Knowledge Acquisition in International Strategic Alliances: The Role of Knowledge Ambiguity.
| Verfasser | Ho, Mia Hsiao-Wen |
| Posten | RESEARCH ARTICLE - Report |
1 Introduction
International knowledge acquisition helps firms develop new capabilities and provides the basis for innovation, strategic renewal and competitive advantage in the global economy (Ho 2013; Inkpen 1998). Knowledge acquisition may also improve product development (Yli-Renko et al. 2001), firm performance and profitability (Kafouros et al. 2012; Lyles and Salk 1996) and the firm's network position (Liu et al. 2010). To acquire knowledge from abroad, firms engage in international strategic alliances (Johanson and Vahlne 2009). Although certain international alliances involve collaborative agreements that are motivated by market-seeking considerations, other alliances (particularly in high-tech sectors) aim at the co-development of innovative products, technologies and services. Although alliances may in theory facilitate cross-border knowledge acquisition, they involve high intricacy due to institutional and strategic differences between partners. Firms thus often fail to acquire desirable knowledge from their foreign partners.
Prior research explains why firms fail by providing valuable insights into the role of relational and contextual factors (Andersson et al. 2015; Ho and Wang 2015; Kranenburg et al. 2014). For instance, Ho and Wang (2015) showed that alliances do not perform well when a firm's absorptive capacity cannot overcome challenge associated with knowledge protection from its partner, which is deterred from the institutional distance between partners. Yet, when partners accumulate relational capital, the negative impact of knowledge protection on absorptive capacity can be reduced and that of absorptive capacity on alliance performance can be enhanced. In practice however, knowledge recipients cannot easily assess the level of knowledge protection by their partner and they often perceive it as ambiguous knowledge that is difficult to be acquired. This is particularly evident in high-tech alliances as they increasingly focus on the development of complex technologies, which are often characterized by knowledge ambiguity, i.e. the perceived difficulty of understanding the causal effects of partner's knowledge and the use of such knowledge (Lane et al. 2006; Law 2014; Lyles and Salk 1996; Simonin 1999a, b, 2004).
Although the literature has recognized the negative consequences of knowledge ambiguity, we have a rather incomplete understanding of what factors might increase or decrease knowledge ambiguity, how it restrains knowledge acquisition from foreign partners, and what firms should do to avoid knowledge ambiguity and its negative consequences in the context of international strategic alliances. These limitations in our understanding are important both theoretically and practically given that acquiring knowledge is one of the key motives for establishing high-tech alliances in the first place. Drawing on organizational learning theory, we address this gap in our understanding (a) by examining two key antecedents of knowledge ambiguity and (b) by identifying how firms can partly overcome the negative effects of knowledge ambiguity on knowledge acquisition in international alliances.
First, given inherent and irreducible uncertainties and challenges resulting from diverse institutional environments, we investigate how institutional distance between partners influences knowledge ambiguity. Second, given that firms establish different relationships with their partners, we examine how the development of relationships that involve the mutual trust and reciprocal commitment of partners help firms reduce knowledge ambiguity in international alliances. Third, building on organization learning that underscores the role of absorptive capacity, we provide an explanation of the mechanisms that enable a firm's absorptive capacity to moderate the relationship between knowledge ambiguity and international knowledge acquisition.
We contribute to the organizational learning theory and to international business and alliance literatures by identifying antecedents and consequences of knowledge ambiguity. Specifically, we enhance understanding of the reasons why some firms fail in acquiring knowledge from foreign partners by positing knowledge ambiguity as an important mediator in explaining how institutional distance and relational capital affect international knowledge acquisition. Furthermore, we explain how absorptive capacity serves as a moderator that can be used by firms to (partly) avoid the negative impact of knowledge ambiguity on knowledge acquisition. Our analysis therefore contributes to the organizational learning thinking by developing the theoretical relationships between absorptive capacity, knowledge ambiguity and international knowledge acquisition. It also advances understanding of the role of knowledge ambiguity in the context of international alliances by specifying how firms may overcome the challenges of knowledge ambiguity. This approach in turn enables us to explain why the effects of international knowledge acquisition vary across different alliance settings and identify firm responses that may optimize knowledge acquisition and organizational learning from foreign firms.
2 Theory and Hypotheses
2.1 Knowledge Acquisition in International Strategic Alliances
Knowledge acquisition within the organizational learning literature is defined as "the direct (learning) experience of the organization and its members" (Lyles and Salk 1996, p. 879). It is reflected upon and can be measured by the various types of new knowledge acquired from external sources (Kafouros et al. 2018), such as technological, marketing, managerial, new product development and manufacturing expertise and techniques. Different theoretical lenses have been utilized by researchers to explain why knowledge acquisition may fail. Game theorists (Samieh and Wahba 2007) argue that knowledge acquisition involving information asymmetry could cause conflicting interests in learning, which might in turn create problems or terminate the partnership. Transaction cost economics suggests that self-interests in learning can lead to dysfunctional partnerships and impede knowledge acquisition (Parkhe 1993). This complicates the knowledge acquisition process and results in alliance instability. Whereas economists assume that firms' behaviors towards knowledge acquisition are motivated by self-interests, social exchange theorists believe that knowledge acquisition can be motivated by a broad array of interests and such self- and group-interests can coexist (Kachra and White 2008).
Unlike social exchange theory that focuses on the recursive relationship between firms, the relational view suggests that the focus of enquiry should be on the process of knowing and the capability to act. It considers knowledge to be processual, provisional and highly context dependent (Hayes and Walsham 2005). Brown and Duguid (1998) coined the phrase 'knowledge stickiness' and advocated that knowledge is socially embedded within practices. Knowledge is essentially related to human actions (Lyles and Salk 1996). Without trustworthy relationships between firms, knowledge would not be created and amplified (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). However, effective knowledge acquisition not only requires knowledge to be congruent with the existing social contexts (Guzman and Wilson 2005), it is also contingent upon institutional frameworks and developments within which firms are embedded (Chittoor et al. 2015). This prompts the need to synthesize contextual and relational factors when exploring the perceived obstacles of knowledge acquisition in international strategic alliances.
However, having a good collaborative relationship or a partnership with a similar institutional context does not always lead to positive knowledge acquisition. Knowledge acquisition requires both accessing new knowledge and tfie capability to use and integrate such knowledge (Inkpen 2002). A harmonious or homogeneous partnership may decrease opportunistic behavior and increase knowledge accessibility, but it may not enhance the firm's capability to acquire the desired knowledge. The organizational learning literature has developed the concept of absorptive capacity, which refers to the ability to recognize the value of new external knowledge and to assimilate and use that knowledge into commercial ends (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). The most successful firm is not necessarily the firm that knows the most, but rather the firm that can make the best use of what it knows and knows what is strategically most important (Bou-Llusar and Segarra-Cipres 2006). Absorptive capacity is thereby particularly important in explaining knowledge acquisition.
As organizational learning depends on prior knowledge (Andersen 2008), the characteristics of the transferred knowledge may also influence the knowledge acquisition outcome. As such, organizational learning theorists have stressed the role of knowledge ambiguity-the perceived difficulty of understanding the causal effects of partner's knowledge and the use of such knowledge (Lane et al. 2006; Law 2014; Lyles and Salk 1996; Simonin 1999a, b, 2004). They identified knowledge ambiguity as a major obstacle to knowledge transfer and learning and to the implementation of knowledge management systems. Despite prior theoretical developments, few empirical studies have examined what factors might increase or decrease knowledge ambiguity in the context of international strategic alliances. Moreover, although the relationship between absorptive capacity and knowledge acquisition is taken for granted in the literature, it is not clear what role absorptive capacity plays in how knowledge ambiguity affects international knowledge acquisition process. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model of our study.
2.2 The Role of Knowledge Ambiguity
International knowledge acquisition is facilitated by complex and synergistic interactions between partners across national...
Um weiterzulesen
FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO ANCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
