Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporations 2005
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-322-91003-5_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Knowledge Transfers in Acquisitions — An Exploratory Study and Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
39
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There is a growing body of research that aims to explain knowledge transfer in the context of acquisitions. Most studies have focused on knowledge characteristics, such as tacitness (Bresman et al, 1999;Junni, 2011;Westphal & Shaw, 2005), ambiguity (Junni & Sarala, 2011), and social embeddedness (Ranft and Lord, 2002). Also, characteristics of the sending and receiving firms, such as the relative size and relatedness of the knowledge bases (Ahuja & Katila, 2001;Capron, Dussauge, & Mitchell, 1998;Westphal & Shaw, 2005), have been examined.…”
Section: Hypotheses Absorptive Capacity and Acquisition Knowledge Tramentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…There is a growing body of research that aims to explain knowledge transfer in the context of acquisitions. Most studies have focused on knowledge characteristics, such as tacitness (Bresman et al, 1999;Junni, 2011;Westphal & Shaw, 2005), ambiguity (Junni & Sarala, 2011), and social embeddedness (Ranft and Lord, 2002). Also, characteristics of the sending and receiving firms, such as the relative size and relatedness of the knowledge bases (Ahuja & Katila, 2001;Capron, Dussauge, & Mitchell, 1998;Westphal & Shaw, 2005), have been examined.…”
Section: Hypotheses Absorptive Capacity and Acquisition Knowledge Tramentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most studies have focused on knowledge characteristics, such as tacitness (Bresman et al, 1999;Junni, 2011;Westphal & Shaw, 2005), ambiguity (Junni & Sarala, 2011), and social embeddedness (Ranft and Lord, 2002). Also, characteristics of the sending and receiving firms, such as the relative size and relatedness of the knowledge bases (Ahuja & Katila, 2001;Capron, Dussauge, & Mitchell, 1998;Westphal & Shaw, 2005), have been examined. Fewer studies have addressed how sociocultural aspects impact knowledge transfer in acquisitions (Empson, 2001;Junni, 2011, Junni & Sarala, 2011Junni & Sarala, 2012;Sarala & Vaara, 2010;Vaara et al, 2012).…”
Section: Hypotheses Absorptive Capacity and Acquisition Knowledge Tramentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The majority of the papers identified the sharer and institution related influences, while the key role of relations in influencing knowledge sharing practices was highlighted only by Borges (2013) and knowledge related influences were identified only by Bi and Yu (2010, July), Westphal and Shaw (2005) and Yang and Chen (2007). However, none of these previous studies acknowledged that perceptions of knowledge sharing can be shaped by four categories fundamentally different in nature, as shown in (Bi and Yu, 2010, July).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%