Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Headquarters’ Influence on Knowledge Transfer Performance

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Management International Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

  • This paper investigates headquarters’ value-adding role in knowledge transfer. Transfer performance is considered in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness, and a model that includes headquarters’ distribution of decision-making rights, resource allocation, and direct intervention is tested on 141 innovation transfer projects.

  • The findings indicate that headquarters have both positive and negative influences on the efficiency and effectiveness of transfer processes. There is thus a need to consider the inherent trade-offs in the choices made in promoting knowledge transfer.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

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

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Francesco Ciabuschi

  2. Business Administration Department, Public University of Navarre, Navarre, Spain

    Oscar Martín Martín

  3. Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Benjamin Ståhl

Authors
  1. Francesco Ciabuschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oscar Martín Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin Ståhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Ciabuschi.

Appendix: Operationalization of the Latent Variables

Appendix: Operationalization of the Latent Variables

Construct/indicator

Scale

Mean

SD

Label

HQ involvement in the innovation transfer process

 

 

 

HQIT

The HQ have formally instructed you to share this innovation with the counterpart*

a

3.17

2.56

HQIT1

The HQ have themselves been heavily involved in conducting the actual transfer process with the counterpart

a

2.38

1.90

HQIT2

The HQ have taken the complete responsibility for the transfer of this innovation to the counterpart

a

1.54

1.30

HQIT3

The transfer of the innovation is driven by a requirement from the HQ

a

3.11

2.36

HQIT4

The transfer of the innovation is driven by HQ evaluation system

a

2.22

1.77

HQIT5

Distribution of decision-making rights

 

 

 

HQDD

What is the relative influence of your unit compared with division/business area HQ considering the following decisions?

 

 

 

 

Deciding on investments in production capacity

b

3.87

1.72

HQDD1

Deciding on investments in R&D

b

4.47

1.43

HQDD2

Introducing new products domestically

b

4.56

2.22

HQDD3

Appointing senior managers in your unit

b

5.06

1.49

HQDD4

Availability of resources

 

 

 

Res

Lack of necessary resources within your unit to put into this specific relationship makes the transfer difficult (reverse coded)

a

5.12

1.68

Res1

Lack of necessary resources in the counterpart to put into this specific relationship makes the transfer difficult (reverse coded)

a

4.95

1.70

Res2

Transfer process efficiency

 

 

 

Effic

The actual costs of innovation transfer were much higher than expected (reverse coded)

a

4.79

1.61

Effic1

The starting point of the innovation transfer was much earlier than expected

a

3.02

1.76

Effic2

The first day of innovation use by the receiver was much earlier than expected

a

3.55

1.70

Effic3

Transfer process effectiveness

 

 

 

Effec

Evaluate to what extent the innovation transfer has been completed

c

5.73

1.64

Effec1

The counterpart adopted the innovation very quickly

b

4.97

1.71

Effec2

The innovation has been very easy to adopt by this counterpart

b

4.68

1.65

Effec3

  1. *The term “counterpart” in the items refers to the receiving subsidiary involved in the specific transfer project. The “counterparts” were identified by earlier questions during the interviews
  2. a 1 = Totally disagree; 7 = Totally agree
  3. b 1 = HQ decides alone; 7 = Unit decides alone
  4. c 1 = Not at all; 7 = Very high

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ciabuschi, F., Martín Martín, O. & Ståhl, B. Headquarters’ Influence on Knowledge Transfer Performance. Manag Int Rev 50, 471–491 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-010-0042-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-010-0042-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation