Knowledge and learning in transnational ventures: an actor‐centred approach

Abstract

The aim of this article is to develop the foundations of an actor-centred, processual approach to examining the influence of cross-border knowledge transfer and management learning on transnational institution building in post-socialist countries. We argue that there is a need for more research to understand how key social actors go about (re)structuring, (re)defining and sharing knowledge within new international ventures. We contend that social actors can play a significant role in creating and structuring the 'transnational social space' in which the new venture takes shape, exercising strategic choice that can mediate, adapt or even reject the apparently constraining effects of technical-economic or cultural-institutional factors. The role of social actors is conceptualized as a socio-political sensemaking process, a perspective that would complement the current structuralist bias in the discussion about the emergence of transnational social space in international management research literature.

Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors

“…In this broader view, space turns into a relational issue and ceases to be a purely geographical concept. It is instead significantly constituted via social and contextual factors (GEPPERT and CLARK, 2003;MORGAN, 2004;SAYER, 1982SAYER, , 1992. The understanding of space as a social rather than a physical phenomenon (SAYER, 2000) makes it necessary to open up the black box of geographic proximity and distinguish more precisely between the different types of proximity involved (cf.…”

Examining the Moderating Effects of MNCs’ Country of Origin in the Relationship between Degree of Inter-Firm Technology Transfer and Local Firms’ Performance

“…Although the previous researchers have not specifically dealt with TTDEG as a variable, however, a number of studies have operationalized degree (amount) of technology transferred to the recipient firm in terms of the extent of type of technological knowledge that are transferred or acquired for instance 1) the tacit and explicit marketing knowledge (Hau and Evangalista, 2007), 2) the tacit and explicit knowledge (Dhanaraj et al, 2004;Yin and Bao, 2006), 3) the marketing know-how (Simonin, 1999b;Wong et al, 2002), 4) the technology in service industries (Grosse, 1996), 5) the knowledge on product development and foreign cultures (Lyles and Salk, 1996), 7) the technological learning (Lin, 2007), 8) the managerial knowledge (Si and Bruton, 1999;Tsang 2001;Liu and Vince, 1999;Lin, 2005), 9) managerial skills (Wong et al, 2002), 10) the technology or manufacturing know how (Lam, 1997;Bresman et al, 1999), 11) the business environment and product market knowledge (Geppert and Clark, 2003), and 12) the research and development (Minbaeva, 2007). In the context of inter-firm technological knowledge transfer in IJVs, only Pak and Park (2004) have directly dealt with degree of knowledge transfer as the outcome (dependent variable) with respect to the transfer of new product development and manufacturing skills/techniques.…”

Die Bedeutung institutionalistischer Ansätze für das Verständnis von Organisations- und Managementprozessen in multinationalen Unternehmen

“…Ein wichtiger Zweig in der aktuellen sozialwissenschaftlichen Debatte (Pries, 2001;Morgan, 2001b) zur Rolle von MNU ist die Frage nach der Entstehung von "transnationalen sozialen Räumen" (Morgan, 2001 (Morgan, 2001;Geppert/Clark, 2003). Der Focus liegt also nicht nur darauf, ob sie mehr oder weniger institutionalisiert sind (Scott, 1998) bzw.…”