Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From horizontal knowledge sharing to vertical knowledge transfer: The role of boundary-spanning commitment in international joint ventures

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

International joint ventures (IJVs) have become an important source of critical knowledge for multinational enterprises, but little is known about how knowledge can be effectively transferred to parent firms when the potential for interpartner opportunism still exists. Drawing on attachment theory, we study how boundary-spanning commitments to IJVs may help mitigate interpartner opportunism and facilitate effective knowledge transfer to parents. Specifically, we argue that knowledge transfer from IJVs to their parents is positively mediated by both boundary spanners’ organizational commitment to IJVs and parent firms’ resource commitment to IJVs. We test our arguments using survey data collected from 600 dyadic Chinese–foreign managers of 100 IJVs established in China. The results provide evidence that knowledge sharing between boundary spanners in IJVs positively affects their organizational commitment to these IJVs, which in turn positively affects knowledge transfer to parents. Similarly, knowledge sharing between such boundary spanners positively affects parent firms’ resource commitment to IJVs, which in turn positively affects knowledge transfer to parents. The mediating role of boundary spanners’ organizational commitment is stronger than that of parent firms’ resource commitment. Collectively, our findings suggest that commitment-based relational mechanisms are imperative for safeguarding effective knowledge transfer from IJVs to parent firms.

Résumé

Les coentreprises internationales (International Joint Ventures - IJVs) sont devenues pour les entreprises multinationales une source importante de connaissances critiques. Reste pourtant encore limitée notre connaissance sur la manière dont les connaissances peuvent être efficacement transférées aux sociétés mères lorsque le potentiel d'opportunisme inter-partenaire existe toujours. Nous appuyant sur la théorie de l'attachement, nous étudions comment les engagements des passeurs de frontières envers les IJVs peuvent aider à atténuer l'opportunisme inter-partenaire et à faciliter un transfert efficace des connaissances aux sociétés mères. Plus précisément, nous argumentons que le transfert de connaissances des IJVs à leurs sociétés mères est positivement médiatisé par l'engagement organisationnel des passeurs de frontières envers les IJVs et l'engagement des ressources des sociétés mères envers les IJVs. Nous testons nos arguments à l'aide de données d'enquête recueillies auprès de 600 managers chinois-étrangers dyadiques dans 100 IJVs établies en Chine. Les résultats confirment que le partage des connaissances entre les passeurs de frontières dans les IJVs influence positivement leur engagement organisationnel envers ces IJVs, lequel à son tour impacte positivement le transfert des connaissances aux sociétés mères. De même, le partage des connaissances entre de tels passeurs de frontières influence positivement l'engagement des ressources des sociétés mères envers les IJVs, lequel à son tour impacte positivement le transfert des connaissances aux sociétés mères. Le rôle médiateur de l'engagement organisationnel des passeurs de frontières est plus fort que celui de l'engagement des ressources des sociétés mères. Ensemble, nos résultats suggèrent que les mécanismes relationnels fondés sur l'engagement sont impératifs pour garantir un transfert efficace des connaissances des IJVs aux sociétés mères.

Resumen

Las empresas conjuntas internacionales (IJV, por sus iniciales en inglés) se han constituido en una importante fuente de conocimiento crítico para las empresas multinacionales, pero se sabe poco acerca de cómo se puede transferir eficazmente el conocimiento a las empresas matrices cuando todavía existe el potencial de oportunismo entre socios. Basándonos en la teoría del apego, estudiamos cómo los compromisos con las empresas conjuntas internacionales pueden ayudar a mitigar el oportunismo entre socios y facilitar la transferencia efectiva de conocimientos a las empresas matrices. Especificamente, sostenemos que la transferencia de conocimientos de las empresas conjuntas a sus empresas matrices se ve mediada positivamente por el compromiso organizacional de las empresas conjuntas y por el compromiso de las empresas matrices con los recursos de las empresas conjuntas. Para probar nuestros argumentos utilizamos datos de una encuesta realizada a 600 directivos chinos y extranjeros de 100 empresas mixtas establecidas en China. Los resultados proporcionan evidencias de que el intercambio de conocimientos entre quienes transcienden los limites de las empresas conjuntas afecta positivamente a su compromiso organizacional con estas empresas conjuntas, lo que a su vez afecta positivamente a la transferencia de conocimientos a las empresas matrices. Del mismo modo, el intercambio de conocimientos entre quienes transcienden los limites afecta positivamente al compromiso de los recursos de las empresas matrices con las empresas conjuntas internacionales, lo que a su vez afecta positivamente a la transferencia de conocimientos a las matrices. El papel mediador del compromiso organizacional de quienes transcienden los limites es más fuerte que el del compromiso de recursos de las empresas matrices. En conjunto, nuestros hallazgos sugieren que los mecanismos relacionales basados en el compromiso son imprescindibles para salvaguardar la transferencia efectiva de conocimientos de las empresas conjuntas internacionales a las matrices.

Resumo

Joint ventures internacionais (IJVs) tornaram-se uma importante fonte de conhecimento crítico para empresas multinacionais, mas pouco se sabe sobre como o conhecimento pode ser efetivamente transferido para empresas controladoras quando ainda existe potencialmente oportunismo entre parceiros. Com base na teoria do apego, estudamos como o comprometimento boundary spanning de IJVs podem ajudar a mitigar o oportunismo entre parceiros e facilitar a transferência efetiva de conhecimento para as empresas controladoras. Especificamente, argumentamos que a transferência de conhecimento de IJVs para suas controladoras é positivamente mediada pelo comprometimento organizacional boundary spanning de IJVs e o comprometimento de recursos das controladoras com IJVs. Testamos nossos argumentos usando dados de pesquisa coletados de 600 díades de gerentes chineses-estrangeiros de 100 IJVs estabelecidas na China. Os resultados fornecem evidências de que o compartilhamento de conhecimento entre agentes de boundary spanning em IJVs afeta positivamente seu comprometimento organizacional com essas IJVs, o que, por sua vez, afeta positivamente a transferência de conhecimento para controladoras. Da mesma forma, o compartilhamento de conhecimento entre esses agentes de boundary spanning afeta positivamente o comprometimento de recursos das controladoras com IJVs, o que, por sua vez, afeta positivamente a transferência de conhecimento para controladoras. O papel mediador do comprometimento organizacional de agentes boundary spanning é mais forte do que o comprometimento de recursos de controladoras. Coletivamente, nossas descobertas sugerem que mecanismos relacionais baseados em comprometimento são imperativos para proteger a efetiva transferência de conhecimento de IJVs para controladoras.

摘要

国际合资企业 (IJV) 已成为跨国企业关键知识的重要来源, 但在合作伙伴间机会主义的潜力仍然存在的情况下, 如何将知识有效地转移到母公司我们却知之甚少。借鉴依附理论, 我们研究了对 IJV 的跨界承诺如何有助于减轻合作伙伴间的机会主义并促进对母公司有效的知识转移。具体来说, 我们认为从 IJV 到其母公司的知识转移受到边界跨越者对 IJV 的组织承诺和母公司对 IJV 的资源承诺的积极调节。我们用从成立在中国的 100 家 IJV 的 600 中外管理人员收集的调查数据来检验我们的论点。结果提供了证据, 表明 IJV 中边界跨越者之间的知识共享积极影响他们对这些 IJV 的组织承诺, 这反过来又对向母公司的知识转移产生积极影响。同样, 这些边界跨越者之间的知识共享积极影响母公司对 IJV 的资源承诺, 这反过来又积极影响向母公司的知识转移。边界跨越者的组织承诺的调节作用强于母公司资源承诺的调节作用。总的来说, 我们的研究结果表明, 基于承诺的关系机制对于保护从 IJV 到母公司的有效知识转移是必不可少的。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. 1990. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1): 42–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, S. T., & Strasser, S. 1984. A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1): 95–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, P. W., & Berdrow, I. 2003. Learning from IJVs: The unintended outcome. Long Range Planning, 36(3): 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. 1969. Attachment and loss: Attachment, V1. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. R. 1997. Understanding Chinese courts and legal process: Law with Chinese characteristics. New York: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. 1977. Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. Sociological Quarterly, 18(1): 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. 1978. Power, equity and commitment in the exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5): 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czako, A., & Sik, E. 1988. Manager’s Reciprocal Transactions. Connections, 11(3): 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. 2004. Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 428–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Hugh, L. 1998. Socially embedded consumer transactions: For what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks. American Sociological Review, 63(5): 619–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. A., & Podolny, J. 1992. Differentiation of boundary-spanning roles: Labor negotiations and implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froese, F. J., Stoermer, S., Reiche, B. S., & Klar, S. 2021. Best of both worlds: How embeddedness fit in the host unit and the headquarters improve repatriate knowledge transfer. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(7): 1331–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 13–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y., Shenkar, O., Luo, Y., & Nyaw, M. K. 2007. Do multiple parents help or hinder international joint venture performance? The mediating roles of contract completeness and partner cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10): 1021–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria, & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action: 25–56. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Khanna, T., & Nohria, N. 1994. Unilateral commitments and the importance of process in alliances. Sloan Management Review, 35(3): 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. 1998. Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. 2018. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. F., & Zeng, M. 2005. Structural determinants of joint venture performance. European Management Review, 2(2): 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking, J. B., Brown, M. E., & Harzing, A. W. 2007. Balancing global and local strategic contexts: Expatriate knowledge transfer, applications and learning within a transnational organization. Human Resource Management, 46(4): 513–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 2005. Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw–Hill.

  • Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. 1993. Power, social influence and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2): 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. 1997. Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 177–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A., & Crossan, M. 1995. Believing is seeing: Joint ventures and organization learning. Journal of Management Studies, 32(5): 595–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, Z., Lew, Y. K., & Sinkovics, R. R. 2015. International joint ventures as boundary spanners: Technological knowledge transfer in an emerging economy. Global Strategy Journal, 5(1): 48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3): 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranton, R. 1996. Reciprocal exchange: A self-sustaining system. American Economic Review, 86(4): 830–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. 2001. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12): 1139–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. 2002. An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4): 779–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, A. D., & Fichman, M. 1988. Dynamics of Interorganizational Attachments: Auditor-Client Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3): 345–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. 1985. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4): 967–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. 2001. Antecedents and consequences of personal attachment in cross-cultural cooperative ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2): 177–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. 2002. Stimulating exchange in international joint ventures: An attachment-based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1): 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. 2007. An integrated anti-opportunism system in international exchange. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3): 855–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. 2009. Are we on the same page? Justice agreement in international joint ventures. Journal of World Business, 44(4): 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Zhang, H., & Bu, J. 2019. Developed country MNEs investing in developing economies: Progress and prospect. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(4): 633–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, A. M., & Salk, E. J. 1996. Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures: An empirical examination in the Hungarian context. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(5): 877–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, M. A., Saxton, T., & Watson, K. 2004. Venture survival in a transitional economy. Journal of Management, 30(3): 351–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhok, A. 1995. Opportunism and trust in joint venture relationships: An exploratory study and a model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(1): 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1): 20–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, L. F., & Birkinshaw, J. 2017. The external knowledge sourcing process in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2): 342–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W. 2002. Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1149–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2): 224–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. 2005. Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3): 415–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natarajan, S., Mahmood, P. I., & Mitchell, W. 2019. Middle management involvement in resource allocation: The evolution of automated teller machines and bank branches in India. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7): 1070–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W. H., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. 2006. Effects of management communication, opportunity for learning, and work schedule flexibility on organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68(3): 474–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3): 492–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. 2000. Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5): 538–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C., & Vertinsky, I. 2016. Reverse and conventional knowledge transfers in international joint ventures. Journal of Business Research, 69(8): 2821–2829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppo, L., Zhou, K. Z., & Ryu, S. 2008. Alternative origins to interorganizational trust: An interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. Organization Science, 19(1): 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. 2009. A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10): 1027–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, M. J. D., & Beamish, P. W. 2017. The scaffolding activities of international returnee executives: A learning based perspective of global boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4): 511–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seabright, M. A., Levinthal, D. A., & Fichman, M. 1992. Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 122–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, P. R., Collions, N., & Clark, C. L. 1996. Attachment styles and internal working models of self and relationship partners. In G. J. O. Fletcher, & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach: 25–61. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonin, L. B. 2004. An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 407–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, K., & Lyles, M. A. 2000. Explaining IJV survival in a transitional economy through social exchange and knowledge-based perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8): 831–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, M., & Venkatraman, N. 2001. Determinants of transnational new product development capability: Testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4): 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, J. H. 1997. Autonomy and procedural justice: a framework for evaluating subsidiary strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1): 51–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippman, E., Sharkey, S. P., & Parker, A. 2017. Boundary capabilities in MNCs: Knowledge transformation for creative solution development. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4): 455–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. 2002. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: Learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9): 835–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2): 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vora, D., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2007. Roles of subsidiary managers in multinational corporations: The effect of dual organizational identification. Management International Review, 47(4): 595–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3): 548–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, F., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2006. Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation in interfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59(1): 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, E., Liang, J., & Zhou, K. Z. 2016. How to enhance supplier performance in China: An integrative view of partner selection and partner control. Industrial Marketing Management, 56(2): 156–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip, J., Ehrhardt, K., Black, H., & Walker, D. O. 2018. Attachment theory at work: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2): 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, J., Baker, M. R., & Ko, J. W. 1994. Interpersonal attachment and organizational commitment: Subgroup hypothesis revisited. Human Relations, 47(3): 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, J. Z., & Anand, J. 2009. A multilevel perspective on knowledge transfer: Evidence from the Chinese automotive industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9): 959–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Y., Zhang, X., Zhuang, G., & Zhou, N. 2015. Relational norms and collaborative activities: Roles in reducing opportunism in marketing channels. Industrial Marketing Management, 46: 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G. 1977. The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence, 1840–1920. American Sociological Review, 42(5): 726–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to Senior Editor Professor Yadong Luo and the three anonymous reviewers for their detailed guidance, insightful comments, and helpful suggestions on almost all aspects of the article throughout the review process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, College of Business and Law, RMIT University, 445 Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Fuming Jiang

  2. College of Business, Law and Governance, James Cook University, 1 James Cook Drive, Douglas, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia

    Li Xian Liu

  3. School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia

    Jizhong Li

Authors
  1. Fuming Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Xian Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jizhong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fuming Jiang.

Additional information

Accepted by Yadong Luo, Senior Editor, 16 January 2022. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Measurement of Main Variables


A. Specific knowledge acquired by parent firms (Tsang, 2002).


The extent to which your parent firm has acquired from this joint venture experience in the following areas: (1 = a little, 5 = a great extent)


Vertical knowledge transfer to (foreign) parent firms

  1. 1.

    Specific skills and competencies (e.g., technology) held by your Chinese partner(s)

  2. 2.

    Collaborating with your Chinese partner(s) in running this joint venture

  3. 3.

    Setting up a management system in this joint venture

  4. 4.

    Overseeing this joint venture operation from your parent perspective

  5. 5.

    Knowing about the Chinese business environment, e.g., tax system, labor policy, etc.

  6. 6.

    Dealing with Chinese government bodies

  7. 7.

    Building up business connections in China

  8. 8.

    Adapting technology to the local Chinese condition

  9. 9.

    Establishing marketing and distribution networks in China


Vertical knowledge transfer to (Chinese) parent firms

  1. 1.

    Specific skills and competencies (e.g., technology) held by your foreign partner(s)

  2. 2.

    Collaborating with your foreign partner(s) in running this joint venture

  3. 3.

    Setting up a management system in this joint venture

  4. 4.

    Overseeing this joint venture operation from your parent perspective

  5. 5.

    Knowing about the foreign market business environment, e.g., tax system, labor policy, etc.

  6. 6.

    Dealing with foreign government bodies

  7. 7.

    Building up business connections in foreign countries

  8. 8.

    Adapting technology to the foreign market condition

  9. 9.

    Establishing marketing and distribution networks in foreign markets

B. Horizontal knowledge transfer between boundary spanners (Lane et al., 2001).

To what extent have you learned from your JV partner managers? (1 = a little, 5 = a great extent)


(1) Technological expertise; (2) Manufacturing/production process; (3) Product development; (4) Managerial techniques; (5) New marketing expertise.

C. Boundary spanners’ organizational commitment to IJVs (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Mowday et al., 1979)


With respect to your own feelings about this JV, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement below: (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

  1. 1.

    I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this JV be successful

  2. 2.

    I talk up this JV to my friends as a great organization to work for

  3. 3.

    I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this JV

  4. 4.

    I find that my values and this JV’s values are very similar

  5. 5.

    I am proud to tell others that I am part of this JV

  6. 6.

    This JV really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance

  7. 7.

    I am extremely glad that I chose this JV to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined

  8. 8.

    I really care about the fate of this JV

  9. 9.

    For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work

D. Parent firms’ resource commitment to IJVs (Muthusamy & White, 2005).


Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements with respect to your parent and your JV partner’s parent firms’ resource commitment to this JV? (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

  1. 1.

    The partner has committed a substantial amount of financial resources to participate in the alliance

  2. 2.

    The partner firm’s managers have spent a lot of time and energy to maintain this alliance

  3. 3.

    The partner firm has committed substantial human, technological, or marketing resources in the alliance

E. Distinctiveness of knowledge stock of IJVs (Bjökman, Barner-Rasmussen, & Li, 2004)

Please indicate the extent to which, during the last 3 years, the distinctive competency compared with other units of the company with respect to the following five JV activities: (1 = very much lower, 5 = very much higher)

α = 0.858 (Chinese manager sample); α = 0.831 (Foreign manager sample).

(1) General management; (2) Manufacturing; (3) Marketing and sales; (4) Service; (5) Research & Development.

Appendix 2: Measurement of Control Variables


A. Managerial experience (Inkpen & Beamish, 1997)


Managerial experience was measured by the number of years the respondents worked in the position in IJVs.

B. Process tacitness (Subramaniam & Venkatraman, 2001)

Please indicate to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement regarding the knowledge transfer: (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)


α = 0.883 (Chinese manager sample), α = 0.875 (foreign manager sample).

  1. 1.

    The knowledge transfer process requires managerial help from your JV partner firm

  2. 2.

    The knowledge transfer process requires technical help from your JV partner firm

  3. 3.

    The knowledge transfer process requires on-site guidance from your JV partner firm

  4. 4.

    The knowledge transferred could not be described in a manual

  5. 5.

    We cannot learn the knowledge by only looking at a set of instructions

  6. 6.

    Overall, the knowledge transfer and learning are difficult

C. IJV performance (Dhanaraj, Lyles, Steensma, & Tihanyi, 2004)

Please estimate the overall performance of the JV: (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)


α = 0.897 (Chinese manager sample), α = 0.884 (foreign manager sample).

  1. 1.

    Key managers in your parent firm would rate the JV’s overall performance as:

  2. 2.

    Key managers in the partner’s parent firm would rate the JV’s overall performance as:

  3. 3.

    Key partner managers in this JV would rate the JV’s overall performance as:

  4. 4.

    You would rate the JV’s overall performance as:

D. JV autonomy (Taggart, 1997)

Please estimate the relative overall influence of the JV and its local Chinese parent company in deciding upon the following issues for the subsidiary: Please use the following scale of 1 to 5 to evaluate each item:

α = 0.893 (Chinese manager sample), α = 0.862 (foreign manager sample).

‘1’ = Decided mainly by the parent company or regional headquarters without consulting with or seeking the advice of the subsidiary

‘2’ = Decided mainly by the parent company or regional headquarters after consulting with or seeking the advice of the subsidiary

‘3’ = Decided jointly with equal weight being given to the views of the subsidiary and headquarters

‘4’ = Decided mainly by the subsidiary after consulting with or seeking the advice of the parent company or regional headquarters

‘5’ = Decided mainly by the subsidiary without consulting with or seeking the advice of the parent company or regional headquarters


(1) JV budget for this year; (2) Product design; (3) Product range supplied by the JV; (4) Research and Development; (5) Production; (6) Product pricing; (7) Market areas supplied by the JV; (8) Advertising and promotion; (9) Purchasing.

E. Competitive regime (Simonin, 2004)

To what extent do you consider your JV partner an actual or future competitor? (Please tick one answer)


(1) Very strong competitor; (2) Strong competitor; (3) Weak competitor; (4) Not a competitor.

F. Conflict between parent firms (Lyles & Salk, 1996).

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements with respect to the possible conflicts between the parent firms: (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)


α = 0.842 (Chinese manager sample), α = 0.857 (foreign manager sample).

  1. 1.

    Extent to which mistrust between the parent firms has been an issue in the IJV

  2. 2.

    Extent to which conflict over the original IJV agreement has been an issue in the IJV

  3. 3.

    Extent to which organizational cultural differences between the parent firms have been issues in the IJV

G. Intensity of industry competition (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).


Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements with respect to the intensity of industry competition in China: (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

  1. 1.

    Competition in our industry is ‘cutthroat’

  2. 2.

    There are many promotion ‘wars’ in our industry

  3. 3.

    Anything that one competitor can offer and others can match readily

  4. 4.

    Price competition is a hallmark of our industry

  5. 5.

    One hears of a new competitive move almost everyday

H. National cultural distance (Hofstede, 2005)

Using the four-dimensional index for cultural distance by Hofstede (2005) (i.e., power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance), we calculated the cultural distance scores between foreign partners’ home countries and China based on the method developed by Kogut and Singh (1988).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, F., Liu, L.X. & Li, J. From horizontal knowledge sharing to vertical knowledge transfer: The role of boundary-spanning commitment in international joint ventures. J Int Bus Stud 54, 182–202 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00507-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00507-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation