Entrepreneurial contexts and knowledge coordination within the multinational corporation

Journal of World Business 46 (2011) 253–264

Entrepreneurial contexts and knowledge coordination within themultinational corporation

Christopher Williams a,*, Soo Hee Lee b,1

a Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Street North, London, Ontario, Canadab Department of Management, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Available online 3 December 2010

Keywords:

Entrepreneurship

Multinational corporations

Knowledge

A B S T R A C T

We present a new perspective on entrepreneurship within multinational corporations (MNCs) based on

entrepreneurial contexts and knowledge coordination. First, we develop a framework of four contexts for

analyzing different mechanisms by which MNCs pursue opportunities across borders. Second, we

develop propositions for predicting how entrepreneurial knowledge is coordinated (transferred and

internalized) between these contexts. The coordination problem lies at the heart of the phenomenon of

entrepreneurship within modern MNCs although its inter-contextual nature has been neglected in the

literature. In our view, MNC entrepreneurship comprises (1) a superset of entrepreneurial activity from

four distinct contexts; and (2) the inter-contextual coordination of knowledge of opportunity,

knowledge of solution, and learning from outcomes of initiatives. Drawing primarily on the knowledge-

based view of the MNC, we argue that knowledge coordination between multiple entrepreneurial

contexts constitutes a socially complex capability and potential source of competitive advantage for the

MNC. This holistic view of MNC entrepreneurship raises fresh questions for researchers and strategic

leaders of MNCs.

� 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / jwb

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship is ‘‘the process of identifying, valuing andcapturing opportunity’’ (Low, 2001: 21). In the case of themultinational corporation (MNC), size and international presenceprovide a multitude of ways for identifying, valuing and capturingopportunity. First, entrepreneurship within the MNC may bedriven by actors in a wide range of geographic locations (i.e., homecountry vs. overseas). Second, MNCs tend to have deep pocketswith which to pursue various modes of entrepreneurship, such asinternal and external modes at the same time (Keil, 2002; Narula,2001).

Prior research has tended to use rather restricted researchdesigns when investigating entrepreneurial phenomena involvingMNCs. To some extent, this has resulted in a fragmentation ofresearch focus within the field. One stream of literatureinvestigates headquarters-driven initiative and ‘corporate’ entre-preneurship as guided by strategic leaders of the firm (e.g., Dess,Ireland, Zahra, Floyd, Janney, & Lane, 2003; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 850 2556.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Williams), [email protected]

(S.H. Lee).1 Tel.: +44 20 7631 6771.

1090-9516/$ – see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2010.11.001

Prahalad & Doz, 1981), emphasizing entrepreneurship as part ofoverall strategy, espoused from the corporate centre (Dess,Lumpkin, & Covin, 1997; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003). Othershave explored ‘dispersed’ entrepreneurship, putting a spotlight oncharacteristics and contingencies of the overseas subsidiaryengaging in venturing and renewal (e.g., Birkinshaw, 1997;Birkinshaw & Ridderstrale, 1999; Lee & Williams, 2007; Verbeke,Chrisman, & Yuan, 2007). Similarly, a stream of literature hasemerged on internally-oriented venturing (e.g., Burgelman, 1983,1984; Burgelman & Sayles, 1986; Garud & Van de Ven, 1992), whileothers have emphasized an external dimension to corporateventuring (e.g., Keil, 2002; Lichtenthaler & Ernst, 2007; Miles &Covin, 2002). By concentrating on either headquarters or overseasunit as the entrepreneurial driving force, and on entrepreneurialorientation as being either internal or external in nature, thesecontributions have been focussed and insightful. However, webelieve this comes with limitations. The main limitations in takinga narrow focus when studying entrepreneurship in the MNC are (1)a lack of appreciation of the full extent of entrepreneurialcapability within an organization as diverse as the modernMNC, and (2) exclusion of the complex dynamics of the ‘biggerpicture’ of MNC entrepreneurship.

We address this gap by developing a framework for analyzingdifferent contexts in which MNCs pursue opportunities acrossborders and then use this to understand the phenomenon of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.11.001

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10909516

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.11.001

C. Williams, S.H. Lee / Journal of World Business 46 (2011) 253–264254

entrepreneurial knowledge coordination from the standpoint ofthe MNC. We define entrepreneurial knowledge coordination asthe sharing of entrepreneurial knowledge from one context toanother such that entrepreneurial activity in the receiving contextbecomes augmented and upgraded. Thus we explicitly recognizethat entrepreneurial knowledge may arise in a given contextwithout necessarily being accessible to individuals from othercontexts. Central to our argument is that, without entrepreneurialknowledge coordination between contexts, entrepreneurialknowledge will remain constrained to the silos of distinct contextswithin the MNC.

The framework brings together various research streamsrelating to entrepreneurship in MNCs, and comprises twodimensions: (1) the driving force for entrepreneurship beingheadquarters or dispersed/overseas unit, and (2) the resourcesused in entrepreneurial endeavour being primarily internal orexternal to the MNC. In most, if not all instances, MNCs pursueentrepreneurship across various contexts concurrently, and needto constantly monitor and adjust entrepreneurial resourcedeployments within and between those contexts. We synthesizeinsights from the knowledge-based view of the MNC (Gupta &Govindarajan, 2000; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Kogut, 2000) andliterature on MNC entrepreneurship (Birkinshaw, 1997; Mahnke,Venzin, & Zahra, 2007; Zahra & Garvis, 2000; Zahra & George, 2002)in order to show how the actors creating and annotatingknowledge underpinning the entrepreneurial process differsubstantively between contexts. Finally, we draw on socialnetwork theory (Burt, 1997; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai &Ghoshal, 1998; Wasserman & Faust, 1994) to develop newpropositions relating to entrepreneurial knowledge coordinationat the interfaces between entrepreneurial contexts in the MNC.

This paper contributes to the understanding of MNC entre-preneurship in two significant ways. First, we provide a newconceptual framework mapping out the multiple contexts of MNCentrepreneurship, and the mechanisms for knowledge coordina-tion between these contexts. This approach puts a strong emphasison the inter-contextuality of MNC entrepreneurship and extendsresearch on entrepreneurial contexts and boundary-setting byentrepreneurs (e.g., Hsieh, Nickerson, & Zenger, 2007; Jacobides &Winter, 2007) to the specific case of the MNC. Second, we highlightthe existence of entrepreneurial knowledge coordination, aconstruct that has received little attention in the prior literature.Entrepreneurial knowledge coordination is a socially-complexphenomenon that may traverse formal organizational boundariesand roles. MNCs continuously manipulate boundary porosity infacilitating entrepreneurial knowledge transfer between contextsin order to allow initiatives to progress. In our view, the progress ofentrepreneurial initiatives within the MNC is largely dependent onefficient knowledge coordination between contexts. Thus, thecapability to coordinate entrepreneurial knowledge is likely to bebeneficial for the competitive advantage of the MNC.

2. Entrepreneurial knowledge in the MNC

The knowledge-based view treats the firm as a socialcommunity in which knowledge is stored and transferred moreefficiently on an internal basis than through the external market(Kogut, 2000; Kogut & Zander, 1992, 1993). The stock of knowledgedeveloped by a firm may act as its principal source of competitiveadvantage and the efficiency by which firm knowledge is createdand transferred internally can determine the success of the firmvis-a-vis competitors (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1991, 2000; Kogut,2000; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Kostova, 1999). For the MNC,knowledge is distributed internationally amongst a network ofgeographically dispersed units. A body of literature has emergedexamining the antecedents and consequences of knowledge

creation and transfer within international networks (e.g., Jensen& Szulanski, 2004; Minbaeva, Pedersen, Bjorkman, Fey, & Park,2003; Persson, 2006). These studies emphasize knowledge transferas more than the sending of knowledge from a source to a recipientunit, but also its integration, understanding and application (Cohen& Levinthal, 1990; Hansen, 1999; Szulanski, 1996).

We start by looking at three fundamental components ofentrepreneurial knowledge that may be created and transferredwithin the MNC. First, as entrepreneurship is a process in whichopportunities are identified, valued and evaluated, and selected forresource allocation (Low, 2001; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005; Shane &Venkataraman, 2000), knowledge of opportunity has to be createdand shared amongst employees of the MNC contributing to theprocess. Scholars have recently highlighted the need for entrepre-neurial theory to consider characteristics of opportunities inaddition to actions of agents; it is the nexus of entrepreneur andopportunity that creates the basis for new goods, services, methodsof production etc. (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Venkataraman, 1997).In the MNC, an opportunity with the potential to become a viablecommercial project may exist only as an idea in the mind of an alertindividual located in an overseas subsidiary unit, or equally, in themind of a CEO based at headquarters. Various actors becomeinvolved in influencing the shared awareness and understanding ofwhat the opportunity actually is (Burgelman, 1983; Burgelman &Sayles, 1986; Kanter, 1983) and social networks become importantmechanisms by which knowledge of opportunities is shared andappraised (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003; Lee & Williams, 2007).Second, knowledge of solution is needed. This relates to how theallocation of resources for exploiting a specific opportunity can beachieved, whether sourced solely from the focal MNC (internalresources) or between partnering firms (external resources).Scholars have described the activity of finding solutions toproblems as a central aspect of entrepreneurship within theestablished firm (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001; Hsieh et al., 2007).Schumpeter (1934) referred to the ‘new combination’ in thisrespect. Knowledge of the solution must be created and sharedwithin the firm in order to establish feasibility and viability. Forlarge scale opportunities within the MNC, this often involvesknowledge transfer transcending international borders andorganizational levels. Third, learning from outcomes is a componentof entrepreneurial knowledge within the MNC. This relates toorganizational recognition and shared experience of the effect ofapplying a certain solution to a certain entrepreneurial opportu-nity. In other words: what worked well within the process ofpursuing an entrepreneurial opportunity, and conversely, whatworked less well? The objective sharing of this experience isimportant for a number of reasons: (1) it allows the MNC to beresponsive to new opportunities in the future (Corbett, 2007); (2) ithelps the established firm overcome future ‘learning traps’ (Ahuja& Lampert, 2001); (3) it prevents psychological feelings of ‘grief’interfering with individual entrepreneurs’ learning from failure(Shepherd, 2003); (4) it helps guide the organization in futureuncertain situations (Minniti & Bygrave, 2001). Organizationallearning is especially important within knowledge-intensiveindustries (e.g., management consulting, high-technology equip-ment, pharmaceuticals), where the rate of change and new productintroduction is high, and where knowledge is used as a basis ofcompetition (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; D’Aveni, 1994; Kogut,2000).

3. Multiple contexts for entrepreneurial knowledge in the MNC

Central to our model is the idea that the components ofentrepreneurial knowledge described previously develop invarious distinct contexts. They are not confined to one particularmanifestation of entrepreneurship, such as subsidiary initiative.

C. Williams, S.H. Lee / Journal of World Business 46 (2011) 253–264 255

The international nature of the MNC not only provides a basis forthese contexts, but also raises issues of uncertainty as knowledgeof opportunities cannot be predicted in advance (Mahnke et al.,2007). Each context can be seen as a solution space. Problems arepaired with solutions, and knowledge-sharing becomes concen-trated (Hsieh et al., 2007). Thus entrepreneurial knowledge mayform in a given context that might be useful in other contexts. Inthis section we develop a way of defining the nature of thesecontexts. In Sections 4 and 5 we discuss mechanisms forentrepreneurial knowledge coordination between contexts.

First, both internal and external forms of entrepreneurship inthe MNC can arise through headquarters-driven or overseassubsidiary-driven initiative. Headquarters-driven ‘corporate’ en-trepreneurship emphasizes the role of the top management teamin recognizing, assessing and choosing new strategic options as aresponse to competitive challenges and technological change inthe external environment (Fombrun & Ginsberg, 1990; Guth &Ginsberg, 1990; Meyer & Heppard, 2000). In this view, corporateentrepreneurship is a phenomenon in a large firm (e.g., 3 M, IBM,Google) where the ingredients of innovation, pro-activeness, risk-taking are present in corporate strategy (Covin, 1991; Lumpkin &Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). In rapidlychanging environments, entrepreneurial strategy needs to berenewed on an ongoing basis in order to capture new opportunities(Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001). In subsidiary-drivenentrepreneurship, employees in geographically remote unitscreate ideas and pursue initiatives that are perceived by subsidiaryentrepreneurs as worthwhile to the development of the originatingsubsidiary (Delany, 2000), but which also have the potential tobenefit the wider MNC (Birkinshaw, 1997, 2000; Birkinshaw &Ridderstrale, 1999; Verbeke, Chrisman, & Yuan, 2007).

Second, entrepreneurship can take two principal orientations:internal and external (Miles & Covin, 2002; Roberts & Berry, 1985;Williams & Lee, 2009a). Internal entrepreneurship exploits existingorganizational structures and resources (Burgelman, 1983, 1984;Burgelman & Sayles, 1986). Burgelman (1984: 154) definedcorporate entrepreneurship as such: ‘‘extending the firm’s domainof competence and corresponding opportunity set throughinternally generated new resource combinations’’. Externally-oriented entrepreneurship occurs where the focus for identifyingand exploiting opportunities is outside of the traditional organi-zational boundary. This includes modes such as mergers, acquisi-

Table 1A framework for MNC entrepreneurship.

Driving force for entrepreneurship

Headquarters

Context 1

Orientation Internal Top-down initiatives, large budgets

Headquarters Role: Assess global business environment, dec

degree of entrepreneurial orientation, prioritize and allocat

investment budget to initiatives (at home and overseas)

Subsidiary Role: Co-operate with regional and global headqu

corporate initiatives, sponsor and implement corporate stra

with respect to entrepreneurial initiatives

Key actors: Headquarter managers and the top managemen

Context 3

External Large scale international networks

Headquarters Role: Assess global business environment and

external venturing, identify partners and allocate resources

venturing modes (e.g., equity vs. non-equity)

Subsidiary Role: Assist and support headquarters-defined ex

venturing modes as required: knowledge transfer, process a

capability integration

Key actors: Top management team (focal MNC) and partner

organizations

tions, joint ventures and alliances, venture capital and disposals(e.g., Hayward, 2002; Keil, 2002; MacMillan, Block, & Narasimha,1986).

MNC entrepreneurship can therefore be captured within a 2 � 2framework having as axes (1) the driving force for entrepreneur-ship being home country headquarters or dispersed/overseasunit(s), and (2) the resources used in entrepreneurial endeavourbeing internal or external. Importantly, each cell within thisframework represents a distinct context with idiosyncraticcharacteristics, including headquarters and subsidiary roles(Table 1.)

Context 1 relates to how the strategic leaders of the MNC buildcorporate strategy with an entrepreneurial component, and tohow such strategy can develop new internal capabilities. Thesecapabilities may be located at home or abroad, and may includetraditional R&D units, centres of excellence (CoEs) for productdevelopment and new cross functional venture teams or venturedivisions (Burgelman, 1983). The principal role of the headquar-ters is to assess the need for – and viability of – internalentrepreneurship, and to make decisions regarding managementstructures, communication channels, budgets and specific targetsfor centrally-driven initiatives. Such initiatives may relate to newproducts and services, or to internal process and organizationalefficiency (Prahalad & Doz, 1981; Van de Ven, 1986; Williams,2009). In this mode of entrepreneurship, subsidiaries areencouraged to co-operate with headquarters on budget andresource allocation decisions made centrally, although the moreautonomous and developed subsidiaries may be actively involvedin strategy formulation and the budget setting process (Bartlett &Ghoshal, 1989). An example is General Motors Overseas Opera-tions (GMOO) (Doz & Prahalad, 1984). In this case a regionalheadquarters made deliberate attempts to integrate keysubsidiaries in order to exploit new opportunities: ‘‘The ideaevolved toward a concept where specific subsidiaries couldcooperate (amongst themselves and with U.S. divisions) inresearch and development, new product development,manufacturing, and marketing, and still remain autonomous’’(Doz & Prahalad, 1984: 66). This context encapsulates centraliza-tion of change initiative (Prahalad & Doz, 1981) and investmentdecision-making (Williams & Lee, 2009a), headquarters-drivenglobal initiative (Williams, 2009), formal R&D subsidiariesassigned by headquarters (Kuemmerle, 1999), headquarters

Dispersed/overseas

Context 2

Unpredictable bottom-up initiatives

ide

e

Headquarters Role: Consider and reconcile multiple subsidiary

requests for resource allocation and mandate development

arters on

tegy

Subsidiary Role: Assess local business environment vis-a-vis local

capabilities, identify opportunities in host market, generate ideas,

develop proposals, internal selling to regional and global

headquarters

t team Key actors: Subsidiary managers

Context 4

Host market networks

options for

to specific

Headquarters Role: Largely passive but becoming more

involved in investment decisions where subsidiary requires

support for local entrepreneurial opportunities

ternal

nd

Subsidiary Role: Forming host market alliances with

suppliers, customers, other external actors; making

headquarters aware of local investment opportunities

ing Key actors: Subsidiary managers, host-country actors

including government agencies, incubators and universities


sponsored new ventures (Garud & Van de Ven, 1992; Zahra &Covin, 1993; Zahra & Garvis, 2000).

In Context 2, the emphasis is on ideas for change and renewalwithin the MNC arising in dispersed locations (including dispersedsubsidiaries within the home country, as well as overseassubsidiaries). This process is bottom-up and somewhat unpredict-able; discovery and knowledge creation take place in remotelocations and socialization mechanisms are often used to transferideas and win approval for investment (Birkinshaw & Ridderstrale,1999; Birkinshaw, 2000). The headquarters considers and recon-ciles multiple requests for new resource allocation from diverselocations, and decides which ideas to take forward and which onesto reject or postpone. In this context, subsidiary employees are thekey players in assessing the gap between local environment andlocal capabilities. These dispersed employees generate ideas thatare borne out of a need to enhance the subsidiary’s mandate.Entrepreneurship arises here because knowledge is asymmetric(Corbett, 2007) and dispersed (Dew, Velamuri, & Venkataraman,2004), albeit within the organizational network of the MNC.Subsidiary employees may also be stimulated into entrepreneurialaction by the internal political arena of the MNC (Williams & Lee,2009b). The subsidiary develops proposals to be submitted toregional or global headquarters in a quest for approval and funding.It is here they are confronted with the resistance of the corporateimmune system (Birkinshaw & Ridderstrale, 1999). Subsidiariesmay resort to political game playing in order to build a power basearound their idea. Example cases here include Philips’ develop-ment of teletext technology in its UK subsidiary in the 1970s and1980s (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989) and individual subsidiarymanager initiative in remote terminal unit monitoring at HewlettPackard in Canada in the 1980s and 1990s (Birkinshaw, 2000). Inthese cases, subsidiary managers pursued local opportunities andeventually won corporate acceptance for their work, enabling theMNC to generate new revenues from their solutions in other hostmarkets. The phenomena of subsidiary innovation and initiatives,and subsidiary-driven mandate and strategy development arelocated within this context (e.g., Birkinshaw, 1997, 2000;Birkinshaw & Ridderstrale, 1999; Delany, 2000; Mu, Gnyawali, &Hatfield, 2007; Taggart, 1998).

Context 3 relates to the determinants and consequences ofexternal entrepreneurship as a deliberate component of corporatestrategy. The role of the headquarters is to assess how externally-oriented venturing modes (e.g., strategic alliances, mergers andacquisitions, joint ventures, licensing, etc.) enable opportunities tobe identified and exploited (Keil, 2002). In deciding whether tointernalize or externalize knowledge (Rugman & Verbeke, 2003),the top management team has to assess the costs and benefits ofalternative modes of collaboration. These investments are oftenlarge scale, international projects requiring attention to leveragingand integrating knowledge from partner firms under conditions ofuncertainty and competition (Alvarez, Ireland, & Reuer, 2006; Lam,1997). External venturing options can also be associated with shortexecution times (Roberts & Berry, 1985) and are therefore notwithout risk. A subsidiary’s role in this type of entrepreneurship iscontingent on whether it is affected by – or involved in – thespecific external venturing modes selected by the corporateheadquarters. A subsidiary may have little or no involvementdue to its geographic or functional responsibility. Alternatively, asubsidiary may be required to dedicate resources to assist in theintegration of new knowledge and capability (e.g., as a result of amerger or acquisition) or to participate in a new externalcollaboration (e.g., joint venture or alliance). In either case, therequirement for subsidiary participation originates from theheadquarters. An example case here is Millenium Pharmaceuticals’corporate strategy of inter-organizational collaboration within thepharmaceutical industry in pursuit of re-positioning and growth:

‘‘Through a series of ambitious partnerships, the company hasmigrated down the value chain and across product categories’’(Champion, 2001: 110). MNC venturing within strategic alliances,international mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures broadly fallsinto this context (e.g., Hayward, 2002; Keil, 2002; MacMillan et al.,1986).

In Context 4, externally-oriented entrepreneurship is pursuedin dispersed locations and at host country level. Subsidiariesengage in entrepreneurial activity through alliances and small-scale joint ventures in host markets or regions, such as involve-ment with science parks and participation with universities andR&D networks (George, Zahra, & Wood, 2002; Lam, 2003; Phan,Siegel, & Wright, 2005). Such behaviour is likely to require thesupport of regional and/or global headquarters’ managers.However, the level of corporate investment and risk to the MNCis not likely to be as high as with large-scale, multi-countryinitiatives. The headquarters’ role is relatively passive, albeitnecessary for assessing the global potential of new opportunitiesarising as a result of subsidiary participation in a location’sbusiness networks. The subsidiary role in this context is muchmore active; the subsidiary forms learning partnerships with localcustomers, suppliers and institutions (Tregaskis, 2003), and is ableto make attempts at developing its own charter and capabilitiesthrough these local learning networks. The subsidiary acts as a keyconduit by which knowledge spilling over from clusters ofinnovation in a particular country is captured and absorbed intothe wider MNC (Gilbert, McDougall, & Audretsch, 2008). Anexample case here is IBM’s use of alphaWorks (a public website onwhich it posted programs and elicited input from external softwarespecialists) as a source of innovative ideas and knowledge: ‘‘OneIBM researcher. . .received ideas from a developer at anothercompany through alphaWorks. That helped him take his researchin a new direction, eventually leading to the development of acritical component for the multibillion-dollar business integrationsystems market’’ (Wolpert, 2002: 81). MNC host countryembedment by subsidiaries, learning and innovation throughR&D networks in institutionally distant countries, and MNCparticipation within science parks and incubators happen in thiscontext (Andersson & Forsgren, 1996; Etzkowitz, Webster,Gebhardt, & Terra, 2000; Lam, 2003; Phan et al., 2005).

Each context allows for opportunities to be identified, valuedand captured by the MNC (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Low,2001). Moreover, the MNC may engage in any or all of these fourcontexts for entrepreneurship at any point in time: internal HQ-driven, internal dispersed/overseas, external HQ-driven andexternal dispersed/overseas. Microsoft is recognized for bringingnew computer software products to global markets that weredeveloped centrally and internally (internal HQ-driven context). Inaddition, Microsoft has built an international network of R&Dsubsidiaries that are embedded with universities and researchnetworks in the countries in which they are located (externaloverseas context). Microsoft has also developed strategic globalalliances (external HQ-driven context). Thus, MNC participation inone entrepreneurial context does not exclude its participation inanother, and participation in multiple contexts does not preventthe MNC from becoming a successful organization.

4. Entrepreneurial knowledge and interfaces between contexts

While the MNC may engage in any or all of the four contexts, theprimary actors responsible for creating and annotating entrepre-neurial knowledge vary according to the context. In Context 1(internal HQ-driven), knowledge of the opportunity arises becauseof the alertness of headquarters’ managers. This knowledge islikely to be annotated with input from other senior managers,subsidiary managers, subject matter experts and/or external


consultants. The key actors here are headquarters’ managers,including the top management team, as these individuals make thefinal strategic choice and investment decision. Similarly, knowl-edge of the solution must involve headquarters’ managers as thisknowledge is likely to be articulated top-down. Learning fromoutcomes must involve headquarters’ managers and knowledgeabout the reasons for success and failure will be sought byheadquarters’ managers, particularly if the level of investment inthe solution to the opportunity in question was high. In the GeneralMotors Overseas Operations case, a top-down initiative stimulat-ing global and local product development acted to ‘‘increase theinfluence of headquarters executives over international operationssufficiently to make strategic control effective’’ (Doz & Prahalad,1984: 67).

In Context 2 (internal dispersed/overseas) on the other hand,knowledge of the opportunity will arise in foreign subsidiaries.Headquarters’ managers do not have to be involved at the point inwhich the creation of awareness of an opportunity, or its solution,occurs. If sufficient resources exist in a subsidiary, and if thesubsidiary is empowered to allocate local resources to newopportunities as they deem suitable, then knowledge of thesolution will also be retained locally, or perhaps distributedamongst a few interested subsidiaries. In terms of learning,internal host country actors will be the key players in monitoringperformance and managing issues as they arise; they will beclosest to activities that form the initiative and will learn fromparticipating in the initiative. This was apparent in the Philipsteletext initiative in the UK where local managers persevereddespite a slow initial response from the host market (Bartlett &Ghoshal, 1989).

In Context 3 (external HQ-driven), knowledge of bothopportunity and solution arise because of inter-organizationalcollaboration with alliance partners. The opportunity can take twoforms here. Firstly, an external organization may be an opportunityin itself (i.e., a target for acquisition). Secondly, an externalorganization may be part of a network through which newcommercial opportunities for investment and return are identified(e.g., through strategic alliances, joint ventures or membership ofconsortia). This network of collaborators also provides the key todeveloping knowledge of the solution to the opportunity.Collaborating parties bring specialist knowledge to bear on thedecision to commit resources to the opportunity. Headquarters’managers need to access these sources of knowledge and evaluatethe opportunity before an investment decision regarding acquisi-tion or participation in new strategic alliances can be made. To thisend, a central alliance function may be beneficial to theentrepreneurial process for handling multi-directional knowledge

Table 2Entrepreneurial knowledge and the progress of initiative within the MNC.

Context for MNC entrepreneurship Progress of initiative

Knowledge of opportunity Knowledge of s

1: Internal – HQ driven Headquarter managers made

aware of an opportunity

through internal or external

networks

Headquarter m

sources of expe

go/no-go decis

solutions for ex

2: Internal – dispersed/

overseas driven

Subsidiary managers alert

to host country market

develop awareness of the

opportunity locally

Does not have

headquarter m

decision-rights

granted to the

3: External – HQ driven Arising within a collaborative

network of internationally

dispersed organizations of

which the focal MNC is a part

May involve an

function set-up

collaborative a

determined by

4: External – dispersed/

overseas driven

Arising through embedment

of a given subsidiary within

its local host country network

Will not involv

function; collab

actors also awa

flows between partner firms (Lorenzoni & Baden-Fuller, 1995).Governance structures may be limited, however, due to thesocially-embedded nature of knowledge, and the diversity andcomplexity of knowledge management systems (Lam, 1997).Learning from outcomes is also relevant in this context. Whileorganizational learning can be a motive for external entrepreneur-ship, there are no guarantees that collaboration will be successful(Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Lubatkin, Florin, & Lane, 2001). Asevidenced by the case of Millenium Pharmaceuticals, thepharmaceutical industry has been fertile ground for large-scaleinter-organizational collaboration in pursuit of corporate entre-preneurship and strategic renewal (Champion, 2001).

In Context 4 (external dispersed/overseas), knowledge of bothopportunity and solution arise through embedment of the MNCsubsidiary within a local business context (Andersson & Forsgren,1996; George et al., 2002). Local actors share knowledge ofproblems and market needs, as well as resources that may becombined to form potential solutions. Local universities andincubators have entrepreneurial competences and may activelyparticipate in the entrepreneurial process (Etzkowitz et al., 2000;George et al., 2002). This knowledge does not necessarily need tobe coordinated through a central alliance function (Lorenzoni &Baden-Fuller, 1995) and collaborators and other actors may beaware of the existence of a commercial opportunity and ofalternative ways of exploiting the opportunity. Learning fromoutcomes will not be restricted to the MNC subsidiary. Indeed, it ispossible that external organizations within the host countrybecome exposed to performance outcomes before the subsidiary’sown corporate headquarters. Such actors are more closelyembedded through social ties and relationships (Andersson &Forsgren, 1996) that enable the informal transmission of knowl-edge surrounding specific initiatives. The example of IBM’salphaWorks highlights the importance of external embedmentto opportunity identification and incubation in fast-movingindustries (Wolpert, 2002).

Table 2 shows differences in entrepreneurial knowledge (i.e.,knowledge of opportunity, knowledge of solution, and learningfrom outcomes) by context. Knowledge coordination refers to theorganizational mechanisms by which knowledge is created,transferred and exploited, playing a central role in the processof entrepreneurship (e.g., Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001). It is widelyacknowledged within the knowledge transfer literature thateffective transfer relates not only to the transmission of knowledgefrom a source to a recipient, but also its integration, understandingand application (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Hansen, 1999;Szulanski, 1996). Hansen (1999) referred to knowledge transferas ‘‘(moving and incorporating) knowledge across organization

Key actor(s)

olution Learning from outcomes

anagers draw on

rtise for making

ion on alternative

ploitation

Headquarter managers show

keen interest in the performance

of the initiative; their reputations

are at stake

Headquarter

managers

to involve

anagers initially,

may have been

subsidiary

Subsidiary managers learn through the

development and implementation of

initiative, intervening locally before

drawing on headquarters

Subsidiary

managers

explicit alliance

to manage

ctivity;

partner resources

Diffusing into the external domain

quickly; a range of stakeholders will

learn through participation in the

network

Strategic

international

partners

e a central alliance

orators and other

re of the solution

Knowledge of the outcome diffusing into

the local public domain; local stakeholders

learning through participation and

knowledge spillovers

Host country

network

partners


subunits’’ (Hansen, 1999: 83). In this view, knowledge has not beentransferred unless it has been absorbed. The common notion inthese definitions of knowledge transfer is that successful transferhas taken place once the knowledge is utilized by the recipient.

In our model, the MNC’s stock of entrepreneurial knowledge isdistributed internationally across the four contexts described. Onepart of that knowledge may be thought of as having beendeveloped within a given context, but not yet transferred to othercontexts. The other part of the MNC’s stock of entrepreneurialknowledge is that which has already been shared across contexts.In our definition, entrepreneurial knowledge coordination resultsin knowledge moving from the former to the latter. It is thereforemore relevant to consider the knowledge coordination issue aspertaining to interfaces between contexts, rather than through amore traditional view of interfaces between physical groupings orsub-units. Drawing on knowledge-based reasoning, the coordina-tion of entrepreneurial knowledge between contexts occurs when:(1) entrepreneurial knowledge from one context is transmitted/communicated to another context; and (2) when this knowledge isthen internalized within the receiving context in such a way thatentrepreneurial activity within that context is augmented andupgraded.

Fig. 1 shows the possible knowledge interfaces betweenentrepreneurial contexts. Through each interface, knowledgemay flow to serve two purposes: (1) to make managers in therecipient context aware of entrepreneurial initiative in theoriginating context; and (2) to enable the recipient context –should it so choose – to internalize the new entrepreneurialknowledge such that its own entrepreneurial initiatives areupgraded. The precise content of knowledge that will inform thedecision to internalize is likely to be MNC-context-opportunityspecific. Prior literature suggests any of the three components ofentrepreneurial knowledge could assist managers within a given
[(Fig._1)TD$FIG]
Context 1

Knowledge of opportunity

Knowledge of solution

Learning from outcomes

Headquarters

Internal

External

P1

Context 3




Fig. 1. Entrepreneurial knowledge

context to decide whether to internalize the newly availableentrepreneurial knowledge arising from one of the other contexts:

� Knowledge of opportunity identified in another context: thecharacteristics of the opportunity, such as size, scope and locus(Birkinshaw, 1997; Eckhardt & Shane, 2003: 340);� Knowledge of solution applied in another context: means-ends

decisions, e.g., how a new technology might serve/has served amarket opportunity (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003: 337), the actors thatwere involved (Klevorick, Levin, Nelson, & Winter, 1995), howresources needed to be combined for innovation (Drucker, 1985;Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1934), approaches to complementaryknowledge acquisition (Cassiman & Veugelers, 2006);� Learning from outcomes of initiatives in another context:

financial performance of initiatives (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001;Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), implications in terms ofcapability development (Teece & Pisano, 1994), impact onstakeholders (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), being informed ofreasons for failure (Minniti & Bygrave, 2001).

5. Propositions for entrepreneurial knowledge coordination inthe MNC

The knowledge-based view of the MNC suggests suchentrepreneurial knowledge coordination to be a complex andheterogeneous capability. Not only is it complex because of itsmultidimensional content (financial information, innovative po-tential, capability development information, stakeholder impact,etc.), it is also socially-complex. Much of this knowledge is held intacit form, and, given the problem of articulating and sharing tacitknowledge (Polanyi, 1966), incentives must be in place to motivateactors to facilitate knowledge flows between contexts.

Context 2




Dispersed

P2

P3

P4

Context 4




coordination within the MNC.


Moreover, psychic distances are likely to exist betweencontexts. Psychic distance incorporates aspects of both culturaldifference, and business difference (economic, legal and political,business practices, market structure and language differences)(Evans & Mavondo, 2002). As these distances increase, so doesknowledge stickiness (Jensen & Szulanski, 2004). For instance,national cultural distance may matter to the interface betweenContexts 1 and 2. Spatial distance may matter to the interfacebetween 1 and 3. Clashes of organizational culture or institutionaldistances may matter to the interface between Contexts 3 and 4.

Consequently, we expect social networks to play a major role infacilitating knowledge flows between contexts such that oppor-tunities are recognized and effectively evaluated (Ardichvili et al.,2003). According to social network theory, organizations are socialsystems comprised of numerous individuals inter-linked throughvarious forms of relationships (Burt, 1997; Granovetter, 1983;Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Wasserman &Faust, 1994). The existence of structural ties and relational trustprovide inducement for individuals to share and receive knowl-edge and stimulate the diffusion of intellectual capital within thefirm (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Tacit knowledge requires strongsocial ties and interactions between individuals before it can betransferred (Nobel & Birkinshaw, 1998). Motivational dispositionto share and receive knowledge is also important in this respect(Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Minbaeva et al., 2003). At arelational level, the motivation, perceived reliability of the sourceand the degree to which arduous relationships exist betweensender and receiver can all contribute to a lack of trust and transferfailure (Kostova, 1999). Shane and Venkataraman (2000) referredto the need for information corridors in this respect; the problembeing that prior information required to make a decision to committo a new opportunity is not widely available across a population(Hayek, 1945).

Building on social network reasoning, there are two importantfacilitating conditions for entrepreneurial knowledge coordina-tion at the interface between contexts: (1) a degree of opennessin the interfaces themselves, i.e., boundary porosity (Lee &Williams, 2007); and (2) an ability of individuals operating atthese interfaces to assimilate and translate entrepreneurialknowledge from other contexts, i.e., absorptive capacity (Cohen& Levinthal, 1990). Boundary porosity in the MNC refers to ‘‘theease with which members are identified, selected and recruitedinto a community’’ (Lee & Williams, 2007: 509). Where boundaryporosity is high, individuals who would otherwise be discour-aged from participating in an MNC entrepreneurial communityare encouraged to engage in entrepreneurial initiatives withothers. Boundary porosity is beneficial for entrepreneurialcommunities to develop across traditional boundaries becauseit enables the development of structural connections and newweak ties (new acquaintances outside of an individual’s closegroup of contacts and friends) (Granovetter, 1983), as well asrelational aspect of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).Similarly, absorptive capacity is needed to enable individuals tomake sense of entrepreneurial knowledge arising in othercontexts. While boundary porosity enables individuals to accessentrepreneurial knowledge from other contexts, absorptivecapacity enables them to evaluate its usefulness, assimilate itand apply it appropriately.

We now examine primary organizing mechanisms to promoteentrepreneurial knowledge coordination between contexts. Thefocus for propositions is intentionally on interfaces over onecontext dimension. As argued below, entrepreneurial knowledgecoordination over both dimensions simultaneously is likely toinvolve an activation of multiple interfaces (i.e., a combination ofthe propositions 1–4) and may thus be seen as a higher-order formof social network underpinned by these four base interfaces.

5.1. Coordinating entrepreneurial knowledge between internal and

external contexts

First, for entrepreneurial knowledge to be effectively trans-ferred and internalized between internal and external contexts, theinterface between internal and external actors driving entrepre-neurial initiative needs to be activated. In this interface, actors willneed to interact with each other laterally in order to shareentrepreneurial knowledge. From a social network point of view,these relationships are likely to have a greater extent of lateralconnectivity and collaboration (Hedlund & Rolander, 1990). Theyrelate to collaborative governance mechanisms encouragingcooperation under contractual or open arrangement, as in thecase of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003). The key enabler ofboundary porosity in this case relates to interdependence andembeddedness between actors in order to overcome knowledgeasymmetry.

For the headquarters-driven contexts, the key interface will bebetween the MNC’s top management team and reciprocalmanagers within strategic international partners. The key questionfor the MNC top management team is: Can knowledge fromentrepreneurial initiatives taking place in Context 3 be used toaugment our own internal entrepreneurial initiatives? Interde-pendence between these sets of actors will be required in order formanagers to answer this question. This captures the degree towhich organizations are dependent upon each other, e.g., becauseone is a supplier to the other, or because they both work on thesame development project (Fisher, 1994; Thompson, 1967).Greater interdependence is assumed to increase coordinationcosts, as well as information processing demand (Gulati & Singh,1998). Thus we expect interdependence between cooperatingorganizations to reduce knowledge asymmetry. From a socialnetwork view, interdependence may also increase boundaryporosity by enabling individuals to build up personal contactsover time (Lam, 1997). Hence we propose:

Proposition 1. High interdependence between the MNC and strategic

international partners will lead to effective coordination of entrepre-

neurial knowledge between Context 1 and Context 3.

For the subsidiary-driven contexts, the key interface is betweensubsidiary managers and host country network partners. The keyquestion for subsidiary managers is: Can knowledge fromentrepreneurial initiatives taking place in Context 4 be used toaugment our own internal subsidiary initiatives? In this instance,embeddedness of the subsidiary within the local host countrynetwork will enable managers to answer this question. Embedd-edness entails close, meaningful social interaction with actors inthe local environment, allowing the subsidiary to access dispersedsources of knowledge (Andersson, Bjorkman, & Forsgren, 2005;Frost, 2001). Subsidiary embeddedness is a determinant ofknowledge creation and knowledge exploitation capabilities,and has been seen as a precursor to subsidiary power andinfluence (Cantwell & Mudambi, 2005). Hence we propose:

Proposition 2. High embeddedness of a focal subsidiary within host

country networks will lead to effective coordination of entrepreneurial

knowledge between Context 2 and Context 4.

5.2. Coordinating entrepreneurial knowledge between headquarters-

and subsidiary-driven contexts

For entrepreneurial knowledge to be effectively transferredand internalized between headquarters-driven and subsidiary-driven contexts, the interface between more powerful, global/corporate actors and less powerful local actors needs to be


activated. These social relationships are likely to have a greaterextent of hierarchical governance and formal authority (in thecase of internal orientation) and strategic power and imbalance insize and scale of networks (in the case of external orientation). Thekey enabler of boundary porosity in these interfaces relates toovercoming this imbalance and power asymmetry (Bouquet &Birkinshaw, 2008).

For the internal contexts, the key interface will be between theMNC’s top management team and subsidiary managers. The keyquestion for the MNC top management team is: Can knowledgefrom entrepreneurial initiatives taking place in Context 2 be usedto augment our own headquarters-driven entrepreneurial initia-tives? Similarly, for subsidiary managers: Can knowledge fromentrepreneurial initiatives taking place in Context 1 be used toaugment our own subsidiary initiatives? Establishing empower-ment between headquarter and subsidiary managers is a way ofovercoming problems of power asymmetry. Empowerment in thissense is more than an allocation of decision rights to lower levels ofthe organization: it is ‘‘recognizing and releasing into theorganization the power that people already have in their wealthof useful knowledge and internal motivation’’ (Randolph, 1995:20). Empowerment fosters intrinsic task motivation amongstemployees (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This has a strongimplication for the social network at this interface. Prior researchhas shown a strong link between individual motivation andknowledge sharing within the MNC (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000;Minbaeva et al., 2003). Empowering subsidiary managers will actto reduce hostility to share knowledge (Husted & Michailova,2002) and increase the likelihood of reverse knowledge transferfrom subsidiary to headquarter contexts. Conversely, the sharing ofsensitive information by headquarters has been noted by scholarsas an important facilitator of empowerment (Randolph, 1995) aswell as engendering commitment and involvement of employees(Riordan, Vandenberg, & Richardson, 2005). The flow of entrepre-neurial knowledge from headquarters to subsidiary contexts islikely to fall into this category. Hence we propose:

Proposition 3. Establishing empowerment between headquarters

managers and subsidiary managers will lead to effective coordination

of entrepreneurial knowledge between Context 1 and Context 2.

For the external contexts, the key interface is between strategicinternational partner top management teams and host countrynetwork partners. This interface is perhaps not as intuitive as theothers, and offers a number of conceptual challenges. First, howcan managers of strategic alliance partners alert themselves to theexistence and relevance of a partner MNC’s networks in a specificcountry? Second, while managers in smaller-scale host countrynetworks may have visibility of international strategic alliancesinvolving the MNC, it may not be straightforward to penetrate

Table 3Enablers of boundary porosity for MNC entrepreneurial knowledge coordination.

Interface between

contexts. . .

Key actors N

1 and 3 Headquarter managers, Strategic international

partners

La

2 and 4 Subsidiary managers, Host country network

partners

La

1 and 2 Headquarter managers, Subsidiary managers V

su

3 and 4 Strategic international partners, Host country

network partners

V

su

2 and 3 Subsidiary managers, Strategic international

partners

B

1 and 4 Headquarter managers, Host country network

partners

these networks in order to tap into entrepreneurial knowledge. Wesee the brokering role of focal MNC managers as a critical lubricantin this interface. In this sense the MNC acts as a vital broker ofknowledge between different domains of its networks (Hargadon,1998), able to ‘‘move ideas from where they are known to wherethey are not’’ (Hargadon, 2002: 41). From a social networkperspective, MNC managers who broker entrepreneurial knowl-edge between external contexts have a powerful position ofnetwork centrality (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Hence we propose:

Proposition 4. MNC brokerage of interactions between managers of

the MNC’s strategic international partners on the one hand, and host

country networks on the other, will lead to effective coordination of

entrepreneurial knowledge between Context 3 and Context 4.

5.3. Coordinating entrepreneurial knowledge across both dimensions

simultaneously

The possibility for entrepreneurial knowledge to be coordinatedacross both dimensions simultaneously also warrants somediscussion. One possibility for this to occur is through both setsof interfaces becoming activated and inter-linked. Actors fromdifferent contexts would need to interface with each other inmixed vertical and/or horizontal relationships in order to shareentrepreneurial knowledge. These relationships will have a mix ofhierarchical and lateral governance characteristics because ofelements of formal authority and strategic power blending withsubsidiary and host country network structures. The primaryenablers of boundary porosity in these interfaces are likely to bemechanisms that alleviate both knowledge- and power asymmetrysimultaneously.

In one scenario, entrepreneurial knowledge would flowbetween strategic international partner top management teamsand subsidiary managers. A combination of strategic interdepen-dence (Gulati & Singh, 1998; Lam, 1997) and internal empower-ment (Randolph, 1995; Riordan et al., 2005) will help alleviate bothknowledge- and power asymmetry. Alternatively, a combination oflocal embeddedness (Andersson et al., 2005) and MNC brokering ofknowledge across contexts (Hargadon, 1998, 2002) will beeffective. Both of these combinations allow open informationcorridors to form between the two diametrically opposed contexts.In a second scenario, entrepreneurial knowledge would flowbetween the MNC’s top management team and host countrynetwork partners. A combination of strategic interdependence(Gulati & Singh, 1998; Lam, 1997) and MNC brokering ofknowledge across contexts (Hargadon, 1998, 2002) will facilitateflows of entrepreneurial knowledge between host country net-works and the MNC top management team. Similarly, internalempowerment (Randolph, 1995; Riordan et al., 2005) in combina-

ature of interface Propositions for enabler(s) of

boundary porosity

teral, international: Internal – external P1: Interdependence

teral, local: Internal - external P2: Local embeddedness

ertical, internal: Headquarters-driven –

bsidiary-driven

P3: Empowerment

ertical, external: Headquarters-driven –

bsidiary-driven

P4: MNC knowledge brokering

oth dimensions simultaneously Combination of above


tion with local embeddedness (Andersson et al., 2005) will helpalleviate both knowledge- and power asymmetry.

Table 3 summarizes these propositions for entrepreneurialknowledge coordination at the interfaces between contexts.

6. Discussion and conclusion

This paper presents the notion of inter-contextuality in MNCentrepreneurship through a framework for analyzing differentcontexts in which MNCs pursue opportunities across borders. Thisis a somewhat broader view than scholars have shown to date. Wecontribute to the literature on MNC entrepreneurship by stressingthe importance of multiple contexts for entrepreneurship and theimplications this has for entrepreneurial knowledge coordination.Implicit in our approach is the importance of entrepreneurialknowledge coordination for competitive advantage of the MNC.Managing boundary porosity in order to facilitate entrepreneurialknowledge transfer at the interfaces between contexts mayconstitute an important source of competitive advantage for theMNC. We argue that this capability is likely to be determinedprimarily by a combination of four elements that help overcomeknowledge- and power asymmetry between contexts: interde-pendence with strategic partners, embeddedness in local hostcountry networks, internal empowerment of subsidiaries, andbrokering of knowledge arising in external contexts. Thisperspective leads to a number of theoretical and managerialimplications.

6.1. Theoretical implications

Our view suggests that progress of an entrepreneurial initiativewithin the MNC depends largely on coordination of entrepreneur-ial knowledge between contexts, as opposed to between physicalsub-units or specific ‘nodes’ in the MNC network. This perspectivehas been neglected in prior studies of MNC entrepreneurship(Verbeke et al., 2007) as well MNC knowledge transfer (Gupta &Govindarajan, 2000). The main reason that initiative is dependenton entrepreneurial knowledge coordination between contexts isthat entrepreneurs within contexts will seek out and utilizeknowledge of opportunity, knowledge of solution, and learningfrom outcomes from other contexts in order to augment andimprove the chances of success for their own initiatives. Thischallenges existing theory of MNC entrepreneurship, which hasbeen based by and large on more contextually-focussed logics,such as power and politics between headquarters and subsidiary(Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008), or collaboration in networks (Lam,1997; Tregaskis, 2003).

We portray MNC entrepreneurship as a complex phenomenonbecause of differences in the nature of entrepreneurial knowledgebetween contexts, differences in the actors creating and annotat-ing entrepreneurial knowledge between contexts, and because ofissues of social networking at the interfaces between contexts. Thiscomplexity leads us to reason that the MNC cannot achieve ‘perfectcoordination’ of entrepreneurial knowledge, as discussed by theMNC knowledge management literature (Buckley & Carter, 1999).No single individual within the MNC can have a full appreciation ofall components of entrepreneurial knowledge, for all initiatives, inall contexts. Indeed, the entrepreneur’s exposure to exogenous andinternal sources of volatility and uncertainty, essential tosynthesize cross-border knowledge (Buckley & Carter, 1999) willbe mostly constrained to the context in which he/she operates.Some senior managers will inevitably operate across a number ofcontexts, but this elevation is likely to reduce their micro-level,context-specific knowledge (Nonaka, 1988) and thus their abilityto evaluate entrepreneurial knowledge. Theory of MNC entre-preneurship needs to incorporate consideration of sub-optimiza-

tion amongst the myriad of managers involved in creating andtransferring entrepreneurial knowledge.

We also believe there is a critical role for top managers tofacilitate entrepreneurial knowledge coordination in the way wehave presented it here. The MNC literature refers to the need fortop managers to set entrepreneurial vision and show entrepre-neurial leadership (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2003; Miles, Heppard,Miles, & Snow, 2000). We extend these notions of leadership rolevis-a-vis MNC entrepreneurship to one of establishing theconditions for effective coordination of entrepreneurial knowledgethrough management of interdependencies, internal empower-ment, encouraging host country embeddedness, and brokeringinteractions between managers from external contexts. In ourview, understanding the contingencies under which theseorganizing principles are applied becomes the key leadershipquality for governance of the entrepreneurial MNC.

A final implication for theory is our suggestion that entrepre-neurial context becomes the unit of analysis for MNC entre-preneurship. Unlike a subsidiary, it does not reside in a cultural –institutional space (Szulanski, 1996); unlike an initiative, it doesnot reside in a product – market, or organizational problem space(Birkinshaw, 1997). An entrepreneurial context may indeed consistof multiple cultures and institutional qualities in its own right.Alternatively, it is likely to consist of multiple initiatives at any onepoint in time, thus impacting decisions on multiple products,markets, organizational issues etc. This challenges theory in termsof explaining how various forms of ‘distance’ impact organizationof entrepreneurial activity within the MNC.

6.2. Managerial relevance

A number of managerial implications arise from our work. MNCmanagers may face a problem of ineffective coordination whenthey are unable to differentiate between contexts. This isessentially a contingency argument. Coordinating in an inappro-priate way could lead to entrepreneurial knowledge remainingstuck in pockets of the MNC, such that entrepreneurs in othercontexts are unable to access and utilize it. Important here is forMNC managers to map out the contexts in which they pursueentrepreneurial initiatives and share their understanding of whereknowledge resides and why. This will enable them to concentrateon using coordination mechanisms in the right way, at the righttimes.

Second, managers may inadvertently block context-spanning atthe interfaces of entrepreneurial contexts (i.e., acting to reduceboundary porosity). They may inhibit entrepreneurial knowledgecoordination without actually realizing it, even though they thinkthey are promoting entrepreneurship. If MNC managers becomenarrowly focussed on only one coordination mechanism (e.g.,building synergistic internal relationships as suggested byconventional views of subsidiary initiative), they may believethey are acting to promote entrepreneurship. However, byneglecting the other drivers of boundary porosity within thewider scheme of entrepreneurship, and by ignoring how potentcombinations of organizational mechanisms activate less-obviousinterfaces, the consequence is likely to be a sub-optimal utilizationof entrepreneurial resources.

A third managerial implication relates to the non-linear anddynamic nature of entrepreneurial knowledge coordination. Dueto the latent unpredictability of entrepreneurial knowledgecoordination, the MNC can expect the boundaries betweencontexts to shift over time. At certain times, interdependencewith strategic international partners may be more importantbecause of the nature of entrepreneurial knowledge arising inContext 3. At other times, local embeddedness in certain countriesmay become more important because of the usefulness of


knowledge arising within those specific country networks. TheMNC has to stay tuned to interfaces between these shiftingboundaries and remain flexible and open to adjusting boundaryporosity at the right times, for the right reasons.

6.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research

There are a number of limitations in the present analysis andavenues for future work. First, a conceptual extension to thecurrent framework can be made by analyzing the role of the MNC’stop management team in the process of entrepreneurial knowl-edge coordination. For space and scope reasons, we have notaddressed this question in the current analysis. The top manage-ment team of the MNC will have a critical role to play, not only inthe process of entrepreneurial knowledge coordination across itsinternational networks of operations, but also in terms of howinitiatives are selected and resources are deployed and adjustedwithin and between contexts. Future work could address thequestion of how overall (firm-level) entrepreneurial orientation(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), as set by corporate leaders (Guth &Ginsberg, 1990), becomes enacted through entrepreneurial inter-contextuality and knowledge coordination. Second, although weallude to the capability of coordinating entrepreneurial knowledgeout of distinct entrepreneurial contexts as a valuable andpotentially hard to imitate source of advantage, the environmentalcontingencies under which this leads to superior performanceacross MNCs has not been addressed. It is unlikely thatentrepreneurial knowledge coordination is homogeneous acrossMNCs. Future research might consider how the characteristics ofthe MNC (e.g., size, degree of internationalization, diversification,industry, country of origin) interact with the socially-complexcontextuality of entrepreneurial knowledge coordination, and howthis interaction drives performance. Third, our primary focus in thecurrent analysis has been on the inter-contextuality of MNCentrepreneurship rather than with issues related to its intra-contextuality. This is a limitation and possible area for futureresearch. The relationship between the development of entrepre-neurial knowledge within specific contexts that has yet to beshared with other contexts and entrepreneurial knowledge thathas been shared and annotated across contexts may be grounds forunderstanding the limits to change and renewal of the MNC.Finally, in terms of empirical fieldwork to develop the model, casestudies offer a fruitful way to explore our paradigm. A range of casestudies in different types of MNCs (large established MNCs as wellas smaller rapidly internationalizing ones) would generate in-depth insight into the ideas presented here. Case studies couldilluminate the role that the top management team plays inentrepreneurial knowledge coordination, the nature of advantagegained through entrepreneurial knowledge coordination, and thedynamics of intra- vs. inter-contextuality of entrepreneurialknowledge. In this way, fieldwork could enhance the understand-ing of the complex reality of entrepreneurial contexts andknowledge coordination in the modern MNC.

References

Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: Alongitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions.Strategic Management Journal, 22: 521–543.

Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory.Journal of Management, 27: 755–775.

Alvarez, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Reuer, J. J. (2006). Editorial: Entrepreneurship andstrategic alliances. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 401–404.

Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. (1996). Subsidiary embeddedness and control in themultinational corporation. International Business Review, 5: 487–508.

Andersson, U., Bjorkman, I., & Forsgren, M. (2005). Managing subsidiary knowledgecreation: The effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness.International Business Review, 14: 521–538.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunityidentification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 105–123.

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). Managing in a transnational network: New manage-ment roles, new personal competencies. In B. McKern (Ed.), Managing the globalnetwork corporation (pp. 260–283). London: Routledge.

Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The character-istics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 207–229.

Birkinshaw, J. (2000). Entrepreneurship in the global firm. London: Sage.Birkinshaw, J., & Ridderstrale, J. (1999). Fighting the corporate immune system: A

process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. InternationalBusiness Review, 8: 149–180.

Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Managing power in the multinational corporation:How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34: 477–508.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linkingcomplexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1–34.

Buckley, P. J., & Carter, M. J. (1999). Managing cross-border complementary knowledge:Conceptual developments in the business process approach to knowledge man-agement in multinational firms. International Studies of Management and Organi-zation, 29: 80–104.

Burgelman, R. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insightsfrom a process study. Management Science, 29: 1349–1363.

Burgelman, R. (1984). Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms.California Management Review, 26: 154–167.

Burgelman, R., & Sayles, L. R. (1986). Inside corporate innovation: Strategy, structure, andmanagement skills. New York: The Free Press.

Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly,42: 339–365.

Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates.Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1109–1128.

Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovationstrategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science,52: 68–82.

Champion, D. (2001). Mastering the value chain: An interview with Mark Levin ofMillennium Pharmaceuticals Harvard Business Review, 79: 108–115.

Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44:35–41.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective onlearning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152.

Corbett, A. C. (2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurialopportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 97–118.

Covin, J. G. (1991). Entrepreneurial versus conservative firms: A comparison of strate-gies and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 28: 439–462.

D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuver-ing. New York: The Free Press.

Delany, E. (2000). Strategic development of the multinational subsidiary throughsubsidiary initiative-taking. Long Range Planning, 33: 220–244.

Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making andfirm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. StrategicManagement Journal, 18: 677–695.

Dess, G., Ireland, R., Zahra, S., Floyd, S., Janney, J., & Lane, P. (2003). Emerging issues incorporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29: 351–378.

Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2004). Dispersed knowledge andan entrepreneurial theory of the firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 659–679.

Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. (1984). Patterns of strategic control within multinationalcorporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 15: 55–72.

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Oxford: Butterworth-Heine-mann.

Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal ofManagement, 29: 333–349.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of theuniversity and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepre-neurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29: 313–330.

Evans, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2002). Psychic distance and organizational performance: Anempirical examination of international retailing operations. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 33: 515–532.

Fisher, J. (1994). Technological interdependence, labor production functions, andcontrol systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19: 493–505.

Fombrun, C. J., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Shifting gears: Enabling change in corporateaggressiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 297–308.

Frost, T. S. (2001). The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries’ innovations. StrategicManagement Journal, 22: 101–123.

Garud, R., & Van de Ven, A. (1992). An empirical evaluation of the internal corporateventuring process. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 93–109.

George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business-universityalliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study ofpublicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17:577–609.

Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Clusters, knowledge spilloversand new venture performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 23: 405–422.

Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. SociologicalTheory, 1: 201–233.


Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordinationcosts and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 43: 781–814.

Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of controlwithin multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16: 768–792.

Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corpora-tions. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 473–496.

Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors’ introduction: Corporate entre-preneurship. Strategic Management Journal (Special Issue: Corporate Entrepreneur-ship), 11: 5–15.

Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharingknowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82–111.

Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuousinnovation. California Management Review, 40: 209–227.

Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Re-search in Organizational Behavior, 24: 41–85.

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35:519–530.

Hayward, M. L. A. (2002). When do firms learn from their acquisition experience?Evidence from 1990–1995. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 21–39.

Hedlund, G., & Rolander, D. (1990). Action in heterarchies – New approaches tomanaging the MNC. In C. A. Bartlett, Y. Doz, & G. Hedlund (Eds.), Managing theglobal firm (pp. 15–45). London: Routledge.

Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Guest editors’ introductionto the special issue – strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies forwealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 479–491.

Hsieh, C., Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2007). Opportunity discovery, problemsolving and a theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44:1255–1277.

Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharinghostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31: 60–73.

Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer.Academy of Management Review, 30: 146–165.

Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship:The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29: 963–989.

Jacobides, M. G., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Entrepreneurship and firm boundaries: Thetheory of a firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 1213–1241.

Jensen, R., & Szulanski, G. (2004). Stickiness and the adaptation of organizationalpractices in cross-border knowledge transfers. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 35: 508–523.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in theAmerican corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Keil, T. (2002). External corporate venturing: Strategic renewal in rapidly changingindustries. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Klevorick, A., Levin, R., Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1995). On the sources of significance ofinterindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24: 185–205.

Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence ofstructure. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 405–425.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and thereplication of technology. Organization Science, 3: 383–397.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of themultinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24: 625–645.

Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: Acontextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24: 308–324.

Kuemmerle, W. (1999). The drivers of foreign direct investment into research anddevelopment: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies,30: 1–24.

Lam, A. (1997). Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems of collaboration andknowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 18: 973–996.

Lam, A. (2003). Organisational learning in multinationals: R&D networks of Japaneseand US MNEs in the U.K. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 673–703.

Lee, S. H., & Williams, C. (2007). Dispersed entrepreneurship within multinationalcorporations: A community perspective. Journal of World Business, 42: 505–519.

Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). External technology commercialization in largefirms: Results of a quantitative benchmarking study. R&D Management, 37: 383–397.

Lorenzoni, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Creating a strategic center to manage a web ofpartners. California Management Review, 37: 146–163.

Low, M. B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: Specification ofpurpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25: 17–25.

Lubatkin, M., Florin, J., & Lane, P. (2001). Learning together and apart: A model ofreciprocal interfirm learning. Human Relations, 54: 1353–1382.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation con-struct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21: 135–172.

MacMillan, I. C., Block, Z., & Narasimha, P. N. S. (1986). Corporate venturing: Alter-natives, obstacles encountered, and experience effects. Journal of Business Ventur-ing, 1: 177–191.

Mahnke, V., Venzin, M., & Zahra, S. A. (2007). Governing entrepreneurial opportunityrecognition in MNEs: Aligning interests and cognition under uncertainty. Journal ofManagement Studies, 44: 1278–1298.

Meyer, G., & Heppard, K. (2000). Entrepreneurial strategies: The dominant logic ofentrepreneurship. In G. Meyer & K. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy:Competing on the entrepreneurial edge (pp. 1–3). London: Sage.

Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2002). Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Somecommon forms and their organizational implications. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 26: 21–40.

Miles, G., Heppard, K. A., Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (2000). Entrepreneurial strategies:The critical role of top management. In G. Meyer & K. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneur-ship as strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge (pp. 101–114). London: Sage.

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manage-ment Science, 29: 770–791.

Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Bjorkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. (2003). MNC knowledgetransfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 34: 586–599.

Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(Spring): 5–16.

Mu, S. C., Gnyawali, D. R., & Hatfield, D. E. (2007). Foreign subsidiaries’ learning from localenvironments: An empirical test. Management International Review, 47: 79–102.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organiza-tional advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–266.

Narula, R. (2001). Choosing between internal and non-internal R&D activities: Sometechnological and economic factors. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,13: 365–387.

Nobel, R., & Birkinshaw, J. (1998). Innovation in multinational corporations: Controland communication patterns in international R&D operations. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 19: 479–496.

Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating informationcreation. Sloan Management Review, 29: 9–18.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). The internationalization of entrepreneurship.Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 2–8.

Persson, M. (2006). The impact of operational structure, lateral integrative mechanismsand control mechanisms on intra-MNE knowledge transfer. International BusinessReview, 15: 547–567.

Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observa-tions, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 165–182.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. (1981). Strategic control – the dilemma in headquarters–

subsidiary relationships. In L. Otterbeck (Ed.), The management of headquarters–subsidiary relationships in multinational corporations (pp. 187–203). Aldershot,Hampshire: Gower Publishing.

Randolph, W. A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. OrganizationalDynamics, 23(4): 19–32.

Riordan, C. M., Vandenberg, R. J., & Richardson, H. A. (2005). Employee involvementclimate and organizational effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 44: 471–488.

Roberts, E. B., & Berry, C. A. (1985). Entering new businesses: Selecting strategies forsuccess. Sloan Management Review, 26: 3–17.

Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Extending the theory of the multinationalenterprise: Internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 34: 125–137.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). Entrepreneurship as innovation. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Entre-preneurship: The social science view (pp. 51–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Re-search, 38: 225–243.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field ofresearch. Academy of Management Review, 25: 217–226.

Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recoveryfor the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28: 318–328.

Stopford, J., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. StrategicManagement Journal, 15: 521–536.

Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of bestpractice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27–43.

Taggart, J. (1998). Identification and development of strategy at subsidiary level. In J.Birkinshaw & N. Hood (Eds.), Multinational corporate evolution and subsidiarydevelopment (pp. 23–49). Basingstoke, Hampshire: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction.Industrial and Corporate Change, 3: 537–556.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An‘interpretive’ model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,15: 666–681.

Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Tregaskis, O. (2003). Learning networks, power and legitimacy in multinational

subsidiaries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 431–447.Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm

networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5): 464–476.Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation.

Management Science, 32: 590–607.Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An

editor’s perspective. In Katz, J., & Brockhaus, R. (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship,firm emergence and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Verbeke, A., Chrisman, J. J., & Yuan, W. (2007). A note on strategic renewal andcorporate venturing in the subsidiaries of multinational enterprises. Entrepreneur-ship Theory and Practice, 31: 585–600.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.New York: Cambridge University Press.


Williams, C. (2009). Subsidiary-level determinants of global initiatives in multinationalcorporations. Journal of International Management, 15: 92–104.

Williams, C., & Lee, S. H. (2009a). Resource allocations, knowledge network character-istics and entrepreneurial orientation of multinational corporations. ResearchPolicy, 38: 1376–1387.

Williams, C., & Lee, S. H. (2009b). International management, political arena, anddispersed entrepreneurship in the MNC. Journal of World Business, 44: 287–299.

Wolpert, J. D. (2002). Breaking out of the innovation box. Harvard Business Review, 80:76–83.

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firmperformance. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 451–478.

Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firmperformance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility.Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 469–492.

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). International entrepreneurship: The current status ofthe field and future research agenda. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L.Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 255–288).Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Date post:	09-Sep-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	christopher-williams
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

Entrepreneurial contexts and knowledge coordination within the multinational corporation

Documents