Proposition 3 – Conflicting Isomorphic Pressures

When a returnee is faced with an opportunity to transfer knowledge that simply fills a knowledge void and does not conflict with existing institutional practices, the

knowledge transfer is likely to meet very little institutional resistance. However, when returnee knowledge conflicts with existing institutional logics, it is quite possible that countervailing conformity pressures may arise. The depth of the institutional practice or routine being challenged will influence the level of resistance (Katz & Allen, 1982). If the transferred knowledge replaces a normative routine that appears to be easily changed, perhaps little resistance may be met. However, as new knowledge increasingly

Potential to Transfer Knowledge Willingness to Transfer Knowledge Opportunity to Transfer Knowledge Transfer of Foreign Knowledge Incongruence with institutional logics P3 P2 P4 P5 Returnee Embeddedness in Foreign Environment

135

challenges deeper institutional logics, members embedded in the logics of that institution are more likely to construe the foreign knowledge with higher levels of psychological distance and thus be less open to the new knowledge.

If the knowledge or technology being transferred by the returnee would require a fundamental shift in cognitive-cultural beliefs or ways of thinking—an upheaval of core institutional logics—the knowledge is likely to meet greater resistance.

Our interviews revealed that the knowledge that returnees attempt to transfer can be quite marginally psychologically distant for workgroup members or quite significantly different. We present three examples from the research. In the first example, the returnees encounter almost no resistance because the knowledge was immediately

relevant and nearly costless both in terms of time and money. In the second example, the returnee was initially unsuccessful at transferring knowledge because his ideas and approach were quite social distant from some workgroup members. Our third example represents an extreme case. In this example, the returnee, a senior manager, is attempting to use the knowledge he gained during a five year PhD program to fundamentally shift the organizational structure and strategy.

In the first example, a manager in a stock trading department of a major financial institution explained how he had brought a more systematic use of statistical programs for “creating an arbitrage opportunity in the bond market” (Returnee #43, Company M). He learned this knowledge in his MBA program and through his intern experience with an American financial institution. His knowledge, while unique to his colleagues and superiors, was not psychology distant from them. The knowledge could be explained in a relatively short amount of time, using language that most of his colleagues understood.

136

Thus, once explained, the knowledge was easy for them to grasp, was not culturally embedded, and was immediately beneficial. There was also very little investment in terms of time and money for his colleagues and superiors

In our second example, a senior marketing manager in a large financial firm (who at the time was a middle manager) attempted to create an online presence for his firm to sell insurance directly through the internet. He had worked for several firms in the USA where online sales had become common practice. Looking back on the situation, he was able to articulate why he was not successful. It is not that the ideas were difficult for other managers to understand, but rather the way he went about attempting to introduce the project created a psychological distance.

Now I have had conflict in other projects and I had to give them up. When I first came in, we had no online presence. WOW this is strange. We are a corporation with such huge assets, and we have nothing online. We need to start to do this. We need to get in there and target younger kids. And so I put together a proposal, I did a lot of research with another person. I asked for money; 1.3 million dollars! I did 5 months of work. We need to do this and this. But they said no. There was a lot of conflict. My direct boss bought into it; my VP bought into it; but the budget department said no, we can't give it to you. We argued, we fought, I screamed at him, but nothing. They gave me all these reasons--like why do we need internet presences. Exactly how many sales can you generate directly from this advertisement? How exactly can you separate out the value of this advertisement from the other

advertisement? How can I answer that perfectly? They were asking

questions that there simply are no answers to--no one ever has those answers. It was a huge conflict. So, I just let it go. Guess what, just a few years later, another department makes the same proposal and gets the budget and they are doing it right now.

But I really have learned from that. Actually, they wanted an online

presence. That was not the problem here. The problem was my overzealous passion, and I realized that it doesn't mean a thing; you have to really

understand how the company makes decisions. It is not the same as

American firms. It is not a competition for the best ideas. It’s not ‘convince me and we will pave the way for you’. You have to know how their egos play into all this. The decision processes here are complex. You need a sponsor

137

to raise your project. And I did not have all of that understanding. I see too many returnees get angry at the company for being backwards, instead of learning that there is a process by which things get done around here. Returnee #30, Company F)

Our third example represents a more extreme case. However, it is useful for illustrating an attempt to transfer foreign knowledge which is completely incompatible with the institutional logics of the organization into which the knowledge is being transferred. The returnee in this case is somewhat atypical. He was granted leave from his company to pursue a PhD in the United States. His company is a rural cooperative financial institution. His goal was to learn about rural cooperative financial institutions in other countries and bring that knowledge back to his company in order to restructure the firm. He met extreme resistance from other senior colleagues.

I wanted to study the cooperative systems of advanced countries--such as USA, Canada, or Europe. In my PhD dissertation, the main subject was a comparative study of the agricultural sectors in Korea, Japan, USA, and EU… When I returned, I introduced the social economy of Canada,

especially Quebec, and the social economy of southern Europe--Italy, Spain, and Portugal--Recently, the [company] and the Korean government wants to develop the social economy business in rural sectors. So, I think I contribute to the Korean model of social economy in rural sectors. So that is my job at the research department…It is very difficult to convince and explain this to the officials. I feel that it is somewhat difficult to introduce the western model of social economy into the rural society of Korea.

And I wanted to introduce a genuine system of cooperative movement in Korea. I wanted to democratize the agricultural system here. I wanted to restructure the basic highly bureaucratic system of the [financial

institutions]… But there is a big difference between the upper managers and me. It is a conceptualization difference between us about the prospects of the cooperative sector in Korean society. Actually, this conceptual difference has escalated after I returned home.

138

I felt that there is no progress. The decision making system or the other kind of the culture…I have limited capability to restructure and inform my

company. Actually, I am one man among the many people and decision makers…Many of the [Company] people recommend me to not rock the boat: "Why don’t you adopt the current system. Otherwise, it will hurt your

chances of promotion. Do you want to be promoted as a high ranking officer?"

(Returnee #27, Company G)

Shifting deeply rooted cognitive-cultural beliefs can be seen in terms of our understanding of psychological distance. As institutional distance between the

knowledge receiver and the new knowledge increases, we can expect that knowledge to be increasingly construed at higher levels of abstraction and thus increasingly discounted. Abstract knowledge that conflicts with deeply held cognitive-cultural beliefs would be more likely to be discounted.

Proposition 3: The more incongruent knowledge is to the current institutional logics of a workgroup, the more resistance the returnee will face when attempting to transfer that knowledge.