management practices may vary from case to
case, the much-praised knowledge transfer ability of MNEs is context-sensi-
tive. Managers therefore need to incorporate context in their considerations
of appropriate strategies for transferring knowledge successfully (Tsai, 2002;
Zheng et al., 2010; Song, 2014).
Specifically, this paper addresses the following gaps in existing research:
organizational mechanisms that firms can deploy to actively foster the trans-
fer of knowledge have not yet been adequately investigated (Ciabuschi et al.,
2011; Schleimer, Pedersen, 2014; Song, 2014) and it is not fully clear how
such mechanisms are used by MNEs to effectively transfer knowledge across
their global network (Sambamurthy, Subramani, 2005; Foss, 2006; Ambos,
Ambos, 2009). In this context, both knowledge characteristics and organi-
zational structure clearly play a role: as tacit knowledge is harder to transfer
and structural conditions can impede or facilitate the transfer of knowledge
(Lupton, Beamish, 2014), they are both likely to influence the choice and
appropriateness of transfer mechanisms. Looking at it the other way around,
to understand the choice of knowledge transfer mechanisms, it is crucial to

include both organizational characteristics, which may also transcend firm
boundaries and the characteristics of the knowledge transferred. Using the
meta-synthesis methodology proposed by Hoon (2013) and Finfgeld-Connett
(2018), this study aims to contribute to the understanding of how headquar-
ters (HQ) coordinate knowledge flows in MNEs. More specifically, we exam-
ine how the HQ choice of knowledge transfer mechanisms is linked to (1)
different types of organizational knowledge and (2) organizational structure.
The remainder of this paper is structured following the recommended
steps of Finfgeld-Connett (2018) and Hoon (2013) to conduct a meta-syn-
thesis: After the research question was framed, the relevant literature was
identified. The methodology and the findings are presented next. Findings
are discussed before limitations and further research directions are indicated
in the concluding section.

Methodology
In this section we give a brief overview of the meta-synthesis approach.
We then describe our search strategy, explain criteria for inclusion and the
process of data extraction, within-case analysis and across-case synthesis.
The Approach
Meta-synthesis generated theories help to enhance our understanding of
contextually-embedded phenomena and processes (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018).
This reflects the general strength of case study research to generate theory
from the holistic study of contemporary organizational phenomena in real-
life settings (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014), thereby taking on some of their
complexity (Sergeeva, Andreeva, 2016). Generally, a qualitative research
strategy often leads to a clearer differentiation between cause and effect
(Lupton, Beamish, 2014). For the purpose of this paper, it is especially impor-
tant to note that qualitative research better captures the nature of knowledge
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2008) and allows for a more nuanced examination of
how knowledge flows throughout the MNE network.
While some case-based works such as Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1989) con-
ceptualization of the transnational firm are landmark contributions to the
evolution of the international business (IB) field, most primary case studies

tend to remain isolated and to “stand-alone” due to the difficulty in gen-
eralizing contextualized findings (Hoon, 2013, p. 523). In contrast to the
meta-analysis of quantitative studies, the purpose of the meta-synthesis of
qualitative studies is to interpret, rather than to cumulate evidence (Walsh,
Downe, 2004). The sample of primary case studies thus needs to be kept at
a manageable size to be able to maintain sensitivity towards the findings of
other researchers. Ultimately, the interpretation of findings on an across-
study level can enhance generalizability and aims at building or extending
theory (Hoon, 2013; Finfgeld-Connett, 2018).
Since meta-syntheses add clarity and meaning to situations, so that more
appropriate decisions and actions can be taken (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018),
systematic qualitative reviews appear particularly suitable for management
research. Nevertheless, so far, most meta-syntheses of qualitative findings
have been conducted in medical science, health care or education (Leick,
Gretzinger, 2018b), and are a relatively new approach in management research
(for recent meta-syntheses published in the field see Bronstein, Reihlen, 2014;
Carlson, Palmer, 2016; Ferraris et al., 2018; Leick, Gretzinger, 2018a). Building
on the above, we find this approach suitable for our purpose.

Search Strategy and Sampling

In a first step, a broader search for knowledge transfer was conducted to
locate relevant research since most articles which focus on inherent tools and
measures such as people and knowledge management systems do not explic-
itly use the term “transfer mechanism”. This led to the following three search
strings: [“knowledge transfer” OR “transfer of knowledge”] AND “multi-
national”, [“knowledge transfer” OR “transfer of knowledge”] AND “mne”,
[“knowledge transfer” OR “transfer of knowledge”] AND “mnc”. The data-
bases Business Source Complete, JSTOR and Science Direct were chosen
for the literature search in title, keywords or abstract. Results were limited to
peer-reviewed academic journal articles. The year 1995 served as the starting
point because Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) published the influential “The
knowledge creating company” in 1995.
The search resulted in a total of 155 articles, published between January
1995 and July 2018, of which only articles published in A-Journals were
included [103]. In addition, the Journal of Knowledge Management was
searched by using the keywords knowledge transfer and multinational or
MNE or MNC, which resulted in another ten articles [10]. The sample of
113 articles was grouped in three broad categories: conceptual/theoretical
[20], quantitative [67] and qualitative [29]. The qualitative studies [29] were
reviewed and inclusion criteria further refined in an iterative process: in a
first step, criteria were independently developed by the authors, then com-

pared, discussed, revisited and revised during the process of coding to assess
articles for eligibility. Included articles were (a) case studies, which (b) aimed
at theory-building or development, (c) analyzed intra-MNE knowledge trans-
fer (d) at the organizational level.
We decided to include two papers (Chang, Smale, 2013; Tippmann et al.,
2014), even though their level of analysis was the micro or individual level for
the following reasons:
Chang and Smale (2013) focused on subsidiary expatriate managers trans-
ferring HR knowledge between different units of MNEs. Despite its specific-
ity, this article fits with our inclusion criteria since it is the special case of
expatriates in their role as “knowledge transfer mechanisms” and the authors
came to findings on how the characteristics of the expatriate subsidiary man-
agers, relating to absorptive and disseminative capacity, affected the transfer
of parent HRM practices (Chang, Smale, 2013). This shows that the authors,
while investigating the micro-foundations of knowledge transfer, are refer-
ring back to the organizational level.
Tippmann et al. (2014) also explored micro-foundations in their study on
knowledge exchange between individual subsidiary managers in different

units of MNEs. They assessed how knowledge mobilization practices as indi-

vidual factors could explain knowledge flows in MNEs as collective factors
(Tippmann et al., 2014). Thus, this paper was also included since it prom-
ised relevant findings for a better understanding of knowledge transfer at the
organizational level by linking it with its micro-foundations at the individual
level of analysis.
Overall, the search resulted in a final sample of nine qualitative case studies.
Data Extraction, Analysis and Synthesis

First, we summarized the characteristics of each study (i.e., title, number
of cases and countries included in the study, industry/sector, data collection
techniques, interviewee(s) and number of interviews) in a table (see Table 1).
For framing this research we used the sample of case studies and the there-
cited literature. We then focused on their findings, discussion and conclu-
sion sections to extract related findings as raw data. After analyzing within-
case data, it followed the translation of each study’s findings into the other
(Noblit, Hare, 1988). By synthesizing qualitative findings and observations
across the cases, we detected common patterns and themes in the data. The
core constructs types of organizational knowledge, transfer mechanism and
structural conditions/ barriers were coded as follows:
Different types of organizational knowledge were identified and grouped

across cases by differentiating between technical knowledge, systemic knowl-
edge and strategic understanding (Child, Rodrigues, 1996). This way we were
able to make assertions about their characteristics.
The term transfer mechanism is a broad, inconsistently defined concept
that ranges from organizational mechanisms such as coordination mecha-
nisms (e.g. Ambos, Ambos, 2009), governance mechanisms (e.g. Foss et al.,
2010; Gooderham et al., 2011; Andersson et al., 2015b), corporate socializa-
tion mechanisms (Björkman et al., 2004; Schleimer, Pedersen, 2014) and con-
trol mechanisms (Andersson et al., 2015a). For our purpose, it appeared useful
to identify single knowledge transfer measures across our sample. Knowledge
transfer measures were then grouped according to their purposes and contexts
into sub-categories and finally assigned to the higher-order categories central
administration and organic diffusion, two of three suggested “diffusion modes”
by Lupton and Beamish (2014). This way the set of studies developed a line of
argument (Noblit, Hare, 1988), which allowed us to illustrate the relationship
between sub-categories and organizational structure. Different from Lupton
and Beamish (2014), their third diffusion mode brokering (Lupton, Beamish,
2014, pp. 719–720) is understood here as a special sub-mechanism of organic

diffusion. This is because the examples in the cases show that intermediar-
ies, who act as brokers, encourage communication among subsidiaries, which,
finally, may also lead to the organic diffusion of practices.
Structural conditions are understood in a broad and pragmatic sense in this
research. We identified structural conditions directly or indirectly by collect-
ing and interpreting contextual information such as the underlying reason
for the transfer of knowledge, the factors that influenced the effectiveness
of chosen transfer mechanisms as well as by paying attention to knowledge
flow directions. For example the Euro-team meetings investigated by Saka-
Helmhout (2009) were conducted between marketing units to enhance inter-
subsidiary communication in order to stimulate new product development.
At that time, HQ was making a shift away from a highly centralized structure
to an international strategy encouraging inter-subsidiary knowledge flows
and the spreading out of best practices. Next to this, we used several strate-
gies to ensure the trustworthiness of our findings which are described in the
following paragraph.
Content validity was ensured by including qualitative case studies that
were systematically identified by performing a comprehensive literature
search to allow for an unbiased data collection (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018).
Only articles published in peer-reviewed A* and A-journals were included
into the sample. The included studies build on data from different sources
and were conducted by many researchers, who grounded their works on dif-

ferent theoretical frameworks and sampling methods. In this case, trustwor-
thiness was also increased by the fact that we independently developed inclu-
sion and exclusion criteria during the process of coding and continuously
discussed, reflected and revised categorizations and interpretations. Thus,
not only theoretical but also researcher triangulation as well as reflexivity
can be achieved here (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018). The underlying triangula-
tion of our research is one measure to achieve construct validity (Gibbert,
Ruigrok, 2010, p. 713 and there cited literature). In addition, all procedures
have been made as transparent as possible. To ensure internal validity we
made our research question explicit in the introduction. This meta-synthesis
resides rather in an inclusive logic, by what all findings were included to some
broader theory, than in a replication logic (Thorne et al., 2004). The findings
from the analysis and synthesis are presented next.

Findings: Knowledge Types,

Organizational Structure and Knowledge
Transfer Mechanisms in MNEs
This paper aims at enhancing the understanding of the relationship
between knowledge types, organizational structure and the HQ choice of
knowledge transfer mechanisms. This chapter starts with a short description
of the characteristics of the sample in section 3.1 (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018).
We then describe knowledge types and the particularities in their transfer in
3.2. Finally, in section 3.3, we show, how the sample of studies develops a line
of argument, when linking transfer mechanisms to organizational structure.
Sample Characteristics
This systematic qualitative review comprises a set of nine qualitative case
studies, which were published in five journals stemming from different fields
such as strategy, international business, knowledge management, organiza-
tional behavior and human resource management. The sample was varying
from 17 to 86 interviews with managers, who were home, third and host
country nationals, from both corporate headquarters and subsidiaries. Our
final set of case studies included 329 interviews as well as additional second-
ary data sources such as news releases, company homepages, annual reports,

archival information and participant observation due to for example factory
tours.
The sample comprised a number of different countries and industries,
from IT, electronics and telecommunications to office equipment, aerospace
and automotive and included the transfer of different types of knowledge
in all directions, forward knowledge flows from the parent company to its
subsidiary(ies) and vice versa as well as inter-subsidiary knowledge flows.
Categorizing Organizational Knowledge

Knowledge is a complex and multi-faceted concept and contains differ-
ent categories and dimensions simultaneously. It is embedded in individu-
als, groups, organizations and inter-organizational domains (Hedlund, 1994).
A common way to categorize organizational knowledge is by differentiat-
ing between technical knowledge, systemic knowledge and strategic under-
standing (Child, Rodrigues, 1996). New techniques which can be acquired
and implemented without wider changes in behavior or relationships can be
termed technical knowledge. Technical knowledge is more information-type,

Table 1– Final set of qualitative case studies
n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3

87
Source: Own compilation

explicit knowledge and therefore less tied to meaning, context and interpre-
tation (Kogut, Zander, 1992; Nonaka et al., 1996; Davenport, Prusak, 1998).
As it can be stored in documents, computer programs, patents and so forth
(Hedlund, 1994), it can easily be transferred using information and com-
munication technology. Nonetheless, we found that technical knowledge is
preferably transferred face-to-face during, for example, classroom trainings
and on-site-demonstrations (Hong, Nguyen, 2009; Saka-Helmhout, 2010).
The following are examples for the transfer of technical knowledge in MNEs
from our sample:
• the transfer of task-oriented skills and functional expertise (Hong,
Nguyen, 2009) such as the contents of a new partner program (Ishihara,
Zolkiewski, 2017),
• simple quality issues in production and operations management
(Ishihara, Zolkiewski, 2017),
• general marketing knowledge (Saka-Helmhout, 2009) as for instance,
marketing strategies and communication concerning event sponsoring,
trade-shows and firm events (Schleimer, Riege, 2009), and
• the transfer of practices embedded in tools, documents and techno-
logy such as standardized product recipes, rules, procedures and policies
found in, for example, quality management systems (Saka-Helmhout,
2009; Tippmann et al., 2014) or reporting and documentation processes
(Lupton, Beamish, 2014).

Systemic knowledge includes more “know-how”-type knowledge, which
describes “knowing how to do something” (Kogut, Zander, 1992, p. 386) and
can be found in “rules of informal and formal organizing” (Kogut, Zander, 1993,
p. 631). Know-how is generally characterized by a higher degree of tacitness.
Generally, systemic knowledge refers to knowledge of new systems and proce-
dures (Hong, Nguyen, 2009). The implementation of such procedures leads to
changes in behavior or relationships and involves larger groups or the whole
organization (Child, Rodrigues, 1996). It is also reflected in our findings
that higher degrees of tacitness require face-to-face contacts and systemic
knowledge is found to be usually transferred via direct interactions through,
for example, the international assignment of employees (Kogut, Zander,
1993; Davenport, Prusak, 1998; Hong, Nguyen, 2009; Saka-Helmhout,
2009; Schleimer, Riege, 2009; Saka-Helmhout, 2010; Chang, Smale, 2013;
Tippmann et al., 2014; Ishihara, Zolkiewski, 2017). The use of knowledge
storage devices as, for example, best practice forums and portals were an
exception from that rule (Perrin et al., 2007; Schleimer, Riege, 2009).

The following are examples for the transfer of systemic knowledge in

MNEs from our sample:
• highly complex quality issues in production and operations (Ishihara,
Zolkiewski, 2017),
• product recipes and procedures of new product development decisions
(Saka-Helmhout, 2009),
• sales and marketing best practices (Perrin et al., 2007),
• the generation of new ideas and the implementation of innovation
initiatives (Lupton, Beamish, 2014) as for instance, new product ideas
and recipes (Saka-Helmhout, 2009), as well as
• management know-how such as the introduction of a new team struc-
ture, team culture and routines (Saka-Helmhout, 2010), and
• HRM practices, which are context-bound and culture specific (Chang,
Smale, 2013).
Finally, strategic understanding is related to knowledge which involves
changes in the mindsets of senior managers (Child, Rodrigues, 1996; Hong,
Nguyen, 2009). Decisions of strategic nature arose, for example, as solutions
of non-routine problems (Tippmann et al., 2014) and influenced the whole
organization (Child, Rodrigues, 1996). Among the three types of organiza-
tional knowledge, strategic knowledge is characterized by the highest degree
of tacitness and, therefore, its transfer is challenging and not possible without

face-to-face interactions (Hong, Nguyen, 2009; Saka-Helmhout, 2009).
After having identified, described and categorized three different types
of organizational knowledge across the studies as well as their particularities
when it comes to their transfer, in the following section we extend the expla-
nation of HQ choice of knowledge transfer mechanisms by putting them
in context. As described in the previous section, we grouped measures to
sub-mechanisms and placed them within the broader explanatory framework
of knowledge transfer mechanisms. The qualitative results of this synthesis
are summarized in Tables 2 and 3: The generic transfer mechanism central
administration contains the sub-mechanisms acculturation and control; the
sub-mechanisms knowledge storing, reflection, networking and brokering are
assigned to organic diffusion. Table 2 builds on this categorization and fills it
with data from the sample of case studies. Table 3 systematizes the findings
according to knowledge transfer mechanism characteristics (i.e., main types
of knowledge transferred, main resulting knowledge flow directions, degree
of tacitness of knowledge transferred) and indicators of structural conditions
(i.e., HQ involvement and requirement and the degrees of mutual interdepen-
dencies and heterogeneity of practices). Using this framework to synthesize

qualitative findings, we, at the same time, acknowledge that several transfer
mechanisms can coexist within one organization (Lupton, Beamish, 2014),
as can specific transfer measures. The contents of Tables 2 and 3 are further
elaborated in the following sections to come to several propositions.
Transfer Mechanisms in Context

Organizational structure was shown to have an influence on inter-subsid-
iary communication and, in turn, on HQ ways of governing the transfer of
knowledge across its subunits. Accordingly, firms made use of generic transfer
mechanisms or in the terminology of Lupton and Beamish (2014) the dif-
fusion modes central administration and organic diffusion to govern knowl-
edge transfer. The further can mainly be found in centralized organizations,
whereas the latter is rather used to foster communication between subunits
to facilitate knowledge sharing processes under decentralization (Lupton,
Beamish, 2014).
The relationship between organizational structure, knowledge types and
knowledge transfer mechanisms will be described in the following sections
in more detail.
The Central Administration of Practices

Central administration referred to the transfer of best practices, initiated

by corporate or regional HQ (see Lupton, Beamish, 2014, p. 718-719). Typical
for these enterprises were a centralized organizational structure, a high degree
of interdependence and accordingly a considerable amount of common prac-
tices among their subunits. Central administration could be understood as
a process that mainly responded to the desire of HQ to control and coor-
dinate subsidiary performance (Lupton, Beamish, 2014) and to align values
throughout the organization (Saka-Helmhout, 2009). Accordingly, the sub-
mechanisms falling under this category, i.e., the control and acculturation
mechanisms, were mainly characterized by forward and reverse knowledge
flows. They will be explained in further detail below:
HQ-initiated control mechanisms comprised the standardization of prac-
tices and international assignments. The standardization of practices and pro-
cesses helped HQ to be informed about their subunits and allowed for direct
comparisons between subsidiaries and therefore mainly aimed at supervising,
guiding and directing subsidiaries strategic development as well as at moni-
toring and evaluating performance over time. A key measure to enhance this
awareness was the transfer of technical knowledge due to the formulation of
common rules and procedures, which was supported by the implementation

Table 2 – (Generic) transfer mechanisms, sub-mechanisms, groups and examples in our set of case studies
n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3

91

Table 3 – Knowledge transfer mechanisms in context
92
Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

of common metrics and reporting structures (Saka-Helmhout, 2009; Lupton,

Beamish, 2014). Eventually, the possibility to notice better than average or
outstanding performance of single subsidiaries triggered systemic knowledge
transfers due to HQ intention to apply subsidiaries local knowledge and
implement valuable practices and processes globally (Lupton, Beamish, 2014).
While control was at the focal point of standardization, the comparability
of subsidiary performance also enhanced inter-subsidiary communication,
which ultimately might lead to the subsidiaries awareness of the existence
and value of already existing knowledge in the network. The international
assignment of employees included short-term and long-term assignments of
managers and operators. The moving of employees permitted the transfer
of systemic knowledge due to supervising and assisting the implementation
of parent (best) practices at the focal unit (Saka-Helmhout, 2010; Chang,
Smale, 2013; Tippmann et al., 2014).
Direct acculturation mechanisms could be differentiated between classi-
cal training and on-site demonstrations: The former referred to, for example,
classroom trainings and the latter included hands-on job trainings. Such
hands-on job trainings were initiated by HQ and understood as mainly
showcasing and transferring primarily technical knowledge at the work-
place. This way, on-site-demonstrations led directly to the increase of formal
education and the development of skills and self-discipline, which is neces-
sary to ensure efficiency and safety, as well as a change of routines in the

organization (Hong, Nguyen, 2009; Saka-Helmhout, 2009, 2010; Ishihara,
Zolkiewski, 2017). An underlying purpose of HQ-initiated activities such as
trainings and on-site demonstrations is the acculturation of subsidiaries due
to the promotion of company-specific knowledge and organizational values
(Saka-Helmhout, 2009).
It was illustrated above that under centralization, HQ determined the
transfer of knowledge to and from subsidiaries by measures assigned to accul-
turation and control. Drawing from the above findings, we propose the fol-
lowing Proposition 1:
Proposition 1: In a centralized organizational structure with higher levels of
interdependence between organizational subunits, HQ are more likely to choose
acculturation and control mechanisms to transfer technical and systemic knowl-
edge.
The Organic Diffusion of Practices

The organic diffusion of practices occurred irregularly as a result of
communication between organizational subunits (Lupton, Beamish, 2014).
Headquarters were not directly involved into organic diffusion, rather, the

interaction of two or more parties could lead to the identification of prac-

tices of perceived value and consequently to their adoption. More specifi-
cally, since potential knowledge recipients had to know of the existence of a
practice and consider it to be valuable, HQ indirectly supported the organic
diffusion of knowledge within their MNE network due to the encourage-
ment of communication among subsidiaries. As a result, organic diffusion
was connected to the level of heterogeneity of practices among subsidiaries.
Measures to facilitate the organic diffusion of practices were therefore espe-
cially suitable in organizations, which possessed a decentralized structure,
and, as a result of lower or no levels of interdependencies, lacked interaction
among subsidiaries. Practices might also differ between subunits, functions
and locations, sometimes as a result of mergers and acquisitions. As opposed
to central administration, there was, thus, no formal requirement to adopt a
practice (Lupton, Beamish, 2014, p. 720).
Accordingly, measures that led to the organic diffusion of practices were
mainly characterized by reverse and inter-subsidiary knowledge flows. This
comprised the storing of best practices and the sub-mechanisms reflection,
networking and brokering, which are referred to in the following:
The sub-mechanism knowledge storing referred to the depositing of knowl-
edge in documents, technology, tools as well as in databases, forums and
portals (Perrin et al., 2007; Schleimer, Riege, 2009; Tippmann et al., 2014).
Knowledge repositories such as best practice forums and portals encouraged

formal and informal exchanges of technical and systemic knowledge between
subsidiaries (Perrin et al., 2007; Tippmann et al., 2014).
Examples falling under the category reflection aimed at promoting
exchange due to experiential learning. Examples were learning from critical
incidents, mentoring, site visits by subsidiary staff, observation and co-partic-
ipation (Hong, Nguyen, 2009; Tippmann et al., 2014; Ishihara, Zolkiewski,
2017).
At the heart of networking were the promotion of inter-subsidiary commu-
nication and inter-dependency of organizational sub-units, the development
of relationships and a competitive atmosphere among subsidiaries to transfer
systemic knowledge. Networking could be facilitated due to both face-to-face
in meetings or conferences and technological-based using e-mail, telephone
and video calls. This sub-mechanism differentiated between structural con-
figurations and informal interaction, which both provided the platform or
opportunity for bringing people – knowledge source and recipient – together.
By the creation of for instance common tasks or interactive formats, HQ fos-
tered inter-subsidiary communication, the exchange of experiences and the
active involvement and contribution of employees across units and countries.

Examples for structural configurations therefore included the development

of boards and council structures, the establishment of periodic meetings
between employees with managerial and executive functions such as lab
heads, the creation of cross-unit tasks, groups and teams as well as the execu-
tion of formal cross-unit events such as international conferences and inter-
national campaigns (Hong, Nguyen, 2009; Saka-Helmhout, 2009; Schleimer,
Riege, 2009; Lupton, Beamish, 2014; Ishihara, Zolkiewski, 2017). Moreover,
structural configurations often provided the basis for interpersonal relation-
ships and international contacts to management peers or frontline specialists
and thus informal knowledge exchange. Direct avenues for more informal
interaction included informal events and social gatherings (Schleimer, Riege,
2009; Tippmann et al., 2014; Ishihara, Zolkiewski, 2017).
Differently, brokering involved a third party; an intermediary, who acted
as a link between two (or more) parties. In other words, the broker was a
middle(wo)man, who transferred (best) practices across the MNE network.
Brokering aimed at overcoming structural barriers in the absence of mutual
interdependencies and making potentially valuable practices visible to poten-
tial knowledge recipients (Lupton, Beamish, 2014). This way, all types of
organizational knowledge could be transferred across the network. Examples
that fell under brokering were the assignment of cultural translators, the
exposure of employees to different business units, job rotation, and expatria-
tion (Hong, Nguyen, 2009; Saka-Helmhout, 2009; Schleimer, Riege, 2009;

Lupton, Beamish, 2014).
It was shown above that under decentralization HQ had indirectly influ-
enced the transfer of knowledge from and between subsidiaries by measures
assigned to the sub-mechanisms knowledge storing, reflection, network-
ing and brokering. Moreover, the choice of mechanism was shown to also
depend on the level of interdependencies among organizational units. From
the above, we propose the following Propositions 2 and 3:
Proposition 2: In a decentralized coordination structure with lower levels of
mutual interdependencies between organizational units, HQ are more likely to
choose knowledge storing, reflection and networking mechanisms to facilitate the
transfer of systemic knowledge.
Proposition 3: In the absence of interdependencies between organizational
units under decentralization, HQ are more likely to choose brokering for facilitat-
ing the transfer of all types of knowledge across the MNE network.
It follows the discussion of the findings in the following section.

Summary and Discussion of Findings

By conducting a systematic review of nine qualitative case studies, we
showed how the HQ choice of knowledge transfer mechanisms was linked to
(1) different types of organizational knowledge and (2) organizational struc-
ture. Three propositions describe the relationship between knowledge types,
organizational structure and transfer mechanisms.
We decided to investigate these relationships due to the high strategic
relevance of knowledge and its transfer across networked organizational
structures. Networked organizational structures are widespread these days;
we wanted to profit from the long-standing experiences of MNEs as globally
competitive networked entities which are well researched in IB. Since we are
aware of the fact that effective knowledge transfer may not only depend on
knowledge characteristics, but also on the structural specificities of a par-
ticular MNE, we followed a contingency-based approach here. The aim was
to come to a better understanding of how HQ coordinate knowledge flows
in MNEs. The focus was set on organizational mechanisms which facilitate
effective knowledge transfers in networked MNEs, while taking characteris-
tics of the involved organizational units (i.e., the MNE subsidiaries and HQ)
as well as the characteristics of the knowledge transferred (i.e., technical
and systemic knowledge as well as strategic understanding) into account. By
sorting the case data from the nine identified relevant studies according to

the constructs types of organizational knowledge, transfer mechanisms and
structural conditions/barriers we have come to a better understanding of how
these are interrelated:
First, we found that systemic knowledge was typically transferred face-
to-face. Technological-based knowledge storage devices as, for example, best
practice forums and portals were rarely chosen to transfer systemic knowl-
edge. Surprisingly, also technical knowledge was preferably transferred via
direct interactions. One reason for that might be that the measures and
transfer mechanisms identified in this study could often not be separated
accurately: While for example an expatriates main responsibility may be to
supervise the implementation of an operational guideline at the subsidiary,
at the same time, she may act as a broker between organizational units, mak-
ing valuable practices visible to potential knowledge recipients. Moreover, we
found only few examples of how strategic knowledge is transferred. This is
not surprising, as changes in the mindset of people are certainly not happen-
ing at once. Instead, it is likely that the gradual integration of technical and
systemic knowledge eventually leads to strategic understanding. Recently,
such a process was illustrated by Acquier et al. (2018), who explored the

global implementation of CSR strategy over a 10-year period. More research

would be fruitful in this area, though, to come to a clearer understanding of
the development of strategic understanding.
Moreover, we propose that there is a link between a centralized organi-
zational structure (with adherent higher levels of interdependence between
organizational subunits) and the higher likelihood of HQ to choose accul-
turation and control mechanisms to transfer technical and systemic knowl-
edge (Proposition 1). Further, from the above study, we come to the follow-
ing understanding of transferring knowledge in decentralized coordination
constellations: Here we propose that decentralized coordination structures
(with adherent lower levels of mutual interdependencies between organiza-
tional units) are linked to a higher likelihood of HQ to choose knowledge
storing, reflection and networking mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of
(best) practices and procedures (Proposition 2). Finally, we suggest that the
likelihood of HQ to choose brokering for facilitating the transfer of all types
of knowledge across the MNE network is higher in situations where there are
no interdependencies between organizational units under decentralization
regimes (Proposition 3).
Put differently, all this shows that organizational structure influenced the
form of HQ involvement, which was also reflected in the way knowledge was
transferred: This can be explained by the fact that centralized organizational
structures are generally characterized by high levels of interdependence,

while decentralized coordination structures come with low levels of interde-
pendencies between organizational units. Accordingly, under centralization
HQ made use of acculturation and control mechanisms to directly coordinate
the transfer of knowledge, while under decentralization they chose knowl-
edge storing, reflection, networking and brokering mechanisms to indirectly
coordinate knowledge diffusion and to overcome structural impediments
to inter-subsidiary communication. HQ required the adoption of practices
transferred by the former (i.e., acculturation and control), while the effects
of the latter (i.e., knowledge storing, reflection, networking and brokering)
occurred irregularly and could hardly be foreseen. An example for indirect
coordination was providing the platform or opportunity for bringing people,
knowledge source and recipient, together.
All this demonstrates that coordination is not only possible in centralized
but also in decentralized companies, where the conditions are not favorable
for the transfer of knowledge. In this paper, we have shown that HQ used a
large set of knowledge management practices to indirectly influence knowl-
edge transfer in more decentralized companies. In other words, by making
conscious choices of how to transfer knowledge, managers can overcome

structural impediments to the transfer of technical, systemic and strategic

knowledge.
Concluding Remarks
In this paper we applied the meta-synthesis approach as suggested by
Hoon (2013) and Finfgeld-Connett (2018) to make use of published qualita-
tive case study findings. While the meta-analysis of quantitative studies has
gained much attention over the past years, the meta-synthesis of qualitative
studies in the fields of organization, strategy and international business is still
in its beginnings and “their cumulative advantage for advancing knowledge in
the field” (Hoon, 2013, p. 523) has been hardly taken into consideration so far.
For the scope of this paper, qualitative case study research was found to be
particularly suitable for investigating the context-sensitive nature of knowl-
edge. By conducting a meta-synthesis of a set of case studies, we provided an
example of how researchers in the field of management and organization may
make use of published qualitative research in a systematic fashion.
The results of this study suggest at least two directions for future research:
First, while HQ choice of acculturation and control mechanisms under
centralization directly and indirectly led to higher levels of homogeneity of
practices, similar was true for HQ choice of knowledge storing, reflection,

networking and brokering mechanisms under decentralization, which indi-
rectly led to higher levels of homogeneity of practices. This observation is
interesting because it suggests (1) that headquarters generally strives for the
better alignment of company values and practices to enhance knowledge
transfer and (2) that the gradual alignment of values and practices comes
with lower levels of local adaption. In the long run, this does not necessarily
benefit the MNE: For example, recent studies on corporate entrepreneurship
find that innovation can also be triggered by the heterogeneity of practices
and institutional distance of headquarters and subsidiaries (e.g. Hamprecht,
Schwarzkopf, 2014; Acquier et al., 2018). Therefore, we believe that the con-
sequences and trade-offs of knowledge management should serve as a starting
point for future in-depth approaches. Second, even though one might assume
that central administration is more likely to occur in highly regulated global
industries such as the aerospace, the shipping and the chemical industry,
where organizations operate with global strategies and have more centralized
structures, this was not supported by our study (see Table 1 again). We were
not able to determine a prevailing transfer mechanism for any industry.
One limitation of our study lies in the way we selected the studies to
be included. This study was restricted to a sample of nine qualitative case

studies. For instance, we did not consider qualitative research published in

B-ranked journals and lower as well as books or book chapters. Generally, it
cannot be excluded that different inclusion criteria would have led to other
conclusions, adaptations and further findings. However, by conducting the
meta-synthesis, it has also become obvious that the approach can hardly deal
with large sets of articles without losing its strengths and we maintain that
the findings constitute a valuable contribution to the choice of knowledge
transfer mechanisms. Thereby this research goes beyond extensive literature
reviews conducted in the field of knowledge transfer. We, therefore, agree
with Hoons (2013) view that not the number of studies included, but rather,
the insights gained justify a meta-synthesis approach. Further limitations can
be seen in the difficulties to exactly sort knowledge investigated in the case
studies in one of the three identified categories, i.e., technical knowledge,
systemic knowledge and strategic understanding. A different categorization
that is more fine-grained could be fruitful here.
In summary, despite these limitations, we see large potential for meta-syn-
theses in the mature field of knowledge transfer not only in MNE literature:
In future work, the results of this research could for example be compared
to knowledge transfer and exchange in other network types such as indus-
try clusters. For example brokering was discussed as being relevant also in
inter-organizational networks such as industry clusters (e.g. Gretzinger, Royer,
2014; Mitchell et al., 2014; Leick, Gretzinger, 2018a). Thereby, different fields

which are, however, interested in the same phenomenon (i.e., knowledge
transfer) could inspire each other.
REFERENCES
ACQUIER, A., CARBONE, V., MOATTI, V. (2018), “Teaching the Sushi Chef”:
Hybridization Work and CSR Integration in a Japanese Multinational Company,
Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 625-645.
ALMEIDA, P., SONG, J., GRANT, R. M. (2002), Are Firms Superior to Alliances and
Markets? An Empirical Test of Cross-Border Knowledge Building, Organization Science
13(2), 147-161.
AMBOS, T. C., AMBOS, B. (2009), The Impact of Distance on Knowledge Transfer
Effectiveness in Multinational Corporations, Journal of International Management
15(1), 1-14.
ANDERSSON, U., BUCKLEY, P. J., DELLESTRAND, H. (2015a), In the Right Place
at the Right Time!: The Influence of Knowledge Governance Tools on Knowledge
Transfer and Utilization in MNEs, Global Strategy Journal, 5(1), 27-47.

ANDERSSON, U., GAUR, A., MUDAMBI, R., PERSSON, M. (2015b), Unpacking

Interunit Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Enterprises, Global Strategy Journal,
5(3), 241-255.
ARGOTE, L., INGRAM, P. (2000), Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive
Advantage in Firms, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-
169.
ARGOTE, L., INGRAM, P., LEVINE, J. M., MORELAND, R. L. (2000), Knowledge
Transfer in Organizations: Learning from the Experience of Others, Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1-8.
ARGOTE, L., MCEVILY, B., REAGANS, R. (2003), Managing Knowledge in Organizations:
An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes, Management Science, 49
(4), 571-582.
BARTLETT, C. A., GHOSHAL, S. (1989), Managing Across Borders: The Transnational
Solution, Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
BIRKINSHAW, J. (1997), Entrepreneurship in Multinational Corporations: The
Characteristics of Subsidiary Initiatives, Strat. Mgmt. J, 18(3), 207-229.
BJÖRKMAN, I., BARNER-RASMUSSEN, W., Li Li (2004), Managing Knowledge
Transfer in MNCs: The Impact of Headquarters Control Mechanisms, Journal of
International Business Studies, 35(5), 443-455.
BRONSTEIN, J., REIHLEN, M. (2014), Entrepreneurial University Archetypes, Industry
and Higher Education, 28(4), 245-262.
CANTWELL, J., MUDAMBI, R. (2005), MNE Competence-Creating Subsidiary
Mandates, Strat. Mgmt. J., 26(12), 1109-1128.
CANTWELL, J. A., MUDAMBI, R. (2011), Physical Attraction and the Geography of

Knowledge Sourcing in Multinational Enterprises, Global Strategy Journal, 1(3-4), 206-
232.
CARLSON, A., PALMER, C. (2016), A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis of the Benefits of Eco-
Labeling in Developing Countries, Ecological Economics, 127, 129-145.
CHANG, Y.-Y., SMALE, A. (2013), Expatriate Characteristics and the Stickiness of HRM
Knowledge Transfers, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(12),
2394-2410.
CHILD, J., RODRIGUES, S. (1996), The Role of Social Identity in the International
Transfer of Knowledge Through Joint Ventures, in Steward R. Clegg, Gill Palmer (eds),
The Politics of Management Knowledge, London, Sage Publications, Ltd, 46-68.
CIABUSCHI, F., DELLESTRAND, H., KAPPEN, P. (2011), Exploring the Effects of
Vertical and Lateral Mechanisms in International Knowledge Transfer Projects,
Management International Review (MIR), 51(2), 129-155.
CLAVER‐CORTÉS, E., ZARAGOZA‐SÁEZ, P., PERTUSA‐ORTEGA, E. (2007),
Organizational Structure Features Supporting Knowledge Management Processes, J of
Knowledge Management, 11(4), 45-57.
DAVENPORT, T. H., PRUSAK, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage
what They Know, Harvard Business School Press (Teil 247). Available online at https://
books.google.de/books?id=-4-7vmCVG5cC.

EASTERBY-SMITH, M., LYLES, M. A., TSANG, E. W. K. (2008), Inter-Oganizational

Kowledge Tansfer: Current Themes and Future Prospects, Journal of Management
Studies, 45(4), 677-690.
EISENHARDT, K. M. (1989), Building Theories from Case Study Research, The Academy
of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
FERRARIS, A., SANTORO, G., SCUOTTO, V. (2018), Dual Relational Embeddedness
and Knowledge Transfer in European Multinational Corporations and Subsidiaries,
Journal of Knowledge Management.
FINFGELD-CONNETT, D. (2018), A Guide to Qualitative Meta-Synthesis, 1st ed. Milton,
Taylor and Francis.
FOSS, N. J. (2006), Knowledge and Oganization in the Theory of the Multinational
Corporation: Some Foundational Issues, Journal of Management & Governance, 10(1),
3-20.
FOSS, N. J., HUSTED, K., MICHAILOVA, S. (2010), Governing Knowledge Sharing in
Organizations: Levels of Analysis, Governance Mechanisms, and Research Directions,
Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 455-482.
GHOSHAL, S., BARTLETT, C. A. (1990), The Multinational Corporation as an
Interorganizational Network, AMR, 15(4), 603-626.
GIBBERT, M., RUIGROK, W. (2010), The What and How of Case Study Rigor: Three
Strategies Based on Published Work, Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710-737.
GOODERHAM, P., MINBAEVA, D. B., PEDERSEN, T. (2011), Governance Mechanisms
for the Promotion of Social Capital for Knowledge Transfer in Multinational
Corporations, Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 123-150.
GRANT, R. M. (1996), Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm, Strategic

Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), 109-122.
GRANT, R. M., BADEN-FULLER, C. (1995), A Knowledge-Based Theory of Inter-Firm
Collaboration, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 17–21.
GRETZINGER, S., ROYER, S. (2014), Relational Resources in Value Adding Webs: The
Case of a Southern Danish Firm Cluster, in European Management Journal, 32(1), 117-
131.
HAMPRECHT, J., SCHWARZKOPF, J. (2014), Subsidiary Initiatives in the Institutional
Environment, Management International Review, 54(5), 757-778.
HEDLUND, G. (1986), The Hypermodern MNC: A Heterarchy?, Hum. Resour. Manage,
25(1), 9-35.
HEDLUND, G. (1994), A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-Form Corporation,
in Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Special Issue), 73-90.
HONG, J. F. L., NGUYEN, T. V. (2009), Knowledge Embeddedness and the Transfer
Mechanisms in Multinational Corporations, Journal of World Business, 44(4), 347-356.
HOON, C. (2013), Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Case Studies, in Organizational Research
Methods, 16(4), 522-556.
INKPEN, A. C., TSANG, E. W. K. (2005), Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge
Transfer, Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165.

ISHIHARA, H., ZOLKIEWSKI, J. (2017), Effective Knowledge Transfer between the

Headquarters and a Subsidiary in a MNC: The Need for Heeding Capacity, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(6), 813-824.
KOGUT, B., ZANDER, U. (1992), Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and
the Replication of Technology, Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
KOGUT, B., ZANDER, U. (1993), Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory
of the Multinational Corporation, Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625-
645.
LEICK, B., GRETZINGER, S. (2018a), Brokerage and Governance for Business Networks:
A Metasynthesis-Based Discussion, Journal of Management and Governance, 22(4), 773-
804.
LEICK, B., GRETZINGER, S. (2018b), Netzwerk-Broker als interdisziplinäres
Forschungsthema, in Jeannine Wintzer (ed.), Sozialraum erforschen: Qualitative
Methoden in der Geographie, vol. 24. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
331-350.
LUPTON, N., BEAMISH, P. (2014), Organizational Structure and Knowledge-Practice
Diffusion in the MNC. In Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(4), 710-727.
MICHAILOVA, S., MUSTAFFA, Z. (2012), Subsidiary Knowledge Flows in Multinational
Corporations: Research Accomplishments, Gaps, and Opportunities, Journal of World
Business, 47(3), 383-396.
MITCHELL, R., BOYLE, B., BURGESS, J., MCNEIL, K. (2014), "You Can’t Make a Good
Wine without a Few Beers": Gatekeepers and Knowledge Flow in Industrial Districts,
Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 2198-2206.
NOBLIT, G. W., HARE, R. D. (1988), Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies,

Sage Publications Inc (Qualitative Research Methods, 11).
NOHRIA, N., GHOSHAL, S. (1994), Differentiated Fit and Shared Values: Alternatives
for Managing Headquarters-Subsidiary Relations, Strategic Management Journal, 15(6),
491-502.
NONAKA, I., TAKEUCHI, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York, Oxford Univ. Press. Available
online at http://www.gbv.de/dms/faz-rez/F19980518BONUS--100.pdf.
NONAKA, I., UMEMOTO, K., SENOO, D. (1996), From Information Processing to
Knowledge Creation: A Paradigm Shift in Business Management, Technology in
Society, 18(2), 203-218.
PERRIN, A., ROLLAND, N., STANLEY, T. (2007), Achieving Best Practices Transfer
across Countries, Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 156-166.
SAKA-HELMHOUT, A. (2009), Agency-Based View of Learning within the Multinational
Corporation, Management Learning, 40(3), 259-274.
SAKA-HELMHOUT, A. (2010), Organizational Learning as a Situated Routine-Based
Activity in International Settings, Journal of World Business, 45(1), 41-48.
SAMBAMURTHY, V., SUBRAMANI, M. (2005), Special Issue on Information
Technologies and Knowledge Management, MIS Quarterly, 29(1).
SCHLEIMER, S., RIEGE, A. (2009), Knowledge Transfer between Globally Dispersed
Units at BMW, Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 27-41.

SCHLEIMER, S. C., PEDERSEN, T. (2014), The Effects of MNC Parent Effort and Social
Structure on Subsidiary Absorptive Capacity, Journal of International Business Studies,
45(3), 303-320.
SERGEEVA, A., ANDREEVA, T. (2016), Knowledge Sharing Research: Bringing Context
Back In, Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(3), 240-261.
SONG, J. (2014), Subsidiary Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Transfer within
Multinational Corporations, Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 73-84.
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.
THORNE, S., JENSEN, L., KEARNEY, M. H., NOBLIT, G., SANDELOWSKI, M.
(2004), Qualitative Metasynthesis. Reflections on Methodological Orientation and
Ideological Agenda, Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1342-1365.
TIPPMANN, E., SCOTT, P. S., MANGEMATIN, V. (2014), Subsidiary Managers
Knowledge Mobilizations: Unpacking Emergent Knowledge Flows, Journal of World
Business 49(3), 431-443.
TSAI, W. (2002), Social Structure of "Coopetition" within a Multiunit Organization:
Coordination, Competition, and Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing, Organization
Science, 13(2), 179-190.
VAN WIJK, R., JANSEN, J. 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.
VENZIN, M., KROGH, G. (VON), ROOS, J. (1998), Future Research into Knowledge
Management, in Dirk Kleine, George Von Krogh, Johan Roos (eds), Knowing in Firms:

Understanding, Managing, and Measuring Knowledge, London, Thousand Oaks, SAGE,
26-66.
WALSH, D., DOWNE, S. (2004), Meta-Synthesis Method for Qualitative Research: A
Literature Review, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204-211.
YIN, R. K. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5 ed., Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC, SAGE.
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.
ZHENG, W., YANG, B., MCLEAN, G. N. (2010), Linking Organizational Culture,
Structure, Strategy, and Organizational Effectiveness: Mediating Role of Knowledge
Management, Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 763-771.


Jie 033 0079

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Jie 033 0079

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Role of Context in Transferring Knowledge: A Meta-

Synthesis of Qualitative Case Studies on Multinational

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse

Découvrir le sommaire de ce numéro, suivre la revue par email, s’abonner...

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 79

Introduction: Framing the

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

80 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

knowledge can be supported by an organizational design which encourages

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 81

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

82 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

Search Strategy and Sampling

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 83

units of MNEs. They assessed how knowledge mobilization practices as indi-

Data Extraction, Analysis and Synthesis

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

84 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 85

Findings: Knowledge Types,

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

Categorizing Organizational Knowledge

86 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

Table 1– Final set of qualitative case studies

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3

Source: Own compilation

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

88 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

The following are examples for the transfer of systemic knowledge in

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 89

Transfer Mechanisms in Context

The Central Administration of Practices

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

90 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3

Source: Own compilation

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

Table 3 – Knowledge transfer mechanisms in context

Source: Own compilation

Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

of common metrics and reporting structures (Saka-Helmhout, 2009; Lupton,

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

The Organic Diffusion of Practices

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 93

interaction of two or more parties could lead to the identification of prac-

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

94 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

Examples for structural configurations therefore included the development

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

n° 33 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 95

Summary and Discussion of Findings

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)

96 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2020/3 – n° 33

global implementation of CSR strategy over a 10-year period. More research

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 14/01/2024 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 77.54.212.37)