Proposition 5 – Willingness

In regards to the relationship between perceived trustworthiness and knowledge transfer, Szulanski, Cappetta, & Jensen (2004) argue that the literature has focused too exclusively on the value of increased trust in knowledge transfer, and, has not looked at the negative aspects of increased trust on knowledge transfer. They accept the argument that as a recipient’s trust in the actor who is the source of knowledge increases, the more likely the recipient is to accept and act on the new knowledge. In addition, they

understand that the recipient is more likely to reproduce the knowledge faithfully when trust is high. They argue, however, that this does not always lead to optimal knowledge

142

transfer. When trust levels are high, the recipient is less likely to challenge or question the accuracy of the knowledge. In this respect, trust limits the search for alternative and perhaps more accurate or useful knowledge.

By looking at returnee knowledge transfer through an institutional lens, we are able to uncover a somewhat parallel phenomenon. The expatriate and repatriate literature centers around the adjustment process. In fact, adjustment has been equated with expatriate performance. However, Thomas and Lazarova (2006) point out that the “strong positive relationship between adjustment and performance is often uncritically assumed, thus forming a law-like generalization in the expatriate paradigm.” They go on to argue that “a set of logical and intuitive, but ultimately data-driven propositions that lack theoretical (and even empirical) substantiation, established the standard for over a decade of subsequent research” (p.251). The point here is that while individuals who are more embedded in the local institutional logics, and are thus more accepted by other members of the workgroup, may have more opportunity to engage in knowledge transfer, this does not necessarily mean more knowledge transfer will occur.

Oddou, Osland, & Blakeney (2009) argue that the more trust, more in-group membership and more domestic social capital a repatriate builds, the more successful he/she will be at transferring knowledge. However, an institutional perspective reveals a limit to this argument. Becoming an in-group member is a legitimacy process

characterized by conformity to institutional logics, and as such, is characterized by acquiesce and compromise strategies to conflicts in institutional logics.

If people who have internalized domestic institutional logics and who rely on domestic social capital are more likely to acquiesce or compromise, then they are less

143

likely to attempt to transfer knowledge that may conflict with the institutional logics of current members. In fact, this may help explain the finding of Furuya, Stevens, Bird, Oddou, and Mendenhall in (2009). While they found support for their hypothesis that intercultural skills facilitate learning, they did not find support that intercultural skills will lead to management competency transfer.

However, researchers in organizational conflict argue that conflict is not always negative. In fact, transferring knowledge and management practices internationally almost invariably leads to conflict (Birkinshaw, Holm, Thilenius, & Arvidsson, 2000) because there are very often perception gaps. At the organizational level, these gaps often arise because of the geographical, institutional and cultural differences between the foreign party (often the HQ) and the local party (Schotter, 2009). However, Schotter (2009) argues that conflict, when managed well, can have positive outcomes. Conflict is a natural part of testing and negotiating the value of new knowledge. In addition, he found that when the conflict between the parties remained task or process focused, rather than relational, the conflict was more likely to lead to positive outcomes.

A middle manager from a large manufacturing firm discussed his own lack of willingness to push his ideas that conflicted with the logics of his colleagues and

superiors. His split international and domestic background had given him an appreciation for everyone’s ideas, but a lack of conviction of his own.

I guess I am a little more flexible than others probably because I had to fit into a different environments several times. That has actually made me a little more flexible and a little more adaptive to the environment. Personally, I think that I am too flexible. I had to force myself to think with different hats. I was raised in the States for a few years, Japan for a few years, and then in Korea again. Then, later I went back to Japan to study…Even at work here I became a bit more of a listener than a talker. I try to listen rather than

144

express my ideas. People have different points of views, they quarrel a lot and have a lot of discussions but I can understand both sides. So, I can't really fight with them or discuss with them. As long as something is logical, I say that makes sense. So, in that sense, I can't really decide which side I should be on. I see that happening to myself quite frequently. But if you want something to get done you have to kind of ignore the other side or try to persuade them to your opinion. Your thoughts should be stronger. My mind is like 51 /49 so I kind of get both sides. So in that sense, that is why I feel that I am a little too adaptive.

(Returnee #25, Company L)

In sum, returnees who are more embedded in the domestic institutional

environment are more likely to acquiesce or compromise. This means that such people may give up (acquiesce) or partially give up (compromise) on knowledge transfer opportunities when the knowledge to be transferred conflicts with the institutional logics of the domestic workgroup. Thus, maintaining a close social distance can come at the cost of challenging institutional logics.

On the other hand, returnees who are more embedded in a foreign institutional environment are more likely to avoid or defy the workgroup when faced with knowledge transfer opportunity that conflicts with current institutional logics. While such strategies may create tensions and conflict, they demonstrate willingness on the part of the actor to attempt to implement institutional change.

In this context, willingness refers to the likelihood that a returnee would acquiesce to or compromise with the workgroup rather than avoid or defy them when the

knowledge to be transferred conflicts with institutional logics. Willingness is an important component of a returnee’s disseminative capacity. Without a willingness to challenge the institutional logics of the workgroup, the returnee is less likely to transfer more radical or controversial knowledge. Those who are less willing run the risk of

145

being below colleagues’ zone of proximal development. People cannot learn when the instructor does not provide enough new input.

Proposition 5: The returnee is more willing to transfer knowledge to the workgroup when he/she has greater embeddedness in a foreign environment.