Knowledge Sharing Across National Cultural Boundaries and Multinational Corporations
In this chapter, we describe and discuss processes of knowledge sharing between and within multinational corporation (MNC) business units. While knowledge and knowledge sharing have become increasingly important in all business sectors, this is particularly true for MNCs. A main reason for that is the diversity and dispersion of the MNC: MNCs employ individuals located in different regions with different types of skills and useful knowledge. The sharing of ideas and perspectives can thus be highly valuable in order to create a competitive edge. However, the diverse and dispersed organization of MNCs also creates many challenges for effective knowledge sharing. Therefore, MNCs need to deal with the paradoxical relationship between these two aspects. Based on empirical research in two Danish MNCs, we examine the link between barriers preventing knowledge sharing and the social and sociotechnical factors influencing interaction between and within business units.
- Adler, N. J. (2008). International dimensions of organisational behaviour (5th ed.). Mason: South Western Publishing.Google Scholar
- Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Ekore, J. O. (2014). Impact of key organizational factors on knowledge transfer success in multi-national enterprises. Management - Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 19(2), 3–18.Google Scholar
- Gross, N., & Kluge, A. (2014). Predictors of knowledge-sharing behavior for teams in extreme environments an example from the steel industry. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343414540656.
- Gupta, A. K., & Govindaranjan, V. (2000, Fall). Knowledge management’s social dimension: Lessons from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 71–80.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), 213–233.Google Scholar
- Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Park, M. H. J., & Overby, J. D. (2012). Review paper: A conceptual framework for demographic diversity and performance. Advances in Management, 5(5), 59–65.Google Scholar
- Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.Google Scholar
- Ravu, S. Y., & Parker, K. M. (2015). Expatriates and knowledge transfer: A case study of a power plant constructed in Africa. International Business and Economics Research Journal, 14(2), 327–342.Google Scholar
- Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
- Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.Google Scholar
- Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.Google Scholar