IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v40y2019i13p2191-2213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Principles or templates? The antecedents and performance effects of cross‐border knowledge transfer

Author

Listed:
  • James B. Oldroyd
  • Shad S. Morris
  • Jeffrey P. Dotson

Abstract

Research Summary Strategic use of codified knowledge across borders can be a vital component for project‐based work. Analyzing 237 global consulting projects, we examine the performance effects of drawing upon different types of codified knowledge. We argue and find that using principle‐based forms of knowledge is likely to improve a project's customer responsiveness, whereas using template‐based knowledge increases a project's cost effectiveness. We also explore what drives project managers to select different forms of knowledge in the first place. Specifically, we find that manager experience drives knowledge principle use, whereas institutional distance drives knowledge template use. Taken together, our findings suggest that organizations need to carefully consider the performance implications of different types of codified knowledge that get used and understand what drives managers to use them. Managerial Summary Managers understand the importance of knowledge management systems for project‐based work. Efforts are often made to ensure that knowledge is codified and disseminated throughout the firm so employees can draw upon them to complete their projects. Unfortunately, however, such efforts often lead to stockpiles of information that remain untapped and underutilized. This study seeks to answer two questions. First, how can managers influence workers to utilize different types of codified knowledge in the first place? Second, do different types of codified knowledge have differential effects on performance? We find that increased individual experience drives the use of knowledge principles, whereas workers that are more distant are more likely to use knowledge templates. At the same time, we find that when individuals draw upon knowledge principles it increases the customer responsiveness of their projects, whereas the use of knowledge templates increases cost effectiveness. This suggests that project‐based firms should carefully consider codifying both knowledge templates as well as knowledge principles and consider how to incentivize workers to draw upon these different forms of knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • James B. Oldroyd & Shad S. Morris & Jeffrey P. Dotson, 2019. "Principles or templates? The antecedents and performance effects of cross‐border knowledge transfer," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(13), pages 2191-2213, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:40:y:2019:i:13:p:2191-2213
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.3079
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3079
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.3079?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. López-Sáez, Pedro & Cruz-González, Jorge & Navas-López, Jose Emilio & Perona-Alfageme, María del Mar, 2021. "Organizational integration mechanisms and knowledge transfer effectiveness in MNCs: The moderating role of cross-national distance," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4).
    2. Strobl, Andreas & Bauer, Florian & Degischer, Daniel, 2022. "Contextualizing deliberate learning from acquisitions: The role of organizational and target contexts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 194-207.
    3. Xu, Kai & Hitt, Michael A. & Brock, David & Pisano, Vincenzo & Huang, Lulu S.R., 2021. "Country institutional environments and international strategy: A review and analysis of the research," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:40:y:2019:i:13:p:2191-2213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.