Behind knowledge transfer

Behind knowledge transfer Luu Trong Tuan Department of Economics, University for Natural Resources and Environment, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Abstract Purpose – Through an empirical inquiry into manufacturing joint ventures companies in Vietnam setting, this paper aims to examine the relationships among knowledge sharing and its antecedents such as organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization. Design/methodology/approach – An analysis of data returned from a questionnaire survey among middle level managers in these manufacturing joint ventures companies was conducted via analysis of variance and structural equation modelling. Findings – The study findings display the correspondence between control culture and ethics of justice. Flexibility culture, on the other hand, tends to nurture ethics of care, which in turn positively impact localization of intellectual capital. The influence of intellectual capital localization on knowledge sharing is also discerned. Originality/value – The study offers insight into the linkage pattern of knowledge sharing and its antecedents, organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization, in manufacturing joint venture companies in a Vietnam business context. Keywords Knowledge sharing, Knowledge management, Organizational culture, Ethics of justice, Ethics of care, Human resources localization, Vietnam Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Knowledge sharing practice did not seem to be disseminated in the period of central planning from 1945 in North Vietnam and from 1975 in South Vietnam until “doi moi” (literally “renovation”), in which there apparently was only one direction of influence: downward influence in organizations. Every organizational member just followed the formulas decided on from the centralized power. The formulas tended to be conservative, so downward communication of new knowledge turned out to be scanty. In organizations, desires for new knowledge have flourished since “doi moi” for the adaptation to globalization. However, desires for new knowledge are only strong drives to individually access organizational knowledge rather than contributing their own knowledge to organizational knowledge or sharing their knowledge intra-organizationally or inter-organizationally even though knowledge sharing is generally recognized as being a beneficial strategy in Vietnam context (Dong et al., 2010). This can presumably be explained by the fact that new billboards promote “doi moi”, yet old posters continue to urge workers to pursue the centrally planned economic philosophy of socialism (Ralston et al., 2006). The sharing of knowledge, one of the most vital resources of companies (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), is a crucial phenomenon in companies (Sa ´ enz et al., 2009) and an effective indicator for appraising company efficiency and effectiveness (Mohamed, 2008). Knowledge sharing and consequential knowledge creation are indispensable for companies to attain and sustain competitive edge (Han and Anantatmula, 2007). When it is shared with and transferred to others, knowledge can augment its value, as Bornemann and Sammer (2003, p. 21) wrote: The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm Behind knowledge transfer 459 Management Decision Vol. 50 No. 3, 2012 pp. 459-478 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0025-1747 DOI 10.1108/00251741211216232 Knowledge as a resource of value creation, , allows for exceptional marginal rates of productivity. This is due to the major attribute of knowledge: appreciating value with continuing use and sharing of knowledge instead of depreciating value of tangible products or natural resources. The key to value-added is represented through that sharing of knowledge (Porter and Ketels, 2003). From Patrick and Dotsika’s (2007) standpoint, essentially “developing from within” revolves round the location of the key knowledge and the understanding of the antecedents, as these are both crucial to the notion of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing and basic in providing the essential value-added. Therefore, “developing from within” may involve such antecedents to knowledge sharing as organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization. Until the 1980s, organizational culture was largely discounted as a factor in organizational performance (Holbeche, 2006) including knowledge sharing. The magnitude of organizational culture in knowledge transfer process is currently highlighted (Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008). Lin (2007) also found that knowledge sharing is important in the domain of business ethics, since an unwillingness to share knowledge may impair an organization’s survival. Ethical positions, in Rodgers and Gago Rodrı ´ guez’s (2006) view, may aid organizations in enhancing knowledge sharing and sustaining organizational performance. Localization is another important issue that refers to the adaptation of global knowledge to the local cultural context (Guzman, 2007). Ibrahim et al. (2009) discuss the concept of localization in the process of knowledge exchange. Even though these studies have provided certain useful information on the interconnection between knowledge sharing and its each antecedent separately, there has been little empirical research that examines the linkages among knowledge sharing and its precursors. This study seeks to bridge this gap through developing a research framework that links knowledge sharing and its such precursors as organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization. This introduction of the paper is followed by the review of the discussions and inquiries on the variables of the current study. This literature review serves as the foundation for building the conceptual framework for which the data is then analyzed. The paper concludes with a number of practical implications and possible research avenues linked to the concept “knowledge sharing” and its independent variables. 2. Literature review 2.1 Knowledge sharing Resources for which companies compete incrementally tend to be knowledge rather than the ownership of land or access to capital (Dunford, 2000). Knowledge, as Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) highlight, is a portmanteau term covering a wide array of capabilities, skills, and experiences, including cognitive, perceptual, emotional, and tactile resources. In Quinn et al.’s (1996) view, knowledge, one of the organizational properties, encompasses practical knowledge, high-level technical capabilities, perceptions of systems and creative abilities, and belong to organizational members. Knowledge is also portrayed as “the combination of data and information, to which is added expert opinion, skills and experience, resulting in a valuable asset which can be used to aid decision making” (Sarmento, 2005). From its comprehensiveness and reflection of personal and organizational facets of knowledge, Davenport and Prusak’s (1998, p. 5) ensuing view on knowledge is adopted in the current research: MD 50,3 460 Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms. Two types of knowledge, explicit and tacit knowledge, are complementary and indispensable to knowledge creation. Explicit knowledge is referred to as the knowledge codified and expressed in formal language (Nonaka, 1991) whereas tacit knowledge is intuitive, unarticulated and can not be verbalized (Li and Gao, 2003), as well as acquired through experience sharing, and through observation and imitation (Hall and Andriani, 2002; Kikoski and Kikoski, 2004; Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, 2008). Nilakanta et al. (2006) underscore a crucial role organizational knowledge plays in overall performance. The magnitude of knowledge for organizations is also reflected in the view that the sum of knowledge acquired externally and internally constitutes a sustainable resource for maintaining competitive edge (Voelpel et al., 2005). Knowledge grows from the local level and is embedded in a certain cognitive and behavioral context. Knowledge is asymmetrically dispensed in any organization and may remain non-accessible to certain members of the organisation (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Knowledge sharing is a way to enhance the access to knowledge. Hogel et al. (2003) view knowledge sharing as a social interaction culture, entailing the exchange of employee knowledge, experiences, and skills through the entire department or organization. Knowledge sharing occurs when organisational members share organizationally relevant information, ideas, suggestions and expertise with one another (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Knowledge sharing encompasses numerous elements (Fengjie and Chen, 2004), among which the three key elements are: (1) Objects: what kind of knowledge is shared? (2) The way of sharing: face-to-face, conference, knowledge network, and organizational learning. (3) Level of sharing: knowledge sharing may involve individuals, teams, and organizations. Levels of knowledge sharing are not discrete, but display the flows of interaction among members, subsets, and sets. Knowledge sharing is thus also viewed as activities of transferring or disseminating knowledge (embracing implicit and tacit knowledge) from one person, group or organization to another (Lee, 2001). Furthermore, through knowledge sharing practices, organisational knowledge bases are coordinated with workers’ knowledge (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Knowledge sharing also can activate the transformation of collective individual knowledge to organizational knowledge (Yang, 2007). The author of the current study, however, refers to knowledge sharing as all interactions among members, between members and their group, and between groups for the synergy of knowledge rather than the sum of knowledge. Interactions are displayed as arrows in Figure 1. Knowledge sharing, as Ardichvill et al. (2003) contend, entails both the supply and the demand for new knowledge. Similarly, Van den Hooff and Van Weenen (2004b) Behind knowledge transfer 461 identified two processes of knowledge sharing, namely knowledge donation and knowledge collection. They refer to knowledge donation as “communication based on an individual’s own wish to transfer intellectual capital” and knowledge collection as “attempting to persuade others to share what they know”. These two distinct processes are dynamic in the sense that one is either immersed in dynamic communication with others for the aim of transferring knowledge, or consulting others so as to gain certain access to their intellectual capital (Van Den Hooff and De Ridder, 2004b). Knowledge sharing is a voluntary deed (Dixon, 2002); therefore, efficient knowledge sharing involves direct commitment on both sides of the exchange, both on the transmitter and the receiver side (Bouty, 2000). Al-Alawi et al. (2007) highlight influential factors toward the success of knowledge sharing such as communication between staff, trust, reward system, organizational structure, and information systems. Utilizing the economic exchange theory, to examine Bartol and Srivastava (2002) investigate the role of monetary rewards in facilitating knowledge sharing in organizations. 2.2 Organizational culture Organisational culture is depicted as an expansion of the hypernym “culture” (Schein, 2004). A universal definition on organisational culture has turned out to be elusive (Lewis, 2002); nevertheless, one of the most common definitions of organisational culture involves a set of beliefs, values, and behavior patterns shaping the members’ behavior and building the core identity of organisations (Deshpande and Farley, 1999). Culture builds a sense of identity in employees, providing unwritten guidelines on how to behave (Holbeche, 2006). Imparting the notion of understandings to Schein’s (1985) definition, Daft (2005) views organisational culture as a set of key assumptions, norms, values, and understandings that is shared by an organisation’s members and taught to new members as right. Nontheless, a definition of culture, from Alutto’s (2002) standpoint, should look at variability in the homogeneity of common beliefs, norms, and values, since, as an emergent property of human interaction, organisational culture is constantly being negotiated (Tyrrell, 2000). The beliefs, norms, and values emerging from the ongoing negotiation and practices among organisational members become a source of reference for what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable in an organisation in terms of right and wrong behavior (Kusluvan and Karamustafa, 2003). Moreover, successfully reacting to Figure 1. Knowledge sharing as synergetic interactions MD 50,3 462 changes in the global marketplace necessitates a flexible and adaptable organisational culture (Elashmawi, 2000). Thus, from a dynamic, constructivist, and holistic perspective, organizational culture can best be defined in terms of an ongoing process of identity building/re-building and meaning-making in and around an organization, which enables its social integration as well as its and its subgroups’ sustainability (Koot, 2004). Tuan (2010) also presents a dynamic organisational culture model to address its dynamic reactions to internal and external forces. Culture is composed of two main components, the internal values of culture (invisible) and external components of culture (visible) or practices (Hofstede, 1991), which are the most direct means for transforming behaviors required to advocate knowledge creation, sharing, acquisition, and use (De Long and Fahey, 2000). Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1983) competing values framework (CVF) was developed by Quinn (1988) into an organisational culture model predicated on two dimensions: (1) organisational process (organic versus mechanistic); and (2) organisational orientation (internal versus external). The first dimension and the second dimension are denoted by the vertical axis and the horizontal axis respectively, whose intersection produces four quadrants displaying four culture types labeled as: (1) Clan. (2) Adhocracy. (3) Hierarchy. (4) Market. Along the organisational process axis, Clan and Adhocracy are of higher degree of flexibility or adaptability (more organic) and Hierarchy and Market are of higher degree of control (more mechanistic). This classification is resorted to in this study. 2.3 Ethics of justice versus ethics of care From Potocan and Mulej’s (2009) stance, ethics is an integral sentimental part of human characteristics and the subjective portion of the starting points of any human behavior process encompassing business. Business ethics deals with the linkage between business goals and approaches to specifically human ends (Tran, 2008). It denotes the special responsibilities which a person and a citizen consents to when he becomes a part of the business world. Business ethics is portrayed by Preuss (2008) as part of a “veritable explosion of concepts that aim to explain what the proper role of business in society should be,” encompassing such terms as corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility (CSR), triple bottom line, and sustainability. This paper looks at two types of ethics, ethics of care and ethics of justice, which tend to contrast each other (Plot, 2009). Whereas Strike (2003) discerns in ethics of justice the dualistic tension between benefit maximization and esteem for individual rights, Begley (2006) views ethics of justice as a foundation for deciding on the actual deeds that will augment benefits for all while respecting individual rights. Ethics of justice revolves round such notions as rationality, rights, and justice, while ethics of Behind knowledge transfer 463 care is concerned with consideration, sentiments, and responsibility (Plot, 2009). Ethics of care tilted the focus on ethics from individual rights to relational prerequisites (French and Weis, 2000). That the identity of the self – who one is – is predicated on the caring relationships the self has with others, serves as the basis for ethics of care (Lantos, 2002). Ethics of care is a way to sustain the focus of the process on people rather than on policies (Begley, 2006). Three crucial attributes differentiating ethics of care from ethics of justice, as Tronto (1993, p. 79) observe, include: first, ethics of care focuses on responsibility and relationships rather than rights and rules; second, it is embeded in specific circumstances rather than being abstract, formal, and universal; and third, it is best expressed not as a set of principles but as an activity, the “activity of care”. Whereas ethics of justice is embedded in fairness – the equitable allocation of resources and implementation of rules, ethics of care looks toward the dignity and intrinsic value of each person, and “desires to see that persons enjoy a fully human life” (Starratt, 2003, p. 145) as well as “focuses on the demands of relationships, not from a contractual or legalistic standpoint, but from a standpoint of absolute regard” and “love” (Starratt, 2003, p. 145). Ethics of care is categorized by Nell Noddings into two types of caring: “caring for” and “caring about”. “Caring for” stands above “caring about” and denotes direct encounters in which one person cares for another, whereas “caring about” refers to care as a virtue and take us to a more public realm, and may be foundation of justice (Debeljak and Krkac, 2008). 2.4 Human resources localization The emergence of the concept “localization” provides potential elucidation of more socially and environmentally “friendly” business models (Coca-Stefaniak et al., 2010). “Localization” is referred to as a “[set of] processes through which the forces of globalization are accommodated, resisted and absorbed, and given expression in any particular context” (Hansen, 2002, p. 15). However, Hines’s (2000, p. 4) view that “localization [is] a process which reverses the trend of globalization by discriminating in favour of the local” paves a path for the author of the current research to reach the ensuing definition on localization: Balanced with globalization as centrifugal vector, localization is a centripetal vector activating and/or integrating native intellectual capital into the set of core competencies of the whole organization. Localization in the corporate setting, as Law et al. (2009) explicate, is the degree to which expatriate managers are supplanted by local members. Furthermore, Feng (2004) argues that localization of human resources involves not purely employees of low levels such as technical personnel, but also middle and top level managers. Localization of top management is also underscored by Choi (2001, cited in Chae, 2008). The construct “localization” appears to have scanty repertoire of definitions; nonetheless, business literature shows much consideration towards the local as an important factor in business strategy. As Porter (1990, p. 158) indicates, “it is the combination of national and intensely local conditions that fosters competitive advantage”. Some researchers such as Oinas (1995) and Cox and Mair (1991) observed the “localisation” phenomenon in some firms. Park et al. (2010) researched LG MD 50,3 464 Electronics’s localization strategy and its implementation of strategic management processes in Poland and India. The study by Noruzi and Rahimi (2010) reviews successful localization, one of the most important aspects of international human resource management (IHRM). Researchers also discussed benefits of localization (Doz and Prahalad, 1991; Luo, 2001). When a balance is found between globalization and local adaptation, multinational companies can grow by leaps and bounds (He, 2009). Yan (2007) found that the key factor behind transnational company’s success in China is whether a strong local management group is built. Chang (2006, cited in Chae, 2008) contends that the main driver of localization of human resources is cost efficiency and employee engagement. Forstenlechner (2010) identified HR-relevant recommendations for workforce localization in the context of emerging Gulf economies. Whereas prior research has revolved around topics such as the influence of localization, Forstenlechner’s (2010) study suggests steps to pursue in addressing the full scale of localization from recruitment to retention. Chae (2008) also recommends three steps in the local adaptation process. The first step entails the establishment of the local management system. The second step focuses on nurturing local talents since merely via training can the personnel understand the vision, strategy, and business model of the parent company as well as ascend to the top level of management. Chen (2007, cited in Chae, 2008) highlights the need for training in localization of human resources to reach the sense of belonging from the sharing of knowledge and values. In the third step, local culture within a multinational firm should be accommodated and then stretched to the most effective culture type. Predicated on resource dependency theory, Law et al. (2009) discerned parent company support and top management’s commitment as the antecedents of localization success. A significant linkage between localization success and top management ratings of firm performance was also encountered in their research. 3. Conceptual framework and research methodolo gy 3.1 Conceptual framework Culture moulds behavior (Holbeche, 2006). Culture proffers unwritten guidelines as regards how to behave. Flexibility culture types promote lax and informal control of operations, open channels of communication, and free flows of information through diverse layers of the organization (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Flexibility culture types thus nurture understandings as well as caring relationships. Clan culture type which underscores member cohesiveness, sense of belonging, and commitment (Deshpande et al., 1993) is consistent with ethics of care reflecting a concept of self that is “connected (wherein) one’s moral obligations are grounded in a conceptualization of individuals within community” (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 186). The sense of community and interconnection implied by vision orientation reflected in adhocracy culture is consistent with ethics of care as well. The use of creative, sustainable (win-win) problem solving approaches reflected in adhocracy culture is also consistent with Gilligan’s (1982) ethics of care. Within a care perspective, creativity specifically refers to the tendency toward discerning ways to simultaneously fulfill competing responsibilities (Gilligan, 1982) and emphasize the underlying interest of each party, which relate to the concept of sustainability highlighted in adhocracy Behind knowledge transfer 465 culture. Ethics of care which is concerned with responsibility, consideration, emotions (Plot, 2009), and relationships (Tronto, 1993) relates to clan culture with its emphasis on interpersonal cohesion and adhocracy culture highlighting sustainability closely linked to social responsibility. On the contrary, control cultural types which promote rigid and stringent control, highly structured channels of communication, and restricted flows of information throughout the organisation (Burns and Stalker, 1961) hamper the development of caring relationships (Lantos, 2002) and “activity of care” (Tronto, 1993). Ethics of care focuses on people rather than on policies (Begley, 2006) while ethics of justice embedded in fairness through the implementation of rules is consistent with hiearchy culture with its anchor on rules, policies, and procedures (Deshpande et al., 1993). Due to superficial member bonding built on rules and policies, hierachy culture tends to yield separation and autonomy, which are critical notions in ethics of justice. Furthermore, since ethics of justice exposes the predominance of individual rights and self-interest in pursuing individual goals, it tends to relate to hierarchy culture where member bonding is based on calculation for their individual goals. Despite its customer orientation, market culture with its member bonding based on competition (Deshpande et al., 1993), is consistent with ethics of justice, which chooses between the conflicting rights of different individuals. The subsequent hypotheses thus ensued: H1a. A greater degree of flexibility organisational culture type (clan or adhocracy) corresponds to a greater level of ethics of care. H1b. A greater degree of control organisational culture type (hierarchy or market) corresponds to a greater level of ethics of justice. A control culture company highlights stability and order, so tends to rigidly abide by strategy on human resources its mother company has launched with virtually no adaptation to local context. A flexibility culture company, on the contrary, tends to promote localization to obliterate cultural gaps in the company. The ensuing hypotheses are consequently proposed: H2a. A greater degree of flexible culture type (clan and adhocracy) corresponds to a higher degree of human resources localization. H2b. A greater degree of control culture type (hierarchy and market) corresponds to a lower degree of human resouces localization. Focus on people is the rendezvous of ethics of care and human resources localization. Ethics of care centers on responsibility and relationships rather than rights and rules (Tronto, 1993), so relates to the concept “localization” which provides potential elucidation of more socially and environmentally “friendly” business models (Coca-Stefaniak et al., 2010). Moreover, localization, with its strategic anchor on the integration of native intellectual capital into the set of core competencies of the entire organisation, is consistent with ethics of care, mirroring a concept of self that is “connected (wherein) one’s moral obligations are grounded in a conceptualization of individuals within community” (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999, p. 186). This sense of community is also implied by the focus on nurturing local talents reflected in the localization strategy (Chae, 2008). MD 50,3 466 By contrast, ethics of justice underscoring rules and policies (Tronto, 1993, Begley, 2006) and characterized by separation, autonomy, and the predominance of individual rights and self-interest in pursuing individual goals, tends to inhibit human resources locationzation since leaders with a propensity for ethics of justice may consent to the designated company structure and look at expatriate managers and local employees working autonomously as norms which does not need to undergo changes. The following hypotheses were hence formulated: H3a. A greater level of ethics of care corresponds to a higher degree of human resources localization. H3b. A greater level of ethics of justice corresponds to a lower degree of human resources localization. The success of knowledge transfer is contingent on a company’s competence to adapt to its local surroundings (Berchtold et al., 2010). Due to their common socio-cultural backgrounds, local employees are able to relate better to local front-line employees than expatriates, so human resources localization nurtures the relationships between employees and their leaders as well as their collaboration (Hailey, 1996). Collaborating employees are likely to swap ideas and share their knowledge (Yilmaz and Hunt, 2001). Furthermore, when employees develop close relationships with one another, they dedicate a noteworthy amount of time to share concerns (Huang, 2009). Intermittent relationships presumably yield weak knowledge sharing (Szulanski, 1996) since, if an employee assumes to have lasting relationship with others, s/he tends to share her/his knowledge with them. Localization is meant to acquire local knowledge to design strategies to penetrate a market or to reach market superiority. The promotion of local managers will bridge the cultural gap subsisting between expatriate managers and local line employees, thereby creating better communication among the diverse levels within the company ( Johri and Petison, 2008), so augmenting knowledge sharing. The dearth of an aspiring culture to communicate and explore new ideas may become a chief barrier to knowledge sharing (Sun and Scott, 2005). Understanding personal behavior is crucial in knowledge sharing (Bent, 2007; Tsai and Tsai, 2005; Haas and Hansen, 2005). Local managers have fewer language and cultural barriers in communicating with lower level members (Chen and Tjosvold, 2007), so localization increases the understanding of employee behavior, which as a result increases knowledge sharing. The subsequent hypothesis consequently emerged: H4. Knowledge sharing is positively associated with human resources localization. The hypothesized linkage between knowledge sharing and its such antecedents as organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization is illustrated in Figure 2. 3.2 Methodology 3.2.1 Sample. A population of 2,198 joint venture companies listed in the 2010 Vietnam Trade Directory serves as a base to derive the sample of 1,318 manufacturing joint ventures for this study. Through self-administered structured questionnaire Behind knowledge transfer 467 despatched to a middle level manager such as operations director or manager in each of these 1,318 manufacturing joint ventures, data on such contructs as knowledge sharing, organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization were collated. Since middle management members would have more opportunities to observe high as well as low layers of organizational behavior than would lower level members, they were invited to share their observations of the variables of the study. Of 1,318 questionnaires sent to middle level managers, 314 were returned in completed form for a response rate of 23.82 per cent, which is consistent with the 15-25 per cent response rate range found in many studies (e.g. Baines and Langfield-Smith, 2003; Lee et al., 2001; Spanos and Lioukas, 2001) where middle and top managers with hectic working schedules acted as respondents. 3.2.2 Quantitative measures. Knowledge sharing. Adapted from studies by Van den Hooff and Van Weenen (2004a) and by De Vries et al. (2006), knowledge sharing donation and collection were each investigated through four items. Knowledge donation items measure how willingly employees transfer or disseminate knowledge to others, and knowledge collection items examine collective beliefs or behavioral routines as regards the spread of learning among employees. 3.2.3 Organizational culture. Further adapting Cameron and Freeman’s (1991) the operationalization of the culture construct, Deshpande et al. (1993) constructed succinct scenarios to portray the dominant features of each of the four culture types. The validity of this instrument has been substantiated (e.g. Zammuto and Krakower, 1991). In the research instrument, all four culture types are displayed as alternatives in each question. Respondents were invited to dispense 100 points among the four scenarios in the questions, contingent on how analogous respondents reckoned each scenario was to their organization. The scenarios, where organization A denotes clan culture, organization B denotes adhocracy culture, organization C denotes hierarchy culture, and organization D denotes market culture, are consistently arranged in the questions, appraising the organizational attributes, leadership, bonding, and strategic accents. Figure 2. Hypothesized framework MD 50,3 468 [...]... and knowledge transfer to enrich individual as well as organizational knowledge If such performance measurement system as balanced scorecard is adopted and if knowledge transfer is incorporated into its learning and growth dimension, localization of intellectual capital should be incorporated as a crucial component as well due to the causal relationship between human resources localization and knowledge. .. influence the knowledge sharing process Behind knowledge transfer 471 MD 50,3 472 As these findings suggest, to enhance knowledge sharing in the joint ventures, human resources localization should be incorporated into organisational strategy Expatriate leaders should leave the stage to local talents, who then are capable of helping performers fulfil and go beyond their roles through voluntary knowledge sharing... and localization influences knowledge transfer References Ajmal, M.M and Koskinen, K.U (2008), Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: an organizational culture perspective”, Project Management Journal, Vol 39 No 1, pp 7-15 Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y and Mohammed, Y.F (2007), “Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol... 111-27 Behind knowledge transfer 473 MD 50,3 474 Deshpande, R., Farley, J.U and Webster, F.E (1993), “Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 57 No 1, pp 23-37 Dixon, N (2002), “The neglected receiver of knowledge sharing”, Ivey Business Journal, Vol 66 No 4, pp 35-40 Dong, G., Chau, G.L and Grossman, M (2010), Knowledge- sharing... 227-36 Behind knowledge transfer 475 MD 50,3 476 Nilakanta, S., Miller, L.L and Zhu, D (2006), “Organizational memory management: technological and research issues”, Journal of Database Management, Vol 17 No 1, pp 85-95 Nonaka, I (1991), “The knowledge- creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 69 No 6, pp 96-104 Nonaka, I and Konno, N (1998), “The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge. .. (2004a), “Committed to share: commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol 11 No 1, pp 13-24 Van den Hooff, B and Van Weenen, F.D.L (2004b), Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 8 No 6, pp 117-30 ¨ Voelpel, S.C., Eckhoff,... School Leadership, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 69-87 Sun, P.Y.T and Scott, J.L (2005), “An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer , Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 9 No 2, pp 75-90 Szulanski, G (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: implementation to the transfer of best practice within the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 17, Winter, special issue, pp 27-44 Szumal, J.L (2003),... Knowledge Management, Vol 8 No 6, pp 117-30 ¨ Voelpel, S.C., Eckhoff, R.A and Forster, J (2005), “David against Goliath? Group size and bystander effects in virtual knowledge sharing”, Human Relations, Vol 61 No 2, pp 271-95 Behind knowledge transfer 477 MD 50,3 478 Wilderom, C.P.M., Glunk, U and Maslowski, R (2000), “Organizational culture as a predictor of organizational performance”, in Ashkanasy,... Davenport, T.H and Prusak, L (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA De Long, D.W and Fahey, L (2000), “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 14 No 4, pp 113-27 De Vries, R.B., Van Den Hooff, B and De Ridder, J (2006), “Explaining knowledge sharing: the role of team communication... resources localization With their Cronbach alpha coefficients exceeding the recommended cut-off point of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1967), the reliability of each construct and its specific dimensions was confirmed Behind knowledge transfer 469 4 Findings and discussion Findings from ANOVAs As the findings from ANOVAs (see Table I) show, ethics of care is more correlated with flexibility culture (p , 0:01) than ethics of justice, . organizational knowledge rather than contributing their own knowledge to organizational knowledge or sharing their knowledge intra-organizationally or inter-organizationally even though knowledge. practices, and norms. Two types of knowledge, explicit and tacit knowledge, are complementary and indispensable to knowledge creation. Explicit knowledge is referred to as the knowledge codified and expressed. Figure 1. Knowledge sharing, as Ardichvill et al. (2003) contend, entails both the supply and the demand for new knowledge. Similarly, Van den Hooff and Van Weenen (2004b) Behind knowledge transfer 461 identified