Differences in Knowledge Acquisition Mechanisms Bw Partners_Factors Comprising Absorptive Capacity_2011

8/10/2019 Differences in Knowledge Acquisition Mechanisms Bw Partners_Factors Comprising Absorptive Capacity_2011

1/22

Differences in knowledgeacquisition mechanisms betweenIJVs with Western vs Japanese

parentsFocus on factors comprising absorptive

capacity

Byung Il ParkCollege of Business Administration, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,

Seoul, South Korea

Abstract

Purpose The main objective of this study is as follows: while knowledge acquisition ininternational joint ventures (IJVs) has been widely in the limelight, the question of whether learningmechanisms in IJVs with Western vs Japanese parents are different has not yet been answered. Inorder to fill the current gap in the literature, this research seeks to answer the question by focusing onthe absorptive capacity perspective.

Design/methodology/approach The data were obtained by survey. A total of 1,207questionnaires were posted to the CEOs of IJVs in Korea and 288 were returned, 42 of which wereunusable, thus giving a response rate of 20.38 percent.

Findings By using OLS regressions, two key findings are reported. First, the importance ofabsorptive capacity of IJVs in order to acquire foreign technology from parent firms is confirmed.Second, the results indicate that IJVs with Japanese multinational firms do not show different patterns

of technology acquisition compared with IJVs with Western firms. Based on the findings, it isconcluded that the learning mechanisms facilitating technology acquisition in IJVs is not highlyinfluenced by foreign origins.

Originality/value To reiterate, knowledge acquisition in IJVs has been widely in the limelight.However, no one has empirically analyzed the distinctions in learning mechanisms in IJVs withWestern vs Japanese parents. This research contributes to the current literature by confirming theminimal substantial difference between them.

KeywordsMultinational companies, Joint ventures, Acquisitions and mergers, Japan, Korea

Paper typeResearch paper

1. IntroductionThe center of international business discussion resides in competitive pressure for

globalization, and particularly it has wide credit for provoking international jointventures (IJVs) as a predominant strategy in current international business trends.That is to say, IJVs are increasingly regarded as crucial elements for theinternationalization of firms and thus market expansion through the strategy iscontinuously popular (Park et al., 2009a). Although the growth rates of IJVs have

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by theKorean Government (NRF-2010-327-B00278).

MD49,3

422

Management Decision

Vol. 49 No. 3, 2011

pp. 422-443

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0025-1747

DOI 10.1108/00251741111120789


2/22

recently started to abate (Rahman, 2008) (for instance, IJV growth has started to flattenin China where the highest number of IJVs have occurred), many researchers such asIreland et al. (2002) understand that the popularity of IJVs is still a ubiquitousphenomenon. Similarly, Parket al. (2008) emphasize that a rapid proliferation of IJVs

has been witnessed worldwide, and thus this wave has been sweeping through a widerange of sectors.

Although there may be various drivers for the prevalence of IJVs as a market entrystrategy, one of the key reasons is closely associated with knowledge acquisitionmotivation. Thus, scholars studying knowledge absorption in IJVs (Anh et al., 2006;Laneet al., 2001; Lyles and Salk, 1996, among others) often refer to the arrangements asa vehicle to acquire foreign and local knowledge by sharing idiosyncraticcomplementary resources with other firms. In other words, home country firms offerhost country counterparts the best opportunities to access internationally diffused andintegrated knowledge, involving most modern technologies, management know-howand other forms of expertise previously unavailable to the latter, through theframework of IJVs (Hittet al., 2000). In contrast, when home country firms seek to learnabout information on unfamiliar local markets, business environment and how tocompete in it, host country firms use IJVs to transfer such knowledge (Si and Bruton,1999). Owing to the innate characteristics of IJVs, knowledge acquisition in IJVs isone of the well researched areas in international business discussions.

However, the fact that the strategic importance of organizational learning for IJVhas attracted huge scholarly attention does not mean all enquiries on this topic havebeen answered. For instance, while knowledge acquisition in IJVs has been widely inthe limelight, some researchers still raise a question that learning mechanisms in IJVswith Western vs Japanese parents may be different (Hamel, 1991; Parkhe, 1991; 1993;Parket al., 2009a). Despite the interesting research avenue, no one has yet attempted toexplore empirically the substantial difference between them (Appendix 1 confirms the

research gap, (see Table AI)). Based on the current gap in the literature, this researchseeks to answer a question: What are critical differences of knowledge absorptionbehaviors affecting learning patterns between IJVs with Western and Japaneseparents?

To address the research gap, the rest of this paper is structured as follows. The nextsection discusses a theoretical model based on absorptive capacity theory and alsodevelops the hypotheses of the study. Research methods are presented in the thirdsection, followed by findings and discussion in the fourth. Conclusions in the finalsection include implications and suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical modelBuilding on absorptive capacity theory (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), Kim (1998) argues

that knowledge acquisitions are not always possible but only feasible when a firmowns two crucial components comprised in absorptive capacity: intensity of efforts andpossession of relevant knowledge. Moreover, IJVs, which are not established indeveloped countries, generally face difficulties with complete acquisition of foreignknowledge due to lack of capability to utilize sufficiently the available learningopportunities and internalize the knowledge in their own organization (Hittet al., 2000).In particular, complex firm-specific knowledge developed by other firms commonlyhas sticky characteristics and does not quickly fit into other organizations (Cohen and

Knowledgeacquisition

mechanisms

423


3/22

Levinthal, 1990). Thus Park (2010) suggests that reciprocal support from parent firms(e.g. active assistance of foreign parents in technological management and dispatch offoreign expatriate experts) is a prerequisite to enhance IJVs absorptive capacity andfacilitate knowledge acquisition (Figure 1).

2.1 Intensity of effortsA key aspect of IJV learning, which is closely associated with absorptive capacity,concerns the extent to which employees in learning organizations possess intent tolearn (Mowery et al., 1996). For knowledge acquisition to occur, the IJVs must firstengage in efforts to learn sophisticated foreign technology and other skill-relatedinformation from foreign parents (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). According to Park (2010),these efforts generate the links through which employees can share their experiencesand know-how. The intensity of an IJVs learning efforts reflects the degree to whichthe learning organization is vigorously attempting to absorb the technologicalcapabilities and skills of its foreign parents. Thus, a firms strong intensity of learningefforts will function as a catalyst determining the organizational resources committedto knowledge acquisition (Lyles and Salk, 1996). Similar commentaries emphasizingthe role of intent to learn appear in numerous previous literature. For example, Lin(2005) asserts that a strong learning intent promotes a favorable learning environmentand helps win the so-called learning race. Kim (1998) argues that exposure of a firmto relevant external knowledge is insufficient unless an effort is made to internalize it.Such an effort increases communication among organizational members, thusfacilitating knowledge acquisition and absorption at the organizational level.Minbaeva et al. (2003) suggest that although the learning organization may consistof individuals with high abilities to learn (i.e. high stock of human capital), its abilityto connect learning opportunities to substantial knowledge acquisition will be low ifemployees intent to learn is low or absent. From these explanations:

H1. Strong intensity of learning efforts in IJVs has positive impact on its extent oftechnology absorption from foreign parents.

Figure 1.Research model

MD49,3

424


4/22

2.2 Possession of relevant knowledgeIf IJV operations are not related to foreign parent firms in terms of products, businessbackground and markets, the venture will find it difficult to absorb effectively theproprietary value-creating technology owned by the parents (Bardenet al., 2005). This

is because relevant knowledge base strengthens individual units of knowledgeavailable within the organization (Kim, 1998). Possession of relevant knowledge[1]increases the ability to understand and assimilate new information. For that reason,learning researchers have long recognized that what can be learned is directlyassociated with what is already known. For example, Inkpen (1998) argues thatpossession of relevant knowledge allows the effective use of new knowledge. Unrelatedtechnology will be difficult to learn and may, in fact, have limited value because of lackof a common language for understanding the skill. Under the same premise, theabsorptive capacity framework significantly sheds light on the importance of theexisting knowledge base. According to Caloghirou et al. (2004), the enhancement ofabsorptive capacity based on the possession of relevant knowledge changesorganizational institutions, increasing their ability to search, recognize, as well as

assimilate and use new knowledge for problem solving. These discussions lead to thefollowing hypotheses:

H2. Possession of relevant knowledge in IJVs has positive impact on the extent oftechnology absorption from foreign parents.

2.3 Reciprocal support by parent firmsIJVs in newly industrialized markets may have less capability to evolve to efficientlearner than firms in developed countries owing to relatively fewer learningexperiences. As a result, IJVs in those markets are likely to possess inadequateabsorptive capacity and thus often struggle to acquire new knowledge from theirforeign parents (Hittet al., 2000). In this situation, reciprocal support by parent firms

such as active assistance in technological management and dispatch of expatriateexperts functions as a useful device to transfer their knowledge and improveabsorptive capacity in recipient firms.

2.3.1 Active assistance of foreign parents in technological management. In order fornewly incoming knowledge to be internalized for substantial knowledge acquisition,acquired information needs a codification process. According to Inkpen (1998), theobjectification of most knowledge shared between knowledge transferors andacquirers occur through active support from the firm possessing the knowledge. Thatis, this active support of foreign parents in technological management facilitates thesharing and communicating of advanced foreign skills and provides an excellentopportunity to help in transforming tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. Park (2010)also emphasizes the close relationship between parent firms support and learning by

empirically confirming that the extent of knowledge acquisition is significantlyaffected by the knowledge transferors level of contribution on various functions. Hefurther suggests that active support from the foreign parents is absolutely necessary inorder for the IJVs without much learning experience to improve their absorptivecapacity. In particular, Lyles and Salk (1996) recognize the parent support as one of themain components for absorptive capacity enhancement by arguing that relevantsupport from the parent firms (e.g., assistance in technological management to transfertechnological skills) is the principal foundation for improvement of knowledge


mechanisms

425


5/22

acquisition capability. Again, Kasuga (2003) sheds light on the importance of parentssupport as a critical mechanism increasing receptivity in learning organizations. Fromthis point of view,

H3a. Active assistance of foreign parents in technological management haspositive impact on IJVs extent of technology absorption from them.

2.3.2 Participation of foreign expatriate experts. Dispatch of foreign expatriate expertshas been increasingly mentioned as an element playing an essential role in the transferof technological knowledge and managerial skills. This is because expatriates oftenown the necessary experience, technology and socially embedded skills that can betransferred to overseas subsidiaries (e.g. IJVs), through socialization processes orappropriate training programs (Bouquetet al., 2004). Thus, the use of expatriates canbe a key step in improving and developing human capital in learning organizations. Asindicated in the above, similar commentaries can be easily found in previous literature.Wang et al. (2001) suggest that personal interactions between knowledge transferors

and acquirers is a prerequisite to promote technology acquisition in IJVs in that theabsorptive capacity of the subsidiary to learn foreign technology will depend on theability of expatriate managers to share their experiences and communicate theirknowledge to employees in the subsidiary. According to Tsang (1999), distribution ofmachines and operational manuals alone to an overseas subsidiary is not sufficient toensure a successful technology acquisition in IJVs. Technologies invariably have tacitcharacteristics, which reside in the people who operate the technologies. In this regard,transfer of technologies, whether physical or organizational, from foreign parents toIJVs needs to be handled by expatriate managers who are familiar to the practices. Inother words, the tacit and embedded nature of organizational knowledge (e.g. foreigntechnological information) creates barriers to its efficient fit into IJVs. For this reason, avariety of organizational mechanisms, including people-based, are required for IJVs to

successfully acquire such knowledge. As a result, expatriation can be a legitimatemechanism for transmitting embedded foreign technology (Hebert et al., 2005). Thissection leads to:

H3b. Participation of foreign expatriate experts has positive impact on IJVs extentof technology absorption from foreign parents.

3. MethodologySampleThe sample used in this study is IJVs established between multinational foreign firmsand Korean local firms. The list of the sample[2] was obtained from Foreign Direct

Investment published by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the Koreangovernment (South Korean Government, 2008). The sample was limited to IJVs inwhich home country firm(s) holds a minimum 20 per cent and maximum 80 per cent ofthe equity and IJVs with the Western (i.e. European, American (US)) or Japaneseparents. The following reasons justify these sampling criteria:

. if a foreign parent has less than 20 per cent or more than 80 per cent of foreignownership, such ownership situation often hinders efficient cooperation betweenhome and host country firms (Demirbag and Mirza, 2000); and

MD49,3

426


6/22

. the official government information indicates that these three foreign origins aremain sources of inward FDI in Korea (i.e. more than 96 per cent of FDI in Koreawas conducted by these three foreign countries) and this study also expects thatthey may also possess better technology than Korean firms.

Finally, based on two sampling criteria, 1,207 IJVs were identified.When the data collection (by a questionnaire survey, in which the questionnaire was

sent to CEOs) was completed, a total of 288 responses were returned. Among these, 42were found to be unusable: some answers were repeatedly marked 1, 2, 3 and 4. andsome other respondents continuously gave only a certain numeral as data. Theresponse rate was thus 20.38 per cent. We tested the responses for non-response biasby using two key parameters (detailed industry classification and origin of foreignparent) but no significant difference was found between the responding and thenon-responding IJVs. These results confirm that any non-response bias present isminimal.

Variable measurementThe dependent variable is technological capabilities absorbed from both the Westernand the Japanese parents (i.e. technology was used as a proxy for knowledge).Following Pak and Park (2004), it was assessed by a three-item scale based onLikert-type responses to the question To what extent has an IJV acquired . . . fromyour foreign parent(s) (a) product development skills, (b) production technology and (c)manufacturing process, with 1 very little, up to 5 to a great extent.

Intensity of efforts, possession of relevant knowledge, active assistance of foreignparents in technological management, and participation of foreign expatriate expertswere included in the analysis as independent variables. Detailed information on themeasurement of independent variables is provided in Appendix 2 (Table AII).

Five variables were also used to control for potential influence of other factors onthe phenomenon. Ownership structure: foreign parents who hold a majority ownershipposition are more likely to transfer knowledge to their IJVs. This is because homecountry firms in developed countries usually own more sophisticated and advancedknowledge than host country counterparts and the majority ownership may increasethe foreign parents incentive for knowledge transfer in order to better compete inforeign markets. (A dummy variable is used with 1 for majority foreign-owned, 0otherwise). Organizational and National cultural characteristics: as at least twodisparate firms, possessing incongruent organizational and national culture,simultaneously participate in the establishment of an IJV, conflicts often occurbetween the partner firms (Park et al., 2009a). In addition, no one may deny that theconflict based on the diversity in organizational and national culture logically hinders

knowledge exchange between them and eventually lessens learning from parent firmsin IJVs. In this vein, cultural similarities reducing conflicts between parent firms arethus seen as a potentially important element for the successful knowledge acquisitionof an IJV. Based on Park (2010), organizational cultural similarity was measured by theaveraging of two questions on the level of similarity in corporate culture between homeand host country firms, and whether the latter understand corporate culture of theircounterpart. National cultural distance was calculated based on the parent firmheadquarters location, using Hofstedes (1980) four original cultural dimensions. Size:


mechanisms

427


7/22

larger firms are likely to have a better capability to develop knowledge in-house thansmaller firms (Minbaevaet al., 2003) and have more chances to obtain knowledge fromexternal sources (Almeidaet al., 2003), whereas smaller firms may lack the capabilitywith which to develop or purchase knowledge. For these reasons, larger organizations

may be less eager to gain knowledge from foreign parents, and thus we include IJV sizeto control its potential influence (measured by the number of employees). Age: giventhe greater time that there has been interaction between the parents and the IJV, olderIJVs are likely to have a better knowledge base and thereby superior absorptivecapacity relative to younger IJVs (measured by the number of years since creation ofthe IJV).

4. Results and discussionTable I shows the mean values, standard deviations, and correlations for theindependent variables and also indicates whether there is the possibility ofmulticollinearity. As shown, most of the correlations are relatively low and all are

below ^0.20. We also ran variance inflation factor (VIF), to examine the level ofmulticollinearity among the independent variables. According to Hair et al. (2003,p. 305), a high value of VIF, say above 5, suggests possible multicollinearity. However,no prominent evidence of multicollinearity was detected from the VIF. These resultsconfirm that the research constructs do not have the problem of multicollinearity andthus it will not disturb the results derived from statistical analyses (Lyles and Salk,1996).

The research objective of this study is to identify key factors affecting acquisition oftechnological capabilities from foreign parents in IJVs and particularly to compare thedifferences of learning mechanisms in the entity with the Western and the Japaneseparents. Some critical commentaries argue that the Western and the Japanese firmsmay have different characteristics in the patterns of knowledge transfer/acquisition.

For example, Hamel (1991) asserts that the Japanese firm has a clear propensity toshow a great effort to learn. An executive of a US industrial products firm, in hisseminal work, claims, We established them in their core business. They learned thebusiness from us, mastered our process technology. . .and today challenge us outside

Japan (Hamel, 1991, p. 86). We posit that such an attribute may also influence thelearning behaviors of IJVs established by the Japanese parents.

Based on the previous studies tackling similar topics (e.g. Anh et al., 2006; Lane et al.,2001; Lyles and Salk, 1996), OLS regression analyses were used to examine thephenomenon. The results reveal important implications, which may help to select theIJV partners to enhance operation performance through knowledge absorption in theperspective of host country firms (Table II).

First, five control variables and four mechanisms associated with IJV technology

acquisition are entered into model 1. In addition, four learning mechanisms are mainlybased on the absorptive capacity paradigm coined by Cohen and Levinthal (1990).Model 1 indicates that all independent variables emphasized by the theoreticalperspective are positively correlated with technology acquisition in IJVs. The fact thatabsorptive capacity measures particularly related to cooperative ventures (Park, 2010)have a strong correlation with IJV technology acquisition documents that the presenceof high absorptive capacity significantly facilitates the acquisition of firm-specificinformation such as foreign technology in learning organizations.

MD49,3

428


8/22

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.Ownership

0.29

0.45

1.00

2.Organizationalculturalsimilarity

3.09

0.91

2

0.02

1.00

3.Nationalculturaldistance

30.14

7.68

0.06

2

0.22**

1.00

4.Size

285.56

1216.0

8

0.12

2

0.03

2

0.06

1.00

5.Age

16.52

15.1

7

0.03

0.07

2

0.11

0.11

1.00

6.Intensityofefforts

3.74

0.81

0.10

2

0.04

2

0.01

0.07

0.05

1.00

7.Possessionofrelevant

knowledge

3.46

1.32

0.13*

0.10

2

0.15**

20.05

0.09

0.02

1.00

8.Activeassistanceoffo

reignparentsin

technologicalmanagement

2.66

1.35

0.26**

0.19**

2

0.08

20.02

0.08

0.15*

0.28

**

1.00

9.Participationofforeign

expatriateexperts

1.38

0.67

0.10

0.09

2

0.03

20.02

0.05

0.07

0.03

0.25**

Notes:n

246;*p,

0.05;

**p,

0.01

Table I.Descriptive statistics and

correlation matrix


mechanisms

429


9/22

Second, the sample was divided into two different groups:

(1) 126 IJVs with Western parents (model 2); and

(2) 120 IJVs with Japanese parents (model 3).

The fact that the number is not much asymmetric may confirm that Korea attractsbalanced FDI from the Western and the Eastern world and thus it is one of the bestlocations to examine the topic.

Regarding learning mechanisms, our findings did not find any statisticallysignificant differences between both groups (i.e. key factors statistically nominated byregression analyses between models 2 and 3 are similar. Our findings reveal thatintensity of efforts, possession of relevant knowledge and active assistance offoreign parents in technological management are important absorptive capacitydeterminants positively enlarging the extent of technology acquisition, regardless ofmodel difference. From the results, we can recognize that components determiningknowledge acquisition patterns based on absorptive capacity between IJVs with theWestern and the Japanese parents are not much contrasting). Our findings aresomewhat inconsistent with previous studies (e.g. Hamel, 1991; Mowery et al., 1996),

raising the likelihood of the presence of idiosyncratic behavioral patterns forknowledge exchange in both groups. Based on the results, this study would suggestthat an existing idea currently considered as common wisdom (i.e. researchers presumethat the Japanese firms are constantly eager to extract crown jewels from others but arenot interested in transferring the sources of their competitiveness from their ownknowledge reservoir) is possibly incorrect.

Meanwhile, Lehrer and Asakawa (2003) dichotomize countries where the flow oftacit knowledge predominates in the management system (e.g. Japan) and others where

VariablesModel 1

(All IJVs)

Model 2(IJVs with the Western

parents)

Model 3(IJVs with the Japanese

parents)

ControlsOwnership 20.042 20.099 20.020Organizational cultural similarity 0.040 0.056 0.044National cultural distance 20.065 20.001Size 0.005 0.016 0.037Age 20.014 0.158 * * 20.191 * *

Intensity of efforts 0.260 * * * * 0.275 * * * * 0.254 * * * *

Possession of relevant knowledge 0.184 * * * * 0.213 * * * 0.164 * *

Reciprocal support by parent firmsActive assistance of foreign parentsin technological management 0.449* * * * 0.398 * * * * 0.536 * * * *

Participation of foreign expatriateexperts 0.098 * * 0.040 0.099

R2 0.436 0.416 0.508AdjustedR2 0.414 0.370 0.472

F 19.905 * * * * 9.032 * * * * 14.077 * * * *

Notes:Coefficients standardized; n 246; * p , 0.10; * * p , 0.05; * * * p , 0.01; * * * * p , 0.001

Table II.OLS regression analysesfor technology acquiredfrom foreign partners

MD49,3

430


10/22


11/22

countries and behaviors of knowledge transference of Japanese firms will alsoprovide an answer to our enquiry.

5. ConclusionsThis study attempts to fill the research gap by empirically examining key differencesin absorptive capacity factors affecting technology acquisition in Korean IJVsestablished by Western and the Japanese firms. First of all, we confirm the importanceof absorptive capacity of IJVs in order to acquire foreign technology from parent firms.In addition, the results advise that the learning mechanisms facilitating technologyacquisition in IJVs are not highly influenced by foreign origins. Through extraanalysis, we additionally uncover that although knowledge acquisition mechanisms ofIJVs with parents of different national origins are not much contrasting, substantialknowledge absorption will generally be easier when knowledge acquirers andtransferors share similar cognitive structure. The results of the empirical analyses aresummarized in Table III.

Our findings suggest valuable practical implications for management decisions inboth home and host country firms. First, technology acquisition in IJVs is stronglydependent upon their absorptive capacity, and collaborative support from homecountry firms is a crucial component determining the knowledge acquirers learningcapability. That is, willingness may be a fundamental element that helps to enlargelearning effects. However, the willingness for doubling the learning effects does notonly mean the knowledge acquirers learning passion but also the transferors teachingenthusiasm. In this regard, home country firms should attempt to support overseassubsidiaries collaboratively if they want to penetrate effectively into foreign markets.Second, as Hamel (1991) and other researchers (e.g. Lam (2003) and Lehrer andAsakawa (2003), among others) suspect, Japanese firms may have a propensity to tryto obtain crown jewels from partner firms but at least they do not show different

behavioral patterns of knowledge transfer, which is a prerequisite to increase thepossibility of successful operation, to overseas subsidiaries. Thus, managementdecision makers of host country firms may not need to deeply agonize over whether

Sample

HypothesisExpecteddirection

AllIJVs

IJVs withWestern parents

IJVs withJapanese parents

H1 Intensity of efforts YES YES YESH2 Possession of relevant knowledge YES YES YESH3 Active assistance of foreign

parents in technological

management YES YES YESH4 Participation of foreign expatriate

experts YES NO NO

Notes:Key findings: absorptive capacity in learning organizations is key for knowledge acquisition.Knowledge acquisition mechanisms of IJVs established by different foreign origins are not muchdifferent. Substantial learning extent in learning organizations can be influenced by level of similarityin cognitive norms, attitudes and other systems based on national characteristics with knowledgetransferors (However, its impact probably depends on type of knowledge)

Table III.Summary of results

MD49,3

432


12/22

they should establish IJVs with Japanese firms when their objectives are to increaseorganizational competitiveness and enhance market positions of the cooperativeformations. In particular, our results imply that host country firms may not need to behesitant about the establishment of cooperative ventures with the Japanese firms,

especially when they have close cultural ties and a sufficient level of human resources(as Korean IJVs learn more from Japanese parents than Western ones, such asuggestion may be plausible see Appendix 3. However, the influence of nationalcultural distance is not statistically significant in regression analyses and thus itremains as a conjecture without further investigations). This provides an additionalimplication for policy makers and proposes that there is no reason to prevent directinvestment by Japanese multinationals if the host country meets these two conditions.To reiterate, national cultural distance seems to influence learning in IJVs negatively tosome extent but it is not a powerful element in the learning process, at least for theacquisition of technological capabilities. It needs to be noted that technology has arelatively explicit attribute more than managerial knowledge and it is easier to transferfrom one firm to another through sending manuals, guides and instructions than thelatter. In other words, technology is not highly embedded in cultural characteristicsand therefore the detrimental impacts of cultural distance on technology acquisitionare logically less critical. This finding has probably a phenomenal implication for theresearch community.

However, this study was limited to data on IJVs, in that our empirical examinationwas in a single geographical area, which offers a useful future research avenue. That is,the same research framework can be used to identify the main differences of keyfactors affecting technology acquisition in different geographical contexts. By doingso, it is expected that additional results from such analyses will magnify ourunderstanding on the influences of foreign origins on technology acquisition by IJVs.Another path for future research is associated with type of knowledge. We tackle only

acquisition of technological capabilities, which indicates that other researchers need toinvestigate absorption of different information (e.g. managerial knowledge). Third, dueto the practical problems, we did not control for industry effects in the regressions,thus requiring more sophisticated selection of control variables in the future. Fourth,by focusing on absorptive capacity, the paper assumes the uni-finality of thephenomenon, while other studies have shown that it is equifinal. Therefore it will bemore appealing if a future research concentrates on the patterns of knowledgetransfer/acquisition per se. Finally, although this study treats both US and Europeanfirms simultaneously as Western origins, they in fact have different nationalcharacteristics. In this vein, other works which attempt to handle the overarchingresearch area are required which divide the sample into three categorizations (i.e. Japan,US and Europe) rather than two. The combination of our results and these future

findings will enhance the precision of our knowledge.

Notes

1. Cohen and Levinthal (1990, p. 129) indicate that relevant knowledge is a pre-existinginformation reservoir within organizations. This enhances learning because memory, or thestorage of knowledge, is developed by associated learning in which events are recorded intomemory by establishing linkages with the pre-existing concepts. Park (2010) emphasizesthat if IJVs have a common denominator on products, industry characteristics and markets


mechanisms

433


13/22

with knowledge possessors, it will help the former to share similar cognitive structure withthe latter and eventually facilitate the internalization of new information into long-termmemory in the learning organizations.

2. The sample consists of more than 12 industries: food products; textile and garment; paper

and wood; petroleum; chemistry; medicine; ceramics; metal; machinery; electronics;transportation equipment; and other manufacturing.

References

Almeida, P., Dokko, G. and Rosenkopf, L. (2003), Startup size and the mechanisms of externallearning: increasing opportunity and decreasing ability?,Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 2,pp. 301-15.

Anh, P.T.T., Baughn, C.C., Hang, N.T.M. and Neupert, K.E. (2006), Knowledge acquisition fromforeign parents in international joint ventures: an empirical study in Vietnam,

International Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 463-87.

Barden, J.Q., Steensma, H.K. and Lyles, M.A. (2005), The influence of parent control structure on

parent conflict in Vietnamese international joint ventures: an organizational justice-basedcontingency approach,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 156-74.

Barkema, H.G., Bell, J.H.J. and Pennings, J.M. (1996), Foreign entry, cultural barriers, andlearning, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 151-66.

Barkema, H.G., Shenkar, O., Vermeulen, F. and Bell, J.H.J. (1997), Working abroad, working withothers: how firms learn to operate international joint ventures,Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 426-42.

Berrell, M., Gloet, M. and Wright, P. (2002), Organisational learning in international jointventures: implications for management development, The Journal of Management

Development, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 83-100.

Bouquet, C., Hebert, L. and Delios, A. (2004), Foreign expansion in service industries:

separability and human capital intensity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 1,pp. 35-46.

Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I. and Tsakanikas, A. (2004), Internal capabilities and externalknowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?,Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 29-39.

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning andinnovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.

Demirbag, M. and Mirza, H. (2000), Factors affecting international joint venture success:an empirical analysis of foreign-local partner relations and performance in joint venturesin Turkey, International Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-35.

Doz, Y.L. (1996), The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learningprocesses?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 55-83.

Dussauge, P., Garrette, B. and Mitchell, W. (2000), Learning from competing partners: outcomesand durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 99-126.

Griffith, D.A., Zeybek, A.Y. and OBrien, M. (2001), Knowledge transfer as a means forrelationship development: a Kazakhstan-foreign international joint venture illustration,

Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-18.

Gulati, R., Lavie, D. and Singh, H. (2009), The nature of partnering experience and the gainsfrom alliances,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 1213-33.

MD49,3

434


14/22

Hair, J.F. Jr, Babin, B., Money, A.H. and Samouel, P. (2003), Essentials of Business ResearchMethods, Wiley, New York, NY.

Hamel, G. (1991), Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international

strategic alliances, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, S1, pp. 83-103.

Hebert, L., Very, P. and Beamish, P.W. (2005), Expatriation as a bridge over troubled water:

a knowledge-based perspective applied to cross-border acquisitions, OrganizationStudies, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1455-76.

Hitt, M.A., Dacin, M.T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J. and Borza, A. (2000), Partner selection in

emerging and developed market contexts: resource-based and organizational learning

perspectives, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 449-67.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Holmqvist, M. (2003), A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning,

Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 95-123.

Inkpen, A.C. (1998), Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic

alliances, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 69-80.

Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998), Knowledge management processes and international joint

ventures, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 454-68.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. and Vaidyanath, D. (2002), Alliance management as a source of

competitive advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 413-46.

Kale, P., Singh, H. and Perlmutter, H. (2000), Learning and protection of proprietary assets in

strategic alliances: building relational capital, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21No. 3, pp. 217-37.

Kasuga, H. (2003), Capital market imperfections and forms of foreign operations,InternationalJournal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1043-64.

Kim, L. (1998), Crisis construction and organizational learning: capability building in

catching-up at Hyundai motor,Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 506-21.

Lam, A. (2003), Organizational learning in multinationals: R&D networks of Japanese and US

MNEs in the UK, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 673-703.

Lane, P.J. and Lubatkin, M. (1998), Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational

learning, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 461-77.

Lane, P.J., Salk, J.E. and Lyles, M.A. (2001), Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in

international joint ventures, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 12, pp. 1139-61.

Lehrer, M. and Asakawa, K. (2003), Managing intersecting R&D social communities:

a comparative study of European knowledge incubators in Japanese and American

firms, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 771-92.

Lin, X. (2005), Local partner acquisition of managerial knowledge in international joint ventures:

focusing on foreign management control,Management International Review, Vol. 45 No.2,pp. 219-37.

Lyles, M.A. and Salk, J.E. (1996), Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international

joint ventures: an empirical examination in the Hungarian context, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 877-903.

McGee, J.E., Dowling, M.J. and Megginson, W.L. (1995), Cooperative strategy and new venture

performance: the role of business strategy and management experience, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 565-80.


mechanisms

435


15/22

Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Bjorkman, I., Fey, C.F. and Park, H.J. (2003), MNC knowledgetransfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM, Journal of International BusinessStudies, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 586-99.

Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. and Silverman, B.S. (1996), Strategic alliances and interfirm

knowledge transfer, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 77-91.Nagarajan, A. and Mitchell, W. (1998), Evolutionary diffusion: internal and external methods

used to acquire encompassing, complementary and incremental technological changes inthe lithotripsy industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1063-77.

Nielsen, B.B. and Nielsen, S. (2009), Learning and innovation in international strategic alliances:an empirical test of trust and tacitness, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 6,pp. 1031-56.

Norman, P.M. (2004), Knowledge acquisition, knowledge loss, and satisfaction in hightechnology alliances, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 610-19.

Pak, Y.S. and Park, Y-R. (2004), A framework of knowledge transfer in cross-border jointventures: an empirical test of the Korean context, Management International Review,Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 417-34.

Pak, Y.S., Chang, D.R. and Park, Y-R. (2009), Understanding cross-border learning with a socialcapital perspective, International Business Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 29-50.

Park, B.I. (2010), What matters to managerial knowledge acquisition in international jointventures? High knowledge acquirers versus low knowledge acquirers, Asia Pacific

Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 55-79.

Park, B.I. and Glaister, K.W. (2009), Determinants of knowledge acquisition in Koreaninternational joint ventures: a pre- and post-Asia crisis comparison, Journal of KoreaTrade, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 51-74.

Park, B.I., Giroud, A. and Glaister, K.W. (2009a), Acquisition of managerial knowledge fromforeign parents: evidence from Korean joint ventures,Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol.15No. 4, pp. 527-45.

Park, B.I., Whitelock, J. and Giroud, A. (2009b), Acquisition of marketing knowledge in smalland medium-sized IJVs: the role of compatibility between parents,Management Decision,Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1340-56.

Park, B.I., Giroud, A., Mirza, H. and Whitelock, J. (2008), Knowledge acquisition andperformance: the role of foreign parents in Korean IJVs, Asian Business & Management,Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-32.

Parkhe, A. (1991), Interfirm diversity, organizational learning and longevity in global strategicalliances, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 579-601.

Parkhe, A. (1993), Partner nationality and the structure-performance relationships in strategicalliances, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 301-14.

Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), Interorganizational collaboration and thelocus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 116-45.

Rahman, N. (2008), Resource and risk trade-offs in Guanxi-based IJVs in China, Asia PacificBusiness Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 233-51.

Rebentisch, E.S. and Ferretti, M. (1995), A knowledge asset-based view of technology transfer ininternational joint ventures,Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 12Nos 1/2, pp. 1-25.

Shenkar, O. and Li, J. (1999), Knowledge search in international cooperative ventures,Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 134-43.

MD49,3

436


16/22


17/22

Appendix 1

Study

Focusedarea

Theoreticallens

Keyissues/researchquestion

Findings

Hamel,

1991

Learning

Organizational

learning

Whatareextenttowhichandmeans

throughwhichcollaborativeprocess

might

leadtoreapportionmentofskillsbetween

partners?

Notallpartnersequallyadeptatlearning

andasymmetriesinlearningalter

relativebargainingpowerofpart

ners.

Stabilityandlongevitymaybe

inadequatemetricsofpartnership

success.Partnersmayhavecomp

etitive

aswellascollaborativeaims,and

process

maybemoreimportantthanstructurein

determininglearningoutcomes

McGeeetal.,

1995

Kn

owledgegaining

andexperience

Transactioncostan

d

strategicbehavior

Investigatesrelationshipbetweenne

w

venturesperformanceandexperience,

choiceofcompetitivestrategyandu

seof

variouscooperativearrangements

Newventureswhosemanagemen

tteams

possessmostexperiencebenefith

ighly

fromcooperativearrangements

Rebentischand

Ferretti,1995

Technologytransfer

Knowledge-based

Examinestechnologytransferprocessin

contextofIJVs

Proposestransferscope,transfermethod,

knowledgearchitecture,

and

organizationaladaptiveabilityim

portant

elementsoftransferprocess

Moweryetal.1996

Transferof

technological

cap

abilities

Knowledge-based

Investigatesinter-firmknowledgetransfer

withinstrategicalliances

Equityjointventurepromotesgreater

knowledgetransfer,

andextentof

technologicalcapabilitytransfercanbe

explainedbyabsorptivecapacity.

Limits

tocapabilitiesacquisitionviewo

f

alliancesalsosuggested.

Insubst

antial

subsetofalliances,capabilitiesof

partner

firmsbecomemoredivergent

LylesandSalk,

1996

Factorsaffecting

knowledgeacquisition

Absorptivecapacity

Examinesorganizationalattributes,

structuralmechanismsandcontextu

al

factorsthataffectknowledgeacquis

ition

fromforeignparentinIJVs

Adaptationandstructuralmecha

nisms

positivelyrelatedtoknowledge

acquisition.

Acquiringknowledgefrom

foreignparentscanbeimpededb

y

culturalconflicts

(con

tinued)

Table AI.Summary of previousstudies on knowledgeacquisition of IJVs

MD49,3

438


18/22

Study

Focusedarea

Theoreticallen

s


Findings

Barkemaetal.,

1996

Learningandcultural

distance

Uppsalaprocess

Whatculturalbarriersexistregarding

typeandmodeofownership?D

oes

learningreduceculturalbarriers?Whatare

locationalpatternsofinternatio

nalization?

Longevityofforeignentrynegatively

relatedtoculturaldistance,a

nddecreases

stronglyincasesofIJVsand

acquisitions

comparedwithwholly-owned

subsidiariesandstart-ups.Experience

positivelyrelatedtolongevityofforeign

entry,a

ndlearningfromitstr

ongerinIJVs

andacquisitionsthanwholly

-owned

subsidiariesandstart-ups

Doz,

1996

Learning

Organizational

learning

Howdoeslearningoccurinstrategic

alliances?

Conditionofsuccessfulallia

nces:series

iterativeandinteractivelear

ningcycles

overtime.Alliancescanfail

wheninitial

conditionmayblockanddelaylearning,

initialconditiondoesnotallowjoint

learningnegativereevaluationfollowed

byenvironmentalchange

Powelletal.,

1996

Networksoflearning

Socialnetwork

Examinesorganizationalarrangements

thathaveemergedinresponse

to

technologicalboilincomplexa

nd

expandingindustry

Locusofinnovationfoundw

ithin

networksoflearning

Barkemaetal.,

1997

Learning

Organizational

learning

HowdofirmslearntohandleI

JVs?

IJVlongevitynegativelyrelatedto

culturaldistance.

Longevity

affectedby

experiencewithdomesticjointventure

andinternationalwholly-ow

ned

subsidiaries

Simonin,

1997

Learning

Resource-based

Howdoesorganizationalexper

iencerelate

toformationofspecializedknow-howthat

inturnimpactsonorganizational

performance?

Experiencemustbeinternalizedfirst,and

collaborativeknow-howmustbe

developedforthisexperienc

etofuture

collaborativebenefits

LaneandLubatkin,

1998

Factorsaffecting


Absorptivecapacity

Testsroleofrelativeabsorptivecapacity

promotinginter-organizational

learning.

Criticalfactorsfacilitatinglearning:

similaritiesofknowledgeba

se,

lower

managementformalization,research

centralization,

compensation

practices,

andresearchcommunities

Nagarajanand

Mitchell,1998

Acquisitionof

technology

Evolutionary

Investigatesassociationbetween

technologicalchangeandmeth

odsof

technologyacquisition.

Vehicleforobtainingnewid

eas

concerningencompassingand

complementarytechnologies

isequity

andnon-equityinterorganizational

relationships.

(continued)

Table AI.


mechanisms

439


19/22

Study

Focusedarea

Theoreticallens


Findings

ShenkarandLi,1999

Knowledgesearchand

capacitytoabsorb

Organizationa

l

learningand

absorptivecap

acity

Willfirmsseekknowledgeinsamearea

belongingtotheirknowledgeb

aseor

complementarytotheirown?

Prerequisiteconditionforknowledge

search:thepossessionofcomplementary

knowledge.Equityjointven

tureis

preferredgovernancemode

forfirms

seekingtransferoftacit,em

bedded

knowledge

Simonin,

1999a

Processofknowledge

transfer

Knowledge-ba

sed

Studyempiricallyexploressim

ultaneous

effectsofknowledgeambiguityandits

antecedents

Knowledgeambiguitymediateseffectsof

tacitness,complexity,

prior

experience,

culturaldistanceandorganizational

distanceonknowledgetransfer

Simonin,

1999b

Transferofmarketing

know-how

Knowledge-ba

sed

Empiricallyinvestigatesambig

uityand

theoreticalconstructssuchastacitness,

assetspecificity,

complexity,experience

andpartnerprotectiveness

Tacitnessmostsignificantd

eterminant

forknowledgetransfer.

Ina

ddition,

firmslevelofcollaborative

experience,

durationofalliance,

andfirmssize

mediateseffectsofculturaldistance,

assetspecificity,

andpriore

xperience

Dussaugeetal.,

2000

Learning

Evolutionary

Examinesresultsandduration

ofalliances

amongcompetingfirms

Linkalliancessuperiortoscalealliances

intermsoflearningandcapability

acquisition.

Durationofbothalliances

moreorlesssimilar

Kaleetal.,

2000

Learningand

protection

Organizationa

l

learningand

knowledge-based

Whatfactorsprotectfirmfrom

losingcore

assets,

aswellasenableittolearnskills?

Relationalcapitaltogetherw

ith

integrativeapproachtoman

aging

conflictenablesfirmstolearnskillsand

protectthemselves

Stuart,2000

Learningtechnical

know-howand

performance

Socialnetworkand

organizational

learning

Examinesrelationshipbetween

intercorporatetechnologyalliancesand

firmperformance

Greaterinnovativenessallia

ncepartners,

higherfirmsrateofgrowth

.Strategic

alliancewithinnovativepar

tnersmore

beneficialtoyoungandsma

llfirmsthan

oldandlargeorganizations

Griffithetal.,

2001

Knowledgetransfer

andrelationship

Relationship

development

Examinesinfluenceofknowled

getransfer

betweenIJVpartnersonsatisfaction

Confirmsknowledgetransferresultsin

highlevelofpartnersatisfaction

(continued)

Table AI.

MD49,3

440


20/22

Study

Focusedarea

Theoreticallens


Findings

Laneetal.,

2001

Factorsaffecting


Absorptivecapacity

Investigatesmodeloflearning

and

performance,

whichdividesab

sorptive

capacityintothreecomponents:trust,

learningstructure,

andstrategyand

trainingcompetence

Suggestssupportforpredictionsof

knowledgeunderstandinga

nd

application,

andpartialsupportfor

predictionofknowledgeass

imilation.

Alsoproposestrustandma

nagement

supportofforeignpartnerrelatednotto

learningbutperformance

Tsai,2001

Knowledgetransfer

Socialnetwork

Investigatesnetworkpositionand

absorptivecapacitydeterminin

g

effectivenessoflearningandknowledge

transfer

Interplaybetweenabsorptiv

ecapacity

andnetworkpositiongeneratespositive

effectsoninnovationandperformance

Berrelletal.,

2002

Cultureandlearning

Organizationa

l

learning

Whatisimpactofnationalcultureon

learning?

Lackofculturalunderstand

ingimpacts

negativelyonlearningofIJVs

Tsang,

2002

Acquisitionof

knowledgeonhost

market

Organizationa

l

learning

Howdofirmslearnknowledge

fromIJV

experience?

Bothoverseeingeffortandmanagement

involvementimportantfork

nowledge

learning.

Holmqvist,2003

Learning

Organizationa

l

learning

Comparesintra-andinter-orga

nizational

learning

Waystolearningbetweeninter-

organizationsandintra-organizations

similar.

Differenceslikelyto

bequestion

ofdegreeratherthankind,withrespect

tobothprocessandoutcome

Norman,

2004

Acquisitionandlossof

knowledgeand

satisfaction

Organizationa

l

learningand

transactioncosts

Exploreshowlearningintent,

opportunitiestolearnandabilitytolearn

facilitateorretardknowledgeacquisition,

knowledgelossandsatisfaction

Suggeststhatfirmsattempttoinfluence

partnerlearningbasedonin

tenttolearn,

abilitytolearn,a

swellaslev

eloftrust.I

n

addition,

partnerprotection

positively

associatedwithpartnerslearningintent

andability.

However,

withmoretrusted

partners,firmstendnottoprotect

knowledgeandacquiremor

eskillsand

higherlevelsofsatisfaction

PakandPark,

2004

Transferofproduct

developmentand

manufacturing

process

Knowledge-ba

sedand

absorptivecap

acity

Examinesinteractionbetween

relation-

andknowledge-specificfactors

for

knowledgetransfer

Accentuatedpositivesocial

interaction

betweenpartnersintransferoftacit

knowledge,andconfirmsch

aracteristics

ofknowledgeandabsorptiv

ecapacity

Zhaoetal.,

2005

TransferofR&D

capabilities

Dualnetwork

InvestigatesinfluencesofMNE

ssource

networksandrecipientnetworksoninter-

organizationaltransferanddiffusionof

capabilities

Bothpositiveandnegativeimpactsof

sourceandrecipientnetworkson

knowledgeinflowtoIJVsan

dknowledge

outflowfromIJVs

(continued)

Table AI.


mechanisms

441


21/22

Study

Focusedarea

Theoreticallen

s


Findings

Anhetal.,

2006

Factorsaffecting


Absorptivecap

acity

Attemptstoidentifykeyfactorsaffecting

knowledgeacquisitionandperformance

Training,e

mployeesabilitytolearn,a

nd

jointparticipationassociated

with

knowledgeacquisition.

Know

ledge

acquisition,

particularlytacitknowledge,

contributespositivelytoven

ture

performance

Parketal.,

2008

Absorptionof

managementskilland

foreignparents

support

Absorptivecap

acity

Examinescriticalfactorsforthe

acquisitionofmanagementskillfrom

foreignparentsinIJVs

Foreignparentscollaborativ

esupportis

crucialforIJVstolearntacit

information

suchasmanagementknowledge

Gulatietal.,

2009

Gainsthrough

partneringexperience

Organizational

learning

Examinestheconditionsunder

whichthe

previouspartneringexperience

offirmsis

beneficialforvaluecreation

Partner-specificexperiencecontributesto

valuecreationmorethangeneral

partneringexperience

NielsenandNielsen,

2009

Theroleoftacitness

andtrust

Knowledge-based,

organizational

learningandsocial

capital

Explorestheroleoftacitnessandtrustin

pursuitoflearningandinnovat

ion

Findsthatbothcomponents

playa

differentroleinacquiringknowledgeand

achievinginnovationoutcom

es

Paketal.,

2009

Learningand

performance

Knowledge-based

Exploresdeterminantsforlearn

ingand

performance

Goalsimilarityandcultural

compatibilitypositivelyinflu

enceon

learning.

Bothhaveindirect

impactson

performancethroughlearnin

g

ParkandGlaister,

2009

Learningmechanisms

Absorptivecap

acity

Attemptstocomparedifferentpatternsof

knowledgeacquisitionbetween

IJVs

establishedbeforeandafterthe

Asiacrisis

Findsthatfactorsinfluencingknowledge

acquisitioninIJVsareconditionalonthe

contextinwhichtheyareex

amined

Parketal.,

2009b

Acquisitionof

marketingknowledge

Absorptivecap

acity

Explorestheeffectsofcompatibilityon

acquisitionofmarketingknowledgein

IJVs

Firmsizedoesnotsignifican

tlyinfluence

onknowledgeacquisition.Theimpactof

organizationalculturalcomp

atibilityon

knowledgeacquisitionispositiveand

significant

Zhanetal.,

2009

Acquisitionof

organizational

capabilities

Resource-based

Attemptstofindconditionsunderwhich

IJVsobtaincompetitiveness

Whenforeignparentsexercis

eownership

control,

thepositiveimpactof

knowledge-basedresourcesonthe

competitivenessseemstobe

highly

enhanced.

Inaddition,

when

thetransfer

ofproperty-basedresources

is

complementedbythatofknowledge-

basedresourcesIJVcompetitivenessis

alsoimproved

Table AI.

MD49,3

442


22/22

Appendix 2

Appendix 3. Relations between hypotheses

It will be intriguing when we divide the sample into three categorizations (i.e. IJVs with Japanese,

US and European parents) and observe the substantial amount of knowledge acquisition throughthe ANOVA test. With the view that Japanese parents are likely to be less transparent than

Western firms and that they have a propensity to show different knowledge transfer behavior,

many researchers often anticipate that IJVs with Japanese parents would achievelesser knowledge

acquisition than those with others. However (although the variation is marginal), those IJVs with

Japanese parents achieved the highest performance, firms with European parents came second

and firms with US parents showed the lowest learning performance. This finding, which shows a

somewhat different picturefrom previous studies, may support our explanations brought up in the

discussion section, and sheds light on this topic as an overarching research area (Table AIII).

Corresponding authorByung Il Park can be contacted at: [email protected]

Variable

Measurement (except human capital, each item is

measured using a five-point Likert-type scale; rangingfrom 1 very low to 5 very high) Cronbachsalpha

Intensity of efforts(adapted from Tsang,2002)

To what extent do employees of IJVs aspire to learn newknowledge?To what extent do employees of the IJV have awillingness to acquire skills to improve effectiveness,which improves effectiveness in doing the job?To what extent do employees of the IJV showwillingness to acquire knowledge for improving inter-partner collaboration?

0.835

Possession of relevantknowledge (adapted fromAnh et al., 2006)

How similar are the products or services of thiscompany compared with the foreign parent?

N/A

Active assistance offoreign parents in

technologicalmanagement (adaptedfrom Lyles and Salk,1996)

To what extent does the foreign parent support newproduct development in this firm?

To what extent does the foreign parent supportproduction technology in this firm?To what extent does the foreign parent supportmanufacturing process in this firm?

0.962

Participation of foreignexpatriate experts(adapted from Minbaevaet al., 2003)

To what extent do foreign expatriates participate in newproduct development activity in this firm?To what extent do foreign expatriates participate inproduction technology activity in this firm?To what extent do foreign expatriates participate inmanufacturing process activity in this firm?

0.962

Table AII.Measurement of

independent variables

n Mean SD F-ratio Sig.

IJVs with Japanese parents 120 2.86 1.33 5.574 0.004IJVs with US parents 81 2.24 1.41IJVs with European parents 45 2.80 1.23

Table AIII.ANOVA of knowledgeacquisition by foreign

origins


mechanisms

443

Documents

Differences in Knowledge Acquisition Mechanisms Bw Partners_Factors Comprising Absorptive Capacity_2011