Content uploaded by Torben Pedersen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Torben Pedersen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Organizing knowledge processes in the
multinational corporation: an introduction
Nicolai Juul Foss
1,2
and
Torben Pedersen
3
1
Department of Management, Politics, and
Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School, Center
for Knowledge Governance, Copenhagen N,
Denmark;
2
Department of Strategy and
Management, Norwegian School of Economics
and Business Administration, Bergen, Norway;
3
Department of International Economics and
Management, Copenhagen Business School,
Frederiksberg, Denmark
Correspondence:
Dr NJ Foss, Department of Management,
Politics, and Philosophy, Copenhagen
Business School, Center for Knowledge
Governance, Blaagaardsgade 23B, 2200
Copenhagen N, Denmark.
E-mail: njf.lpf@cbs.dk
Abstract
This Introduction discusses the contrast between, on the one hand, the current
popularity of addressing MNC organization in knowledge terms and, on the
other, the lack of adequate understanding of many of the causal mechanisms
and contextual factors in relations between knowledge processes and
organizational factors. A number of the relevant research challenges are
identified, and it is clarified how the five articles in this Focused Issue addresses
some of these.
Journal of International Business Studies (2004) 35, 340–349.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400102
Keywords: knowledge processes in the MNC; organizational control and design
Introduction: why this focused issue?
It is a truism that scientific curiosity is evoked by contrasts, and that
most scientific activity means solving the puzzles implied by those
contrasts (Laudan, 1977). Contrast-driven puzzles take many
forms. For example, they may emerge from contrasts between
theories designed to explain the same phenomenon, or contrasts
(clashes) between a theory and an observed phenomenon, or they
may consist of ‘digging deeper,’ that is, identifying explanatory
mechanisms on deeper levels, constructing micro-foundations and
the like. Special issues, such as the present one, are often published
in order to take stock on puzzle-solving activity, to account for how
a field has progressed so far, to identify the remaining puzzles, etc.
This Focused Issue is different: it represents an attempt to define
and partially answer a set of puzzles for research in the MNC that
while they may occasionally have emerged in various discussions
have not yet been clearly framed and have in no way been given
the attention they require. It is thus an attempt to carve out a
distinct research program within MNC research, although one that
seeks to take existing research streams in new directions rather
than entirely redefining these. The effort has been prompted by a
number of those contrasts just alluded to. These relevant contrasts
may be conceptualized in terms of, on the one hand, the
widespread acceptance and dominance of knowledge-based
approaches to the MNC
1
and, on the other , the apparent lack of
a micro-foundation in much of this work, as well as an absence of
an adequate understanding of many of the causal mechanisms and
contextual factors that mediate between knowledge processes and
administrative and other organizational arrangements.
Journal of International Business Studies (2004) 35, 340–349
&
2004 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. All rights reserved 0047-2506 $30.00
www.jibs.net
This contrast has an observational dimension: we
can observe managers pulling levers of organiza-
tional control in MNCs to influence processes of
sourcing, combining, creating, deploying, lever-
aging, etc. knowledge. This leads to the explanatory
dimension of the contrast, for our theoretical
knowledge about which levers should be pulled
under which conditions is scant and meager. In
fact, we are pretty much in the dark about the
extent to which MNC managers can pull levers of
organizational control at all in order to successfully
influence knowledge processes. Finally, it has a
dimension that relates to contrasts between theories,
specifically theories of the MNC. Consider this final
point.
Tallman (2003) has recently drawn attention to a
‘ytransition of the dominant conceptual model of
the multinational firm from the market failure
approach of internalization theory and transaction
cost economics theory to the market imperfections
approach of capabilities or knowledge-based the-
ories of the firm’ (Tallman, 2003, 495) that took
place during the 1990s. This changed lens has
arguably produced a host of new insights. A
fundamental one is the conceptualization of the
MNC as a knowledge-sharing network whose
existence can be understood in terms of its ability
to transfer, create, integrate and deploy certain
kinds of knowledge more efficiently than markets
are capable of (Kogut and Zander, 1993). A more
specific insight concerns the importance of sticki-
ness for knowledge transfer in MNCs and (some of)
the cognitive and motivational characteristics of
such stickiness (Szulanski, 1996; Gupta and Govin-
darajan, 2000), an insight that has come to define a
whole cottage industry in MNC research.
However, at least one baby was thrown out with
the bathwater of ‘the market failure approach of
internalization theory and transaction cost eco-
nomics theory’, namely the concern with mechan-
isms of organizational control (broadly conceived)
that characterizes these approaches.
2
A strong
indication of this is that the main research interest
in the management of MNC knowledge processes
has been on cognitive aspects, such as absorptive
capacity, tacitness, complexity, etc., and on how
these may influence the costs of transferring,
combining and deploying knowledge.
Considerably less attention has been devoted to
how the delegation of authority (and decision
rights more generally), the provision of incentives,
the monitoring of managers and employees, etc.,
may impact MNC processes of sourcing, transfer-
ring, integrating and deploying knowledge. To put
the matter in general terms that are perhaps
reminiscent of the market failure/transaction cost
approach, there is little theory-based understand-
ing of how mechanisms of organizational control
are aligned with knowledge transactions in an
economizing manner. This would seem to be a
serious lack in understanding, because there are
many a priori reasons, as well as substantial
anecdotal evidence, to support the argument that
organizational factors affect knowledge processes as
well as the relation between knowledge processes
and MNC performance.
This lack of understanding of how organizational
design issues relates to knowledge processes in
MNCs has a theoretical, an empirical and a
managerial dimension. Theoretically, little work
exists on how MNC managers can best orchestrate
knowledge processes by means of designing and
implementing mechanisms of organizational con-
trol. This means that although some empirical work
exists on the relevant issues, this work seems
somewhat ad hoc. In the managerial dimension,
MNC managers are left without much theory-based
guidance when it comes to organizational design in
knowledge-intensive MNCs.
3
In the remainder of this introductory paper, we
further briefly discuss the ‘knowledge movement’
in the MNC literature and its relative lack of
attention to organizational mechanisms, as well as
outline some of the research challenges (‘Knowl-
edge and Organization in the MNC: Research
Challenges’) before we finally explain how the
articles in this Focused Issue take steps toward
bridging the gap between knowledge and organiza-
tion in the MNC (‘Bridging (Some of) the Gaps: The
Articles’).
Knowledge and organization in the MNC:
research challenges
Knowledge and organization in the theory of the
MNC
It is to the lasting credit of the theory of the MNC
that it recognized knowledge as a key factor
shaping economic organization long before the
mainstream economics of organization did this
(e.g., Buckley and Casson, 1976; Dunning, 1977).
4
As late as 1998 Holmstro
¨
m and Roberts (1998, 90),
two leading mainstream organizational econo-
mists, observed that
Information and knowledge are at the heart of organiza-
tional design, because they result in contractual and
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
341
Journal of International Business Studies
incentive problems that challenge both markets and firms
yIn light of this, it surprising that leading economic
theories yhave paid almost no attention to the role of
organizational knowledge.
At the time that this statement was made,
organization-specific knowledge had already been
a key construct in the international business field
for more than a decade, complementing (Buckley
and Casson, 1976; Dunning, 1977; Rugman, 1981;
Caves, 1982; Hennart, 1982), and later challenging
(Kogut and Zander, 1993) the ‘leading economic
theories’ in that field. The idea that economic
organization – specifically, the comparative con-
tracting issue of whether to export, license or
establish foreign operations – may be influenced
by the characteristics of firm-specific knowledge
assets had been around much longer (Hymer, 1960;
Vernon, 1966).
5
Thus, the impression is easily gained that the
theory of the MNC enjoys significant lead-time
with respect to understanding how knowledge and
economic organization connects relative to the
more generic economic theories of the firm. This
is perhaps not so surprising, because the issue of
coordinating knowledge processes may be more
pressing in the full-blown MNC than in firms that
have more of a national orientation. However, a
general problem is that thinking about how to
govern knowledge transactions inside firms is not a
very advanced field. In economics, as well as in the
strategy field, theories of the firm are either fully
concerned with knowledge issues to the neglect of
organizational issues (i.e., the ‘knowledge-based
view of the firm’) or fully concerned with organiza-
tional issues (governance, incentive, etc.), but
suppress knowledge issues (i.e., organizational
economics).
The theory MNC does slightly better. In particu-
lar, the recent emphasis in the differentiated MNC
literature on orchestrating knowledge flows
between MNC units has brought some – although
largely empirically based – insight into the organi-
zational requirements of knowledge transfer. Thus,
the most comprehensive study published on this
topic, Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), observed
that the knowledge inflows into a subsidiary are
positively associated with the richness of transmis-
sion channels, motivation to acquire knowledge,
and capacity to absorb incoming knowledge.
Minbaeva et al. (2003) found that use of HRM-
practices as training, performance appraisal, pro-
motion, compensation and communication have a
positive impact on the transfer of knowledge.
The upshot is that important parts of the MNC
literature are indeed concerned with knowledge
flows between MNC units and often explicitly
considers the role of organizational mechanisms
in the process of knowledge transfer. However, even
this literature is still in the early stages of under-
standing the central aspects, mechanisms, and
contextual factors in the process of managing
knowledge in MNCs.
Problems and research challenges
In the following, we briefly outline on an abstract
level some of the – rather closely related – research
challenges that face research in how MNCs may
influence knowledge processes by organizational
means.
The MNC as a knowledge-based entity
It has become almost axiomatic that knowledge
and learning are at the root of understanding how
competitive advantage is gained and sustained. The
‘knowledge-based view’ of the firm encapsulates
this position (e.g., Kogut and Zander, 1992; Grant,
1996) and an explicitly knowledge-based view has
been adopted in much recent MNC research (e.g.,
Martin and Salomon, 2003). While there are
reasons to be sympathetic to the knowledge-based
conceptualization, it is also hard to dispute that the
view appears to be rather incomplete in the basic
conceptual dimension. In particular, very little
research has been devoted to systematically under-
standing and theoretically framing the ways in
which heterogeneous knowledge elements may be
stratified, distributed, partly overlapping, comple-
mentary or, in other words, structured inside MNCs
(see Lyles and Schwenk, 1992; Foss and Pedersen,
2003).
An indication of this is that most recent re-
search on the differentiated MNC has given much
more attention to understanding knowledge
flows between MNC subsidiaries than understand-
ing the stratification of knowledge stocks across
the MNC. While the examination of MNC know-
ledge flows is an important undertaking, the
existing neglect of the MNC stratification of
knowledge stocks is not satisfactory, for flows
emerge from stocks and flows change stocks.
6
Moreover, costs of transfer arise because firms
control heterogeneous knowledge elements that
they wish to somehow integrate with other knowl-
edge elements or at least deploy in different
contexts. In other words, the costs and benefits of
knowledge transfer (and integration, deployment,
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
342
Journal of International Business Studies
creation, etc.) can only be systematically com-
prehended through an explicit understanding of
how heterogeneous knowledge elements are dis-
persed across an MNC. However, the field seems
far from a consistent understanding of what it
means that the MNC is a knowledge-based entity.
Some of the research challenges implied by these
observations are:
What is the unit of analysis in a knowledge-based
approach to the MNC? Subsidiary-level capabil-
ities? Lower-level routines? What about patents
and other IPRs?
What are the dimensions of the knowledge units
other than tacitness that helps us to understand
the costs of knowledge transfer?
What are the dimensions of the knowledge units
that help us to understand the benefits of
integrating knowledge? Complementarities? If
so, which kinds of complementarities are rele-
vant?
Absence of micro-foundations
Like the knowledge-based literature in general,
research on knowledge in MNCs often work with
notions such as ‘capabilities’, ‘knowledge assets’,
‘knowledge processes’, etc. These are aggregate
concepts. Such concepts are, of course, not illegi-
timate per se, but it is desirable that they come
equipped with a micro-foundation, that is, there is
some understanding of how they are related to
individual behavior. However, this is hardly the
case for a notion such as firm-level ‘competence.’
Definitions of these terms, to the extent that they
are given at all, tend to ‘define’ these ill-defined
concepts in terms of other ill-defined concepts (e.g.,
defining competence in terms of ‘capabilities’ and
‘routines’). This makes empirical work on knowl-
edge transfer inside MNCs difficult to undertake
(because operationalization is hampered). However,
it also makes it hard to link knowledge processes,
such as knowledge transfer, to behavior: what
exactly does it mean in terms of the knowledge of
individual agents to ‘transfer a competence’ from
one MNC unit to another one? While this is a
theoretical problem, it has obvious managerial
implications.
More generally, because there is little disciplined
attention to individual behavior in recent work on
knowledge transfer in MNCs, arguments pertaining
to intra-MNC knowledge transfer acquires an ad hoc
character and, indeed, the literature seems to be
very much empirically driven. This raises chal-
lenges such as:
How are individuals motivated to share knowl-
edge, that is, what are the micro-foundations of
knowledge-sharing within and between MNC
units? Does knowledge sharing raise particular
concerns about intrinsic motivation, and may
the proper balances between intrinsic and extrin-
sic motivation be at least partly culturally
determined?
On which models of behavior should research on
knowledge processes in MNCs be founded? Is the
rational choice paradigm sufficient (as advocated
by Buckley and Casson, 2001) or are more
sociological models appropriate?
Insufficient attention to organization
An implication of the lack of proper micro-founda-
tions is that it is unclear how knowledge processes
may be influenced by mechanisms of organiza-
tional control, such as authority, the use of
incentives, monitoring and the building of shared
context. This is because there is rather little under-
standing of how these controls influence individual
behavior with respect to accumulating, building,
sharing and integrating knowledge. This is not to
deny that many contributions to the MNC litera-
ture do recognize that the process of knowledge
transfer is likely to be supported by different
organizational means of control and motivation
(e.g., Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989; Gupta and
Govindarajan, 1991, 1994; Buckley and Carter,
1999). However, knowledge characteristics and the
transfer of knowledge itself are thus seldom con-
sistently taken to be endogenous to organizational
arrangements. This means that a host of research
challenges are largely ignored. These are questions
such as:
How can incentive mechanisms be used to foster
inter-subsidiary knowledge transfer? To what
extent can organizational mechanisms that have
been implemented to foster knowledge sharing
within business units or within national firms be
used to foster knowledge sharing between sub-
sidiary units that may be placed in very different
cultural spheres?
How should decision-making authority be allo-
cated across the MNC network if the aim is to
optimize knowledge creation? Can we relate
thinking on this issue to existing thinking on
subsidiary mandates?
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
343
Journal of International Business Studies
Unclear causality
A closely related and key problem in thinking
about the interaction of knowledge and organiza-
tion in the MNC has to do with the causal–tem-
poral structure of managerial choice. To use the
language of optimal control theory (Pontryagin
et al., 1962; Winter, 1987), the argument so far has
been that organization variables may best be
thought of as ‘control variables’, with knowledge-
related variables partaking in the role of ‘state
variables’.
7
However, it is also arguable that know-
ledge-related variables may be constraints on
the control variables. For example, how much
MNC headquarters know about a given sub-
sidiary’s normal performance may influence its
possibilities of somehow rewarding the subsidiary
in case it exceeds normal performance. Or some
subsidiaries may control ‘capabilities’ that are
so different from those controlled by other
subsidiaries that MNC headquarters have diffi-
culties benchmarking the subsidiaries against
each other.
The tendency in the literature is clearly to take
knowledge characteristics as something determin-
ing organizational arrangements. Thus, pondering
the issue of what ‘knowledge approaches can
contribute to organizational theory,’ Grandori
(Grandori and Kogut, 2002, 225) recently observed
that what has been added is ‘a new ‘contingency’
factor for understanding organizational arrange-
ments y Knowledge complexity, differentiation
and specialization, complementarity and interde-
pendence are emerging as important contin-
gencies affecting effective organization and
governance solutions’ (e.g., Kogut and Zander,
1993; Birkinshaw et al., 2002; Foss and Pedersen,
2002). However, at least some of these know-
ledge characteristics may also be endogenous
to organizational arrangements; for example,
knowledge differentiation and specialization are
partly endogenous to the choice of organizational
structures.
Of course, the two positions are not necessarily
inconsistent if understood in their proper causal-
temporal context. It may very well be that what
we think of as MNC ‘capabilities’ is a short-hand
for those aspects of the existing MNC know-
ledge stock that both constrain and enable the
MNC’s shorter-run actions, including the choice
of organizational mechanisms to influence know
ledge flows. The problem is that the MNC literature
does not provide much insight into this causal
structure, partly because of the above problems of
inadequate conceptualization of the MNC as a
knowledge-based entity, absence of micro-founda-
tions and insufficient linking of knowledge and
organization.
Bridging (some of) the gaps: the articles
The five articles in this Focused Issue are all
occupied with the interaction between knowledge
processes and organization. However, they differ
substantially in a number of dimensions, such as
the particular knowledge processes and organiza-
tional mechanisms that they investigate, as well as
the theories that are applied and the empirical
context that is chosen.
Table 1 presents some of the basic differences
among the five articles. Although most of the
articles focus on the transfer of knowledge,
they look at different organizational mecha-
nisms and structures, including MNCs, strategic
alliances and joint ventures, and some apply
the headquarter (or teacher) perspective while
others make use of the subsidiary (or student)
perspective. In terms of applied theories, the
articles seem to mainly draw on two rather diffe-
rent branches of theorizing, namely organizational
economics (e.g., agency theory) and perspectives
that are closer to organizational behavior
theory (e.g., organizational learning theory and
socialization theory).
The first article, ‘A Constrained Process Analysis
of Knowledge Combination in Multinational
Enterprises’, by Peter Buckley and Martin Carter,isa
purely theoretical piece that outlines a process
model for knowledge combination within
MNCs. Knowledge combination is seen as the
process of creating value through the combina-
tion of different types of spatially separated know-
ledge in the MNC. The outcome of knowledge
combination depends on how the process is
designed in terms of allocation of decision rights,
the determination of knowledge boundaries
and the design of motivational measures. If not
properly designed, the knowledge combination
process will incur imperfections in the form of
knowledge losses, decision objective losses and
coordination losses. One way among many in
which the authors take explicit steps towards
creating a micro-foundation for thinking about
organizational issues in knowledge processes is by
introducing the ‘initiator-entrepreneur’ as the
motor of the process and the agent responsible for
anticipating potential gains as well as costly
imperfections.
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
344
Journal of International Business Studies
Ram Mudambi and Pietro Navarra’s article ‘Is
Knowledge Power? – Knowledge Flows, Subsidiary
Power and rent seeking within MNCs’ takes its
starting point in the literature emphasizing the
increasing strategic independence of MNC subsidi-
aries. The strategic independence of subsidiaries
gives a number of benefits to the MNC, such as
tapping into local systems of innovation, integrat-
ing local competencies and introducing more
dynamism into the parent MNC; however, too
much subsidiary independence might be inefficient
from the perspective of the MNC. This tradeoff is
modeled in the following manner.
Subsidiaries are conceptualized as pursuing rent-
seeking behavior within the MNC, that is, increases
in subsidiary bargaining power will enable subsidi-
aries to appropriate rents within the MNC and
subsidiaries strive for achieving such bargaining
power. A mechanism behind this is that subsidiary
managers who gain bargaining power will be able
to influence the distribution of MNC resources to
their own advantage. Intra-MNC knowledge flows
are the key source of subsidiary bargaining power.
Subsidiaries that control knowledge that is vital to
the rest of the MNC will be able to accumulate high
levels of bargaining power. As rent seeking by
subsidiaries with strong bargaining power is ineffi-
cient from the perspective of the firm, the head-
quarters’ decision problem becomes one of
increasing strategic independence in subsidiaries
without provoking rent-seeking behavior. The main
contribution of this article lies in the identification
of the interplay between knowledge processes
(subsidiary knowledge creation) and organizational
Table 1 Basic characteristics of the five articles
Knowledge
processes
Organizational
mechanism
Theoretical
foundation
Sample Statistical method
Buckley and Carter Knowledge
creation in MNCs
K Allocation of
decision rights
Organizational
economics
K Coordination
mechanisms
K Motivational
measures
Mudambi and
Navarra
Transfer of
knowledge from
subsidiary to other
MNC units
K Decision rights
determined by de
facto power
Agency theory and
recent MNC
theory
275 foreign-
owned high-tech
subsidiaries
located in the UK
Simultaneous
equation models
(3SLS)
Simonin Transfer of
technological
knowledge
between
international
strategic alliance
partners
K Learning capacity Organizational
learning theory
147 US MNCs
involved in
international
strategic alliances
Structural equation
modelling (LISREL)
with group analysis
K Partner
protectiveness
K Organizational
culture
Dhanaraj et al. Transfer of
knowledge from a
foreign parent to
an IJV
K Relational
embeddedness
(i.e., tie strength,
trust and shared
systems)
Organizational
learning theory
and economic
sociology
140 Hungarian
joint ventures
with foreign
parents
Structural equation
modelling (LISREL)
Bjo¨rkman et al. Transfer of
knowledge from
subsidiary to other
MNC units
K Corporate
socialization
mechanism
Agency theory and
socialization theory
134 Western-
owned
subsidiaries
located in Finland
and China
Regression
analyses
K Subsidiary
objectives
K Compensation
system
K Use of expatriate
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
345
Journal of International Business Studies
processes (subsidiary bargaining power) that foster
rent-seeking behavior (i.e., the appropriation of
MNC resources, including MNC knowledge).
In the study by Bernard Simonin, ‘An Empirical
Investigation of the Process of Knowledge Transfer
in International Strategic Alliances’, the context is
the process of knowledge transfer between interna-
tional strategic alliances partners. The study pre-
sents an integrated model of knowledge transfer
that accounts for the concurrent effects of learning
intent (i.e., organizational motivation), learning
capacity, knowledge ambiguity and tacitness, and
partner protectiveness. The basic structure of the
model applied by Simonin on the organizational
level is: Learning intent–learning capacity–knowl-
edge transfer, which has many similarities with a
fundamental model of individual learning (motiva-
tion–capacity–learning).
Organizational mechanisms enter through the
learning capacity construct, which is an expression
for all the organizational resources dedicated
towards learning. These resources include human
resources and physical assets (resource-based learn-
ing capacity), institutional routines and rules
inducing commitment to a learning objective
(incentive-based learning capacity), and general
attitudes and beliefs towards learning (cognitive-
based learning capacity). Learning capacity is
related to the more well-known concept of absorp-
tive capacity, but while much of the discussion
surrounding the absorptive capacity focuses on the
complexity and takes the absorptive capacity for
more or less exogenous given, Simonin brings back
the focus on the firm-specific levers and resources
that can be manipulated (the actionable side of
absorptive capacity) as the key of learning capacity.
Empirically, the study points to the import roles
played by somewhat ‘traditional’ variables such as
learning intent, knowledge ambiguity and tacit-
ness. However, more distinctly organizational
mechanisms such as incentive-based learning capa-
city and partner protectiveness gain support as,
respectively, stimulating and hindering knowledge
transfer.
The context of the paper by Charles Dhanaraj,
Marjorie Lyles, Kevin Steensma and Laszlo Tihanyi on
‘Managing the Dynamics of tacit and Explicit
Learning in international joint ventures (IJVs):
The Role of Social Embeddedness and the Impact
on Performance’ is knowledge transfer from a
foreign parent to their joint ventures located in
Hungary. Drawing on organizational learning the-
ory and economic sociology, the authors identify
the relational embeddedness between the foreign
parent and IJV as a key determinant of knowledge
transfer. As a construct, relational embeddedness
captures the social aspects of the relationship and
facilitates the transfer of knowledge since it allows
for clarification (i.e., proper interpretation and
feedback), and ensures the foreign parent some
kind of control and motivation to transfer. Rela-
tional embeddedness consists of three dimensions:
strength of ties, trust and shared values and
systems, and these can be seen as organizational
mechanisms that can be applied by managers in
order to facilitate the knowledge transfer, since they
are all outcomes of managerial action.
The study gains support for the importance of
relational embeddedness; moreover, it is found that
relational embeddedness has a stronger impact on
transfer of tacit knowledge than on explicit knowl-
edge transfer. All three dimensions of relational
embeddedness have a positive impact on the
transfer of tacit knowledge, while only shared
systems have an impact on the transfer of explicit
knowledge indicating that these organizational
mechanisms are particularly important for tacit
knowledge transfer, which typically is the more
difficult type of knowledge to transfer. While other
studies primarily have focused on the impact of
cognitive factors (e.g., the tacitness of knowledge),
the contribution of this article is the endogenous
view of organizational processes where relational
embeddedness is constraining the transfer of dif-
ferent types of knowledge (rather than the other
way around).
Finally, in ‘Managing Knowledge Transfer in
MNCs: A Comprehensive Test of Headquarters
Control Mechanisms’, Ingmar Bjo
¨
rkman, Wilhelm
Barner-Rasmussen and Li Li explore a comprehen-
sive model based on agency theory and socializa-
tion theory that addresses organizational
mechanisms used by MNC headquarters to control
the inter-unit transfer of subsidiary competences.
The organizational mechanisms that they include
are, on the one hand, safeguards against potential
subsidiary opportunism/moral hazard applied by
the headquarters (i.e., specification of performance
evaluation criterion, subsidiary management com-
pensation, and use of expatriate subsidiary man-
agers) and, on the other, the development of shared
values, objectives and beliefs across MNC units
(i.e., a corporate socialization mechanism). It turns
out that MNC headquarters can influence the flow
of subsidiary knowledge by tailoring the criteria
used to evaluate subsidiary performance and
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
346
Journal of International Business Studies
Table 2 Examples of conceptual developments and empirical findings in the five articles
Conceptual developments Empirical findings
Conceptualization of the MNC as a knowledge-based entity
Buckley and Carter:
K Explicit modelling of specific kinds of MNC knowledge,
knowledge complementarities and knowledge combination
Mudambi and Navarra: Mudambi and Navarra:
K Subsidiary knowledge production treated as endogenously
determined by the pattern of knowledge flows
K Inflow of knowledge from the corporation and local
counterparts are positively related to subsidiary knowledge
production
Bjo¨rkman et al.: Bjo¨rkman et al.:
K The stock of subsidiary knowledge and the scope of
subsidiary activities (value chain) are related to the outflow of
subsidiary knowledge
K The expected positive relationship is strongly confirmed for
both the stock of subsidiary knowledge and the scope of
subsidiary activities
Steps towards creating a micro-foundation for knowledge
processes
Buckley and Carter:
K The model envisages an initiator-entrepreneur as the motor
of the knowledge combination process
K Explicit modeling of individually based motivation and
coordination costs
Simonin: Simonin:
K The model is a replication of a fundamental model of
individual learning (motivation–capacity–learning) at the
organizational level
K The model gain support when controlled for ambiguity and
tacitness of knowledge
Introduction of organizational mechanism
Buckley and Carter:
K Management fiat
K Allocation of decision rights
K Motivational measures
Bjo¨rkman et al.: Bjo¨rkman et al.:
K HQ can apply safeguards (i.e., specification of performance
evaluation criterion, management compensation and use of
expatriate managers) and corporate socialization mechanism
in order to control transfer of subsidiary knowledge
K Evaluation criteria for subsidiary performance and corporate
socialization mechanism turn out to be significant drivers of
subsidiary knowledge outflow
Dhanaraj et al.: Dhanaraj et al.:
K Relational embeddedness captures the social aspects of
relationships and consists of tie strengths, trust and shared
systems
K Relational embeddedness has a strong impact on the transfer
of knowledge, particularly on tacit knowledge transfer
Simonin: Simonin:
K Learning capacity is introduced as the actionable side of
absorptive capacity and is decomposed into resource-,
incentive- and cognitive-based learning capacity
K Incentive-based learning capacity is a significant driver of
knowledge transfer, while the importance of resource- and
cognitive-based are more mixed
K Partner protectiveness is hindering knowledge transfer
K Organizational culture has a moderating role
Causality between knowledge process and organizational processes
Mudambi and Navarra: Mudambi and Navarra:
K Knowledge processes (subsidiary knowledge production) are
constraining organizational processes (subsidiary bargaining
power), which again constrain rent-seeking behavior (that
includes knowledge processes)
K The causality knowledge output – subsidiary bargaining
power – rent appropriation is supported in a simultaneous
equation model based on cross-section data
Dhanaraj et al.:
K The organizational mechanism – relational embeddedness –
is constraining the transfer of different types of knowledge
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
347
Journal of International Business Studies
implement corporate socialization mechanism
(Table 2).
Conclusion
In this introduction, we have sketched an ambi-
tious program for MNC research. In terms of the
historical development of the MNC field, we
applaud the strong focus on knowledge in the
MNC literature of the last decade, but argue
that it needs to be combined with a view of
organizational mechanisms as instruments of
influencing the sourcing, building, deployment
and transfer of knowledge resources. In some
ways, the transition from the market failure
approach of the 1970s and the 1980s to the
present knowledge-based view led to a Kuhnian
loss of content (Kuhn, 1970). Thus, the earlier
perspective had a view of the MNC as a contractual
entity and a distinct governance structure (e.g.,
Teece, 1986). Moreover, it had clear micro-founda-
tions, to a large extent derived from economics.
And it had a clear, if somewhat crude, view of the
function of various organizational mechanisms.
Our argument has been that the knowledge
approach to the MNC needs to be at least on par
with the earlier approach in terms of conceptuali-
zation of the MNC, micro-foundations and treat-
ment of organizational mechanisms. In line with
this, we formulated a number of corresponding
research challenges.
We also showed in which ways the articles that
are included in this Focused Issue take steps toward
meeting the challenges that we identified by
suggesting micro-foundations, putting forward ele-
ments of a knowledge-based conceptualization of
the MNC, pondering how organization and knowl-
edge are related in the MNC, etc. It is noticeable
that the articles are built on rather different
theoretical positions, and therefore approach and
answer the challenges very differently. Further-
more, the subject of organizing or governing
knowledge processes is also addressed in different
MNC contexts, from overall MNC organization to
strategic alliances. This indicates that the issue of
the organization of knowledge processes is an
overarching one in MNC organization. Further-
more, it is one that probably needs to be addressed
by different approaches, because of the inherent
multidimensionality and complexity of the subject
matter. This Focused Issue therefore only represents
a first step in an immensely complicated set of
issues. We are confident that future work on the
MNC that addresses the governance of MNC
knowledge processes will prove not only challen-
ging but also fruitful.
Notes
1
As signaled by the recent conferment of the
2003 Palgrave Macmillan/Journal of International
Business Studies Decade Award to Bruce Kogut
and Udo Zander for their article, Knowledge of
the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the
Multi-National Corporation (Kogut and Zander,
1993).
2
This is not to say that the market failure approach
of internalization theory and transaction cost econo-
mics theory have provided very detailed com-
parative treatments of issues of organizational
control, but at least these issues are more clearly
framed and conceptualized than in knowledge-based
approaches.
3
These gaps are not necessarily problems of
complete neglect, and they are not absolute. The
literature on the ‘differentiated MNC’ is, in fact,
characterized by paying considerable attention
to organizational mechanisms (e.g., Hedlund, 1986;
Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1986, 1989; Birkinshaw, 1996;
Gupta and Govindarajan, 1991, 1994, 2000; Holm
and Pedersen, 2000; Foss and Pedersen, 2002, 2003).
However, even in this literature the organizational
dimension of MNC knowledge processes is not
addressed, conceptualized and theorized in any
coherent and systematic manner.
4
It is perhaps somewhat overlooked today that the
theme of MNC-specific knowledge comes prior to the
advent of explicitly knowledge-based approaches to
the MNC in the 1990s.
5
The dominant knowledge-based approach to the
MNC may therefore be a continuation with a different
twist of existing themes in the MNC field rather than a
radical theoretical discontinuity (as argued by Tallman,
2003).
6
Cf. also Kogut and Zander’s (1992) observa-
tion that much work on organizational learning
(flows) has neglected organizational knowledge
(stocks).
7
Control variables are those that can be set quickly
(in principle, instantaneously) at the various values
within their feasible ranges, while state variables are
those that change under the influence of the control
variables.
8
Forthcoming as an Introduction to a Focused
Issue of Journal of International Business Studies on
‘Organizing Knowledge Processes in the Multinational
Corporation’.
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
348
Journal of International Business Studies
References
Bartlett, CA and Ghoshal, S (1986) ‘Tap your subsidiaries for
global reach’, Harvard Business Review 64(4): 87–94.
Bartlett, CA and Ghoshal, S (1989) Managing Across Borders: The
Transnational Solution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Birkinshaw, J (1996) ‘How multinational subsidiary mandates are
gained and lost’, Journal of International Business Studies 27:
467–495.
Birkinshaw, J, Nobel, R and Ridderstra
˚
le, J (2002) ‘Knowledge as
a contingency variable: do the characteristics of knowledge
predict organization structure?’, Organization Science 13:
274–290.
Buckley, PJ and Carter, M (1999) ‘Managing cross-border
complementary knowledge’, International Studies of Manage-
ment and Organization 29: 80–104.
Buckley, PJ and Casson, M (1976) The Future of the Multinational
Enterprise, London: Macmillan.
Buckley, PJ and Casson, M (2001) ‘Strategic Complexity in
International Business’, In A.M. Rugman and T.L. Brewer (eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of International Business, Oxford Uni-
versity Press: Oxford.
Caves, RE (1982) Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunning, J (1977) ‘Trade, Location of Economic Activity and
the MNE: A Search for an Eclectic Approach’, in B. Ohlin,
P.-O. Hesselborn and P.M. Wijkman (eds.) The International
Allocation of Economic Activity, MacMillan: London.
Foss, N and Pedersen, T (2002) ‘Sources of subsidiary knowl-
edge and organizational means of knowledge transfer’, Journal
of International Management 8: 49–67.
Foss, N and Pedersen, T (2003) The MNC as a Knowledge
Structure: The Roles of Knowledge Sources and Organizational
Instruments in MNC Knowledge Management, Working Paper
2003-4, Center for Knowledge Governance, Copenhagen
Business School, http://www.cbs.dk/ckg/working.php.
Grandori, A and Kogut, B (2002) ‘Dialogue on organization and
knowledge’, Organization Science 13: 224–232.
Grant, RM (1996) ‘Toward a knowledge-based theory of the
firm’, Strategic Management Journal 17: 109–122.
Gupta, AK and Govindarajan, V (1991) ‘Knowledge flows and
the structure of control within multinational corporations’,
Academy of Management Review 16: 768–792.
Gupta, AK and Govindarajan, V (1994) ‘Organizing for knowl-
edge flows within MNCs’, International Business Review 3: 443–
457.
Gupta, AK and Govindarajan, V (2000) ‘Knowledge flows within
multinational corporations’, Strategic Management Journal 21:
473–496.
Hedlund, G (1986) ‘The Hypermodern MNC — A Heterarchy?’,
Human Resource Management 21(1): 9–35.
Hennart, J-F (1982) A Theory of Multinational Enterprise,
University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI.
Holm, U and Pedersen, T (2000) The Emergence and Impact of
MNC Centres of Excellence, Basingstoke: MacMillan Press.
Holmstro¨m, B and Roberts, J (1998) ‘The boundaries of the firm
revisited’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 73–94.
Hymer, SH (1960) The International Operations of National Firms:
A Study of Direct Investment, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kogut, B and Zander, U (1992) ‘Knowledge of the firm,
combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology’,
Organization Science 3(3): 383–397.
Kogut, B and Zander, U (1993) ‘Knowledge of the firm and the
evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation’, Journal
of International Business Studies 24: 625–645.
Kuhn, T (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University
of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Laudan, L (1977) Progress and its Problems, Routledge and Kegan
Paul: London.
Lyles, MA and Schwenk, CR (1992) ‘Top management, strategy,
and organizational knowledge structures’, Journal of Manage-
ment Studies 29: 155–174.
Martin, X and Salomon, R (2003) ‘Knowledge transfer capacity
and its implications for the theory of the multinational
corporation’, Journal of International Business Studies 34(4):
356–373.
Minbaeva, D, Pedersen, T, Bjo¨rkman, I, Fey, C and Park, HJ
(2003) ‘MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive
capacity and HRM’, Journal of International Business Studies
34(6): 586–599.
Pontryagin, LS, Boltyanskii, VG, Gamkrelidze, RV and
Mischenko, EF (1962) The Mathematical Theory of Optimal
Processes, Interscience: New York.
Rugman, AM (1981) Inside the Multinationals: The Economics of
Internal Markets, London: Croom Helm.
Szulanski, G (1996) ‘Exploring internal stickiness: impediments
to the transfer of best practice within the firm’, Strategic
Management Journal 17(Winter Special Issue): 27–43.
Tallman, S (2003) ‘The significance of Bruce Kogut’s and Udo
Zander’s article, ‘Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary
theory of the multinational corporation’’, Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies 34(6): 495–497.
Teece, DJ (1986) ‘Transaction cost economics and the multi-
national enterprise: an assessment’, Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization 7: 21–46.
Vernon, R (1966) ‘International investment and international
trade in the product cycle’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 80:
190–207.
Winter, SG (1987) ‘Knowledge and Competence as Strategic
Assets’, in D.J. Teece (ed.) The Competitive Challenge, Ballinger
Publ. Co.: Cambridge, MA.
About the authors
Nicolai Juul Foss is Professor of Economic Organi-
zation at the Department of Management, Politics
and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School, and
the Director of the Center for Knowledge Govern-
ance at CBS. He has published numerous articles,
book chapters and books on organization and
strategy issues. See further on http://www.cbs.dk/
staff/nicolai-foss/njf.html
Torben Pedersen is Professor of International
Business in Copenhagen Business School’s Depart-
ment of International Business. He has published
over 40 articles and books concerning the manage-
rial and strategic aspects of multinational enter-
prises. His research has appeared in journals such as
Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies, Management International
Review and International Review of Law and
Economics. See further http://www.cbs.dk/staff/ tp
Knowledge processes in the multinational corporation Nicolai Juul Foss and Torben Pedersen
349
Journal of International Business Studies
