THE MUTUAL IMPACT OF GLOBAL STRATEGYAND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING:CURRENT THEMES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
JASPER J. HOTHO1*, MARJORIE A. LYLES2, andMARK EASTERBY-SMITH3
1Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark2Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S.A.3Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, U.K.
A significant part of global strategy and internationalmanagement is concerned with issues of knowledgeand learning. These issues cover a range of topics,from how internationalizing firms gain knowledgeabout foreign market environments and learn tooperate across nations, to the challenges associatedwith transferring and utilizing knowledge acrossborders or the management of international alliancesand joint ventures. Indeed, both the raison d’être ofthe multinational enterprise and its (geographical)boundaries are often presented as functions ofknowledge and learning processes (e.g., Kogut and
In theorizing about such issues, global strategyscholars often turn to the literatures on organiza-tional learning and knowing. These streams of litera-ture infuse our theories on global firms by providingcore concepts and definitions. In addition, advancesin the learning literature occasionally also impact theglobal strategy research agenda. Developments inorganizational learning and innovative approaches toknowledge research, such as on organizational ambi-dexterity, absorptive capacity, or the social facets ofknowledge integration, spur new research efforts thatenrich our insights into the complex workings ofmultinational organizations.
Despite the interest in issues of knowing andlearning in the global strategy field, however, therehas been strikingly little mutual engagement andinteraction between the fields of global strategy andorganizational learning. Our review of the literature,
Keywords: global strategy; organizational learning; context*Correspondence to: Jasper Hotho, Copenhagen BusinessSchool, Porcelænshaven 24, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark.E-mail: [email protected]
Global Strategy JournalGlobal Strat. J., 5: 85–112 (2015)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1097
which we discuss later, shows that, in the globalstrategy field, the interest in learning and knowingremains confined to a limited number of core con-cepts of organizational learning. At the same time,the reverse impact of global strategy on the field oforganizational learning has been limited. Few, if any,insights from global strategy research find their wayinto studies on organizational learning.
The limited exchange of ideas between the fieldsof organizational learning and global strategy is bothsurprising and problematic. Surprising, because glo-balization has meant that organizational learningincreasingly takes place in organizations that operateor interact internationally. This implies that insightsfrom global strategy should be of increased rel-evance to the field of organizational learning. Prob-lematic, because the dependence on a limited set oflearning concepts suggests that our understanding oflearning processes and their consequences for globalfirms remains incomplete.
With this special issue, we set out to change theperception of global strategy research as passively‘borrowing’ advances made in organizational learn-ing research and to bring the fields of global strategyand organizational learning closer together. The con-tributions in this special issue all highlight thatglobal strategy research can, in distinctive ways,actively enrich and contribute to our understandingof organizational knowing and learning. The contri-butions also illustrate that insights from organiza-tional learning, beyond established core concepts,may enrich our understanding of global firms andtheir performance. Thus, this special issue illustratesthat the fields of organizational learning and globalstrategy can fruitfully inform each other. Therefore,it is meaningful to consider ways in which the inter-action between the two fields can be enhanced.
With this positioning article, we intend to set thescene for the special issue by exploring the recentliterature, by providing new insights from thearticles in this issue, and by proposing fruitful areasof future research. To this end, we first conduct areview of the intersection of the fields of globalstrategy and organizational learning and assess thecurrent state of play. We also take the opportunity tobe more forward looking. Specifically, we reflect onand articulate in more detail how the mutualexchange of ideas between the fields of global strat-egy and organizational learning can be encouragedand the fields can be brought closer together. We endwith two specific recommendations to enhance theinteraction between the fields. Our first recommen-
dation is for global strategy research to adopt abroader notion of organizational learning and itsantecedents and consequences. Our second recom-mendation is for global strategy research to capital-ize on its attention to context in order to inform andenhance organizational learning theory. We discussthe use of context in a number of common researchdesigns and highlight how the scope for theoreticalcontributions to organizational learning varies withthe research design that is adopted. We use thestudies included in this special issue to illustratethese recommendations.
REVIEWING THE INTERSECTION OFGLOBAL STRATEGY ANDORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
The aim of our review is to provide a snapshot ofrecent work at the intersection of global strategy andorganizational learning. Where do the two fieldsintersect and how do insights from one field informthe other? To this end, we first created a sample ofrepresentative journals that regularly publish work atthe intersection of these two fields. The year 2010 issignificant because it is the year of the GSJ launchconference that marked the birth of the Global Strat-egy Journal. We, therefore, decided to focus ourreview efforts on work published from 2010 to 2014.
We selected three main journals in the field ofglobal strategy for inclusion in our sample of jour-nals: the Global Strategy Journal; the Journal ofInternational Business Studies; and ManagementInternational Review. We also included severalgeneral management journals that have publishedimpactful global strategy research in the past,namely: the Academy of Management Journal; theStrategic Management Journal; the Journal of Man-agement Studies; and Organization Science. Again,our intention was to include journals based within aswell as outside of North America. To represent thefield of organizational learning, we selected Man-agement Learning, the main journal dedicated toresearch on organizational learning and knowing;Academy of Management Learning & Education;and Learning Organization.
Using Google Scholar, we then searched the jour-nals in our sample for global strategy papers that drawon organizational learning and, conversely, for orga-nizational learning papers that were informed byinsights from global strategy. To minimize the riskthat relevant studies were overlooked, we then con-
ducted a hand search of individual volumes. To illus-trate, we left out papers on innovation that did notdraw explicitly on insights from global strategy ororganizational learning. However, we did retainpapers that, for example, examine the effects of globalengagement on product innovation (Lederman,2010). We retained papers that address learning andglobal strategy at either the organizational and/orteam level, but did not include papers that addressthese issues at the individual level. We also left outmost research notes, commentaries, perspectivespapers, and editorials, except when we found one ortwo that added new insights.
When evaluating global strategy papers, we firstscreened and searched papers for learning-relatedterms such as ‘knowledge,’ ‘knowing,’and ‘learning.’We subsequently assessed whether papers made sub-stantive use of insights from organizational learn-ing—as, for example, evidenced by citations to thelearning literature—or whether learning-relatedterms were merely used in passing. For example, weretained papers where insights from organizationallearning informed a paper’s hypotheses, but excludedpapers that only made mention of the importance ofknowledge and learning for global firms.
Similarly, the papers in the learning-oriented jour-nals in our sample were evaluated on whether theyreferred to issues related to global strategy and inter-national business. Examples are papers that examinelearning-related challenges related to the implemen-tation of global strategies, such as the developmentof cross-cultural skills and capabilities. We alsoscreened the learning-oriented journals for papersthat directly examine learning in the context ofglobal strategy phenomena, such as cross-borderknowledge transfer and knowledge sharing, or inter-national mergers and acquisitions. We then assessedwhether these learning-oriented papers drew sub-stantively on insights or findings from the globalstrategy literature.
An important difference between the fields ofglobal strategy and organizational learning is thatglobal strategy has drawn on insights from organiza-tional learning for much longer than the other wayaround. This had implications for the way we subse-quently classified and mapped the papers in oursample. Specifically, we decided to sort the globalstrategy papers according to established theoreticaldimensions. First, we assessed whether papers dealwith intraorganizational learning, interorganizationallearning, or learning in teams. Second, we assessedhow these global strategy papers utilize insights from
organizational learning. Here, we categorized papersaccording to whether they focused primarily on thecharacteristics of knowledge, on particular learningprocesses, or on the learning context. Papers thattouch upon multiple dimensions of learning andknowing were reexamined and classified according totheir primary focus. We then mapped the global strat-egy papers on a grid.
The organizational learning papers that draw onglobal strategy were not only much fewer in number,but also proved to be more difficult to classify mean-ingfully along predetermined dimensions. This isbecause core insights from global strategy are lessestablished in organizational learning. Work in thisarea has only recently started to emerge. Rather thanimposing a predetermined framework, we decided tocategorize these papers in a more inductive manner.Most of these papers come from traditions of quali-tative research or theoretical development.
In all, our search resulted in the identification of121 papers at the intersection of global strategy andorganizational learning that were published from2010 to 2014 (Table 1). Because our sample ofpapers was drawn from a selective set of representa-tive journals and because lines between differentacademic subfields are often fuzzy, it is inevitablethat some relevant studies were left out. The actualnumber of studies at the intersection of these fieldsis, therefore, likely to be higher. Nevertheless, thearticles in our sample provide a useful snapshot ofwhere and how the fields of organizational learningon global strategy have informed each other over thepast five years.
THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONALLEARNING ON GLOBALSTRATEGY RESEARCH
There have been many approaches to global strategyresearch and theories. Thus, the internationalizationof organizations can take many different directionsand involve many different processes and timelines.The complexity and unpredictability of internation-alization is what makes it interesting in terms oforganizational learning. Studies attempting to inter-twine these two areas must be willing to deal withambiguity and, honestly, fuzziness.
At the same time, the importance of knowledgeassets as a competitive advantage and organizationallearning capabilities has been widely accepted ascritically important to every firm, especially those in
complex environments (Teece and Al-Aali, 2011).Given this, we wanted to find out what research wasbeing done that could advance the field of strategicmanagement and provide new and impactful theoriesbuilt on the premise that organization learning canhelp our understanding of the internationalizationprocesses and vice versa.
Given its complexity, internationalization canaddress the internalization of globalization throughvarious pathways. Our motives for this special issuewere driven by the recognition that organizationallearning in this context is critically important but atthe same time, may follow many unusual paths.There are challenges to bringing organizationallearning theories and models to multiple contextsthat are themselves changing, often rapidly, and,therefore, are moving targets. Western theories haveprimarily been based on behaviors within Europeanor American organizations. This has been docu-mented by Tsui (2004), but now the most soughtafter journals are receiving articles from authors whohave not grown up with American or European tra-
ditions. Are new theories emerging? Is theknowledge-based theory of the firm being developedfurther? Are new processes of organizational learn-ing being explored?
To examine the impact of organizational learningon the global strategy field, we searched all sevenglobal strategy and general management journals inour sample for articles that seemed to be linkingorganizational learning to global strategy or an inter-national topic. We found 102 articles in globalstrategy and general management journals thatcombine organizational learning and global strategy(Table 2). These articles are listed in Appendix 1.
Table 1 shows a summary of how many articlescame from each of the management journals and inwhat year. Across all the journals, the year with themost articles was 2014 (Table 1). However, only in2013 was there a drop in numbers, to 17 across allthe journals. The other years were quite close: 28,24, 23, and 29 articles total per year. In total, this isnot impressive for an important area about an evergrowing in importance phenomena. Our conclusion
Table 1. The intersection of organizational learning and global strategy: number of articles in each journal, 2010–2014
KEYAMJ Academy of Management JournalAMLE Academy of Management Learning & EducationGSJ Global Strategy JournalJIBS Journal of International Business StudiesJMS Journal of Management StudiesLO The Learning OrganizationML Management LearningMIR Management International ReviewOS Organization ScienceSMJ Strategic Management Journal
Knowledge characteristics• Types of knowledge: tacit,
explicit, forgotten; external,internal
Egelhoff (2010) Liu (2012) Haas (2010)Morris, Hammond and Snell
(2014)• Shared knowledge between
partnersCheung, Myers, and Mentzer (2011)Dou et al. (2010)Fang (2011)Kapoor and Adner (2012)Kotha and Srikanth (2013)Li et al. (2012a)
• Innovation Berry (2014)Golovko and Valentini (2014)Lederman (2010)Sarkar (2011)
• Complexity, ambiguity Hashai et al. (2010)Kim (2013)
Learning processes• Knowledge gaps and
experiential learningAlcácer, Dezsö and Zhao (2013)Banalieva and Sarathy (2010)Casillas and Moreno-Menéndez (2014)Dow and Larimo (2011)Elango and Pattnaik (2011)Gao and Pan (2010)Goerzen, Sapp, and Delios (2010)Guler and Guillén (2010)Hagen and Zucchella (2014)Hutzschenreuter, Lewin, and Dresel (2011)Jonsson and Foss (2011)Jung, Beamish, and Goerzen (2010)Lu et al. (2014)Mulotte (2014)Nachum and Song (2011)Oetzel and Oh (2014)Petersen, Welch, and Benito (2010)Prashantham and Floyd (2012)Rabbiosi, Elia, and Bertoni (2012)Salomon and Byungchae (2010)Santangelo and Meyer (2011)Sui and Baum (2014)Vahlne and Ivarsson (2014)Wu (2013)Yaprak, Xu, and Cavusgil (2011)Zeng et al. (2013)Zhao, Park, and Zhou (2014)
Dikova, Rao, Sahib and VanWitteloostuijn (2010)
Kim, Lu, and Rhee (2012)Liu, Lu, and Choi (2014)Phene and Tallman (2012)
Ganotakis and Love (2012)Hashai (2011)Nadolska and Barkema (2014)Nielsen (2010)Oxelheim et al. (2013)
• Knowledge transfer Ambos, Nell, and Pedersen (2013)Anand (2011)Ciabuschi, Dellestrand, and Kappen (2011)Peltokorpi and Vaara (2014)Surroca, Tribó, and Zahra (2013)Tran, Mahnke, and Ambos (2010)Verbeke, Bachor, and Nguyen (2013)Yamin, Tsai, and Holm (2011)
Perez-Aleman (2011)Zhang, Li, and Li (2014)
• Knowledge sourcing Giarratana and Marian (2014)Kedia, Gaffney, and Clampit (2012)Lamin and Livanis (2013)Levine and Prietula (2012)Li, Li, and Shapiro (2012b)Nieto and Rodríguez (2011)Tan and Meyer (2011)Wagner, Hoisl, and Thoma (2014)
is that there are not many authors trying to doresearch that relates organizational learning to globalstrategy. Or there are articles that are not gettingaccepted in this set of journals. In addition, we findthat these papers rarely build on the strong theoreti-cal base of the international business field such asBuckley and Casson (1976), Dunning, (1998),Johanson and Vahlne (1990), North (1990), orRugman and Verbeke (2003).
We were also interested in whether organizationallearning variables were used to explain internationalphenomenas and, thus, would be independent vari-ables, or whether studies used organizational learn-ing variables as the dependent variables. Somepapers were not empirical studies, so our numbers donot reflect the total number of articles discovered.When learning was a dependent variable, theresearch was designed to learn more about organiza-tional learning as phenomena. Examples of thesevariables were knowledge stocks and flows, learningin international alliances, and knowledge transfer.There were more learning variables that were depen-dent variables than we expected. Nonetheless, therewere twice as many studies with the learning vari-ables as independent variables that were used toexplain another phenomena (which usually was aninternational strategy variable). Examples of these
are exploring the difference of two different kinds oflearning on phenomena, links of knowledge flow toperformance, and organizational learning capabili-ties that affect MNCs’ global strategies.
We were interested in the context of the learning—whether it was intraorganizational learning; interor-ganizational learning in dyads such as alliances orpartnerships; or intra- or interorganizational global/top management teams. We divided the researchpapers according to these three contexts. A vastmajority of the papers addressed intraorganizationallearning. This was a bit of a surprise since reviewssuch as Volberda, Foss, and Lyles (2010) identifiedthe need for more research on intraorganizationallearning, especially a micro approach. We also iden-tified several descriptors of organizational learning,such as knowledge characteristics, learning pro-cesses, and social dimensions. Table 2 has these enu-merated as the left-hand column and the threecontexts across the top. The largest group of articles,representing 36 of the 102 articles, addresses knowl-edge gaps and experiential learning.
Experiential learning is a very broad concept.Experiential learning is usually thought of as activelearning or ‘learning from experience.’ The Uppsalatheory of outward foreign direct investment is builtaround this premise and the work of Cyert and
March (1963). It suggests firms should take smallsteps in investing abroad and, as they learn and expe-rience more in the foreign market, they can makedeeper investments (Johanson and Vahlne, 1990).Other theorists such as Salomon and Shaver (2005),who compare exporting with nonexporting firms,suggest that firms can learn from being involved ininternational activities such as exporting and canimprove their performance and their productive pro-cesses and, as a result, are more competitive in aglobal context.
Some theorists have built models to explain expe-riential learning. For example, Baker, Jensen, andKolb (2005) suggest that there are two modes ofdeveloping knowledge: first, grasping experiencessuch as apprehension (concrete experience) and com-prehension (abstract conceptualization); and second,dialectically related modes of transforming experi-ence—intension (reflective observation) and exten-sion (active experimentation (Baker et al., 2005).These are similar to Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990)recognition and assimilation. The difference is themode of learning that is more clearly identified byBaker et al. (2005), who recognize that learning canoccur through concrete reality, but also throughabstract conceptualization. They also suggest thathaving conversations about an event is also a kindof learning, especially if the conversation allowsfor dialectical inquiry with opposing views beingdiscussed.
A further step is described by Alcácer and Chung(2011), who explain that firms can generate novelinternational knowledge from their experiences in aforeign location. The point here is that firms can takelocal knowledge and resources that are available toall firms, but they can develop specific knowledgethat is unique and a competitive advantage (seeZaheer and Nachum, 2011).
Consequently, in experiential learning, the firmsdo not have to directly experience global expan-sion, but can learn through conversations aboutexperiences and views from other organizations.They can also learn through their own capabilitiesof interpreting a situation and creating new intel-lectual capital.
From the viewpoint of this article, ‘experientiallearning’ is a catchall category that is criticallyimportant for our review. It shows the diversity andcomplexity of organizational learning when it relatesto internationalization and global strategy. It allowsus, as authors, to provide a space to demonstrate thisdiversity.
In assessing the articles beyond experientiallearning, we found very few articles that addressthe characteristics of knowledge such as its tacit-ness, novelty, or complexity. In addition, veryfew articles address: knowledge sourcing, absorp-tive capacity, exploration, or exploitation. Sixteenpapers addressed the social dimensions of learning.Ten articles addressed the area of knowledge trans-fer or spillovers. Our conclusion is that mostauthors have broadly addressed global strategy, butrarely assess the deeper concepts of organizationallearning that can give us insights into how learningworks or how it influences global strategy or firmperformance.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF GLOBALSTRATEGY TO ORGANIZATIONALLEARNING
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate that the adoption of perspec-tives from learning theory by scholars from globalstrategy has been quite selective. Organizationallearning scholars’ use of perspectives from globalstrategy, however, has been even more limited. Thequantitative analysis shows the magnitude of differ-ences; but a qualitative analysis may add morenuanced accounts of the nature and origins of thesedifferences. Here we focus on the 19 papers from thethree ‘learning-oriented’ journals that consideredaspects of global strategy and international business(broadly defined), as well as a few other importantpapers. The 19 articles are listed in Appendix 2.Based on our initial readings, we classified papersinto four main groups, and we then realized that thegroups defined two distinct dimensions againstwhich the papers could be positioned. The verticaldimension sees the focus move from looking atwhole organizations as institutions (such as businessschools or multinationals) to a concern with groups,teams, and occasionally, individuals. The horizontaldimension is a distinction between papers that areessentially analytical and often critical, in contrast tothose that focus on the pragmatics of taking action.These two dimensions give us a matrix, which ispresented in Figure 1.
As mentioned earlier, our aim here is to review theway papers published in the ‘learning-related’ jour-nals are making sense of the threats and opportuni-ties provided by increasing globalization. In the firstquadrant of Figure 1, we have listed a number ofpapers focused on why globalization might be a
problem for institutions such as business schools.Here there is some frustration that despite all thewarning signs, business schools, particularly in theU.S., remain, in the words of a senior editor ofAcademy of Management Learning and Education‘shockingly national’ (Doh, 2010: 165). He then laysdown nine challenging questions aimed at businessschools, starting with the need to define what aglobal business school is and to consider how‘globalness’ can be measured. His main message isthat schools will need fundamental change in theirown structures, processes, and values if they want tobe successful in the global future. This sentimentwas endorsed three years later by Eisenberg et al.(2013) in the context of reviewing the rapid growthin cross-cultural management courses (CCMs) inNorth America.
Other authors focused on the core product of mostbusiness schools: the MBA. With regard to thein-house form of MBAs, Elliott and Robinson(2012) demonstrate that there is often a negative gapbetween the aspirations of the school as projected onWeb sites and the experience of international stu-dents in terms of curriculum and pedagogy. Still,when ‘international’ MBAs are packaged for deliv-ery in other countries, there is always a tensionbetween adapting them according to the distinctculture and structures of the recipient country andthe view that overseas buyers are looking for the
‘genuine American MBA’ (Lamb and Currie, 2012).Finally, there is an interesting paper by Wedlin(2011) that points out that the increasing use ofglobal rankings will directly affect both recruitmentof students and faculty and the general reputation ofeach institution. This will add to the globalizationpressures faced by each institution.
Papers in the second quadrant focus on the cog-nitive needs of groups and teams, particularly withreference to linguistic and mental skills. We startwith the linguistic problem, which Cardeñosa andGallardo (2013: 377) characterize as ‘multilingualityin organizations.’ Any international company isbound to have many different first languages amongtheir employees and, increasingly, some linguisticability outside one’s mother tongue is very impor-tant. They also point to the potential role of informa-tion technology both for translation and socialnetworking, and they suggest that international orga-nizations need to be proactive in developing it. Thereare also major problems in managing staff withinmultilingual contexts and there is a need to find waysof increasing the performance of cross-culturalgroups (Mitchell, Boyle, and Nicholas, 2011). Withregard to mental skills, Dhanaraj and Khanna (2011)stress the importance of helping students and execu-tives to be far more flexible in their assumptionsabout people in emerging markets: this needs to bequite fundamental in challenging one’s own identity.
Quadrant 1
Doh (2010) Eisenberg et al. (2013) Lamb and Currie (2012) Wedlin (2011)
Quadrant 4
Dunlap et al. (2014) Holland and Salama (2010) Hydle et al. (2013) Pless et al. (2011)
Quadrant 2
Cardeñosa and Gallardo (2013) Dhanaraj and Khanna (2011) Farquharson et al. (2014) Hotho et al. (2014) Mitchell et al. (2011) Retna and Jones (2013)
Quadrant 3
Chen et al. (2012) Li et al. (2012c) Mor et al. (2013) Szkudlarek et al. (2013) Takeda and Helms (2010)
Groups and teams
Institutions
Action Cognition
Figure 1. The impact of globalstrategy on organizational learning,2010–2014: a mapping of papers bylevel of analysis and style
Other relevant theoretical contributions includethe use of agency-based theory to make sense of thelearning that takes place in multinational companies;a critique of the knowledge creation model withinthe context of globalization (Saka-Helmhout, 2009);and an examination of the relationship betweencontext, structure, and institutions in relation tointernational learning (Hotho, Saka-Helmhout, andBecker-Ritterspach, 2014).
Several papers tackled the problem of movingvarious types of courses from one cultural context toanother, notably Singapore (Takeda and Helms,2010; Retna and Jones, 2013), Africa (Tvedten,Hansen, and Jeppesen, 2014), and China(Farquharson, Örtenblad, and Hsu, 2014). The expe-rience of the latter authors is quite encouragingbecause they found that Chinese employees werealready skilled at decontextualizing Western man-agement theory and reformulating it so it can beapplied to their own processes and institutions.
The papers we allocated to the third quadranthave similarities to those in the second quadrant inthat they focus on the abilities of leadership teamsand managers in working effectively within a globalcontext. But they differ, however, in that there ismore of a focus on practical interventions, in par-ticular in developing cross-cultural skills. This leadsus to the underlying debate about whether cross-cultural skills can be taught at all and, thereafter,whether their possession confers any advantage onthe holder (Takeda and Helms, 2010). The expertinformants who contributed to the research bySzkudlarek et al. (2013) provide a qualified yes tothe above questions. But they emphasize that thepedagogies used in international business schoolsare not up to the job. The authors conclude thatinstead of transmitting knowledge, they need todevelop skills of self-reflexivity through experientialand transformational learning. This will be very dif-ficult for traditional business schools to embrace. Anumber of papers take a more optimistic line, report-ing on successful examples of intercultural knowl-edge transfer (Chen et al,. 2012). The idea of culturalintelligence is developed by Li, Mobley, and Kelly(2012c), and the idea of cultural metacognition isseen as a generic skill that enables people to develop‘affective closeness and creative collaboration’ inintercultural relationships (Mor, Morris, and Joh,2013: 493).
The fourth quadrant includes a number of papersthat were investigating, from theoretical and/or prag-matic perspectives, the development of global busi-
ness capabilities. Two papers took similar lines,investigating the way different strategic initiativesmight lead to greater learning on behalf of the orga-nization. Specifically, these were in the context ofstrategic alliances (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004)and the processes required to achieve integrationfollowing international mergers and acquisitions(Holland and Salama, 2010). In both of these cases,the authors noted that companies consciously devel-oped strategic initiatives intended to maximize thelearning potential in their areas of concern. Thesestudies do, in effect, conceptualize learning as thedependent rather than the independent variable,which is also the case with some of the strategy-related examples described in the previous section ofthis article.
The paper by Tavcar and Dermol (2012) pro-vides an approach to the development of interna-tional strategies in SMEs through exploiting thelinks with the MNCs for which they may be sup-pliers. If this can be done on a reciprocal basis,then the SMEs will learn from the disciplinedsophistication of the MNC; and conversely, theMNC may learn from the focused product knowl-edge of the SME. The final three papers considerspecific aspects of the capability developmentwithin global companies. Pless, Maak, andStahl (2011) focus on the development of globalleaders through service learning programs. Hydle,Kvålshaugen, and Breunig (2013) examine thedevelopment of transnational knowledge throughdifferentiating between two forms of community ofpractice: communities of task and communities oflearning. Finally, Dunlap, Marion, and Friar (2014)demonstrate that cross-national knowledge flowswithin the global pharmaceutical industry facili-tated the creation of explorative (breakthrough)knowledge, but did not enhance the production ofexploitative (incremental) knowledge.
Our main conclusions from the analysis in thissection are that the majority of papers from the‘learning’ side have not focused at all on strategy perse, but as an incidental and dependent variable thathas supplied a context within which to explore anddevelop the ideas of (organizational) learning.Coupled to this, our analysis of the literature showsthat, compared with the strategy side, there is muchless activity on the learning side, and this observa-tion holds even when we note the much greater scaleand concentration of literature evident from the stra-tegic perspective. We have developed Figure 1 as anorganizer of the rather disparate literature in this
field in the hope that it will help future researchersidentify and exploit the opportunities that areevident.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS:STRENGTHENING THE MUTUALIMPACT OF GLOBAL STRATEGY ANDORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Our review illustrates that the fields of global strat-egy and organizational learning share commonthemes and interests, such as the mutual interest inthe acquisition and distribution of knowledge withinorganizations and the development of global busi-ness capabilities. Nevertheless, we also found thatthere is currently limited dialogue between theseliteratures. Although insights from organizationallearning continue to have a considerable impact onglobal strategy research, our review shows that thisimpact is confined to a limited set of core concepts,such as experiential learning. We also find thatlearning-related contributions and insights in globalstrategy research rarely find their way into the orga-nizational learning literature.
The limited exchange of ideas between these fieldsseems puzzling, given the considerable overlap inthemes. Given the potential for cross-pollination,what could be reasons for the limited extent to whichthe fields of organizational learning and global strat-egy inform each other? Our view is that the mutualexchange of ideas between these literatures is ham-pered by at least two important barriers—one limitingthe flow of more recent ideas from organizationallearning to global strategy and the other limiting theimpact of global strategy on organizational learning.
The first barrier is that global strategy research hastended to adopt a narrow view of organizationallearning and its antecedents. Global strategy schol-ars tend to view learning as a cumulative rather thana dynamic process. Learning is assumed to lead tothe accumulation of new knowledge and, possibly,new capabilities, which improves performance (e.g.,Luo and Peng, 1999; Rugman and Verbeke, 2003;Zahra, Ireland, and Hitt, 2000). Whether learningnecessarily evolves progressively or whether firmsare necessarily able to exploit or utilize acquiredknowledge often remains unquestioned. Similarly,with exceptions, global strategy research has tendedto pay relatively little attention to the social contextin which learning takes place.
This view of organizational learning correspondsclosely to the views on knowledge and learningadopted in some of the classic works on organiza-tional learning, such as works by Penrose (1959),Polanyi (1958), and Cyert and March (1963), as wellas some of the ‘popularizing’works of organizationallearning in a 1991 special issue of OrganizationScience (see Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2011a).Global strategy research tends to draw on establishedcore concepts that are aligned with these early views.However, recent advances in organizational learninghave led to the development of a more comprehensiveview of learning processes and their antecedents andconsequences. This has led to new insights on howknowledge is created or acquired, stored, and distrib-uted within organizations. Adherence to a narrowview of organizational learning hampers the amalga-mation of these recent insights into global strategyresearch. It also results in incomplete accounts of theeffects and complexity of organizational learningprocesses in multinational firms.
The second barrier to the mutual flow of ideas isthat organizational learning tends to take little noticeof learning-related insights and findings in globalstrategy research. One likely explanation for this is alack of awareness or familiarity among organiza-tional learning scholars with learning-related work inglobal strategy. Another explanation, however, maylie in how findings in global strategy are communi-cated and the extent to which they are linked back tothe organizational learning literature. That is, moreoften than not, global strategy scholars may simplyfail to consider, realize, or articulate what and howtheir findings contribute to organizational learning.As a result, organizational learning scholars may findit difficult to understand the relevance and implica-tions of work in global strategy for their ownresearch.
While these barriers are problematic, we believethey can be addressed and the fields can be broughtcloser together. To this end, we make two recom-mendations on how the mutual impact of globalstrategy and organizational learning can be strength-ened. Although our suggestions aim to enhance theinteraction between the two fields, they differ in theirfocus. Our first recommendation is concerned withthe flow of ideas from organizational learning toglobal strategy. The second recommendation is con-cerned with the limited extent to which contributionsin global strategy have been taken on board in orga-nizational learning. We discuss these recommenda-tions in the next sections.
Recommendation 1: broadening the notionof organizational learning in globalstrategy research
Our first suggestion for stimulating the mutual impactbetween the two fields is aimed at the flow of insightsfrom organizational learning to global strategy. Asour literature review illustrates, applications ofinsights from organizational learning in global strat-egy tend to center on a relatively restricted set ofseminal contributions in organizational learning.While the insights from these studies have had aconsiderable impact on global strategy research,other potentially relevant concepts and notions fromthe learning literature remain underutilized. This isproblematic because it suggests that our understand-ing of when and how organizational learning contrib-utes to the performance of global firms may be overlysimplistic. It also means that our understanding of theantecedents that drive learning processes and theireffects is incomplete. Our suggestion, therefore, is forglobal strategy research to adopt a broader notion oforganizational learning and to draw on a wider set oflearning concepts. Specifically, we believe that globalstrategy research can benefit from advances in orga-nizational learning with regard to three areas:
The concept of organizational learning
The first area where global strategy can benefit fromadvances in organizational learning concerns theconcept of organizational learning itself, as well asthe relation between knowing and learning. Specifi-cally, whereas global strategy tends to view learningand knowing as accumulative processes, more recentadvances in organizational learning suggest thatknowledge processes are often more dynamic. Forexample, recent work suggests that acquiring knowl-edge not only adds to an organization’s knowledgestock, but it may also require that previous knowledgebe discarded (e.g., Tsang and Zahra, 2008). Anotherinsight is that organizational knowledge can witherover time. Therefore, knowledge may need to be usedin order to be retained (e.g., Argote, 1999; De Holanand Phillips, 2004). These insights suggest that orga-nizational unlearning and forgetting may be criticalaspects of learning processes in domestic and globalorganizations (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2011b).
The contribution to this special issue by Kim andAguilera (2015, this issue), titled The world is spiky:an internationalization framework for a semi-globalized world, illustrates the value of such insightsfor global strategy. Kim and Aguilera (2015, this
issue) combine insights from the regionalizationdebate in global strategy with insights from organi-zational learning to develop a more dynamic theoreti-cal framework of internationalization processes.Among others, the authors highlight that when firmsenter foreign regions, old knowledge and assump-tions may need to be unlearned in order for firms tocope effectively with the liability of regional foreign-ness (Barkema and Drogendijk, 2007). Kim andAguilera (2015, this issue) suggest that unlearningmay, therefore, be a necessary precondition for firmsto engage in inter-regional exploration, or the explo-ration of opportunities in new regions. As the authorsillustrate, the consideration of such underexploredlearning processes facilitates the formulation of inter-nationalization theories that better capture thecomplex dynamics of internationalization in a semi-globalized world.
The special issue contribution by Linda Argote(2015, this issue) provides another illustration of thevalue of recent learning concepts for global strategy.In her essay, titled An opportunity for mutual learningbetween organizational learning and global strategyresearchers: transactive memory systems, Argote(2015, this issue) discusses the underexplored role oftransactive memory systems in the performance ofglobal firms. Transactive memory systems are orga-nizational memory systems that contain knowledgeof who knows what and who is best at doing whatwithin an organization or team (Ren and Argote,2011). As Argote (2015, this issue) explains,transactive memory matters for global firms becauseit enables organizations to identify and coordinateknowledge assets across geographically dispersedlocations. Transactive memory systems may, there-fore, form a particularly important source of competi-tive advantage and performance for global firms. Inthe spirit of this special issue, Argote (2015, thisissue) highlights how studying transactive memory inglobal firms offers opportunities to advance ourunderstanding of both global strategy and organiza-tional learning.
The antecedents of organizational learning
The second area where global strategy research canbenefit from insights in organizational learning con-cerns the antecedents of learning and knowledge pro-cesses. Our review of the literature revealed thatglobal strategy research often seeks to explain globallearning processes and their outcomes throughfactors such as knowledge stocks, age, and organiza-
tional design. Although these factors are indeedimportant to consider, the literature on organizationallearning suggests that learning processes in globalfirms are also affected by a diverse range of otherfactors. Examples are social factors, such as powerand politics (Lawrence et al., 2005), or culture, com-munication and social identity (Cook and Yanow,1993; Kane, Argote, and Levine, 2005; Taylor andOsland, 2011). Despite their likely relevance forunderstanding learning in global firms, such ‘softer’factors often remain overlooked in global strategyresearch (Noorderhaven and Harzing, 2009; Tallmanand Chacar, 2011).
In contrast with recent work in organizationallearning (Dodgson, Gann and Phillips, 2013; Kaneand Alavi, 2007; Kauppila, Rajala, and Jyrämä,2011), global strategy has also paid limited attentionto the role of technology and materiality in explaininglearning outcomes. As Argote (2015, this issue) dis-cusses in her essay on transactive memory systems, asan enabler of communication across geographicborders, technology can be expected to have a par-ticular impact on learning and knowledge processeswithin global firms. In other words, organizationallearning highlights that learning and knowing areaffected by a broad range of factors, many of whichare relevant for global strategy. Broadening the rangeof antecedents that influence learning and knowing toinclude such factors as power, identity, and technol-ogy may, therefore, considerably enhance our under-standing of global firms and their performance.
The effects of organizational learning
The third area where global strategy research maybenefit from insights in organizational learning con-cerns the effects of organizational learning, espe-cially its effects on organizational performance. Workin global strategy often assumes that learning andexperience will enhance organizational performanceand that firms are able to productively utilize newknowledge. Insights from organizational learning,however, suggest that the link between learning andperformance is often more complex. For example,organizational learning highlights that the effects ofexperience on performance are not always positive, asfirms may draw incorrect inferences from their pastexperiences (Levinthal and March, 2007; March,2010; Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011). Similarly,the direction of the relation between learning andperformance may depend on several contingencies,such as industry dynamics (Besanko et al., 2010).
For global strategy, such insights suggest that posi-tive effects of learning and experience on organiza-tional performance, especially in the short run, shouldnot be taken for granted. Nevertheless, our under-standing of the conditions under which knowing andlearning affect the performance of global firms is stilllimited. Addressing this deficiency requires a shift inattention from performance as the variable to beexplained to the utilization of knowledge, or learningitself (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2011a).
Taken together, this discussion illustrates that, byadopting a narrow view of organizational learning,global strategy research risks underestimating theactual complexity of organizational learning pro-cesses in multinational firms. Therefore, we encour-age global strategy research to adopt a broadernotion of organizational learning and its antecedentsand consequences and to draw on recent insights inthe learning literature. This, we expect, will contrib-ute to an improved understanding of the performanceof multinational firms.
Recommendation 2: utilizing the role of contextin global strategy research to informorganizational learning
Our second suggestion concerns the question how theimpact of global strategy on organizational learningcan be enhanced. A useful starting point is to focus onwhat makes global strategy research distinctive. Ourview is that what sets apart applications of organiza-tional learning in global strategy research from con-ventional learning research is the attention to locationand context—in particular, the characteristics of thenational contexts in which learning takes place. Thisattention to the national context, we argue, providesdistinct opportunities for theory development, as wellas opportunities to explore the boundary conditions ofreceived learning concepts. This potential arises bothfrom the inherent contextual heterogeneity implicit inglobal strategy research as well as from its attention tothe organizational complexities that arise from oper-ating across borders (see also Roth and Kostova,2003, for arguments regarding the virtue of the MNEresearch context).
In other words, we believe there is scope forglobal strategy research to enhance its impact onorganizational learning by utilizing its explicit inter-national dimension to account for context effects onorganizational learning and its consequences. Giventhat most organizational learning research pays littleexplicit attention to the national context in which
learning processes are situated, global strategyresearch may offer distinct advantages to validateand extend existing learning theories, as well as todevelop new contextualized perspectives on the cre-ation, retention, and dispersion of knowledge. As wewill discuss, the specific scope for theoretical con-tributions back to organizational learning varies withthe research design that is adopted.
In the next sections, we discuss the use of contextin a number of common research designs in globalstrategy research: single-context designs, compara-tive designs, multi-context designs, and inter-contextdesigns (see Fig. 2). The first three research designsdiffer primarily in the number of national contextsthat are considered—that is, whether data is col-lected from one, a few, or many different nationalcontexts. The last type of research design, which wecall inter-context designs, differs from the othertypes in its explicit focus on interactions acrossnational contexts, such as international knowledgetransfer and international alliances.1 Our aim is todiscuss how these research designs differ in theopportunities they offer for global strategy scholarsto inform or enhance organizational learning. Weillustrate this with examples drawn from both the
global strategy literature and from contributionsincluded in this special issue.
Single-context designs
Single-context designs are empirical studies situatedin a single national context. Single-context designscan take the form of a single case study or draw on alarger sample of firms (e.g., Cantwell and Mudambi,2011); what is important is that the data collectedrelate to a single location. Similarly, single-contextdesigns may draw on qualitative data, quantitativedata, or a combination of different data types. Inglobal strategy research, single-context researchdesigns are often employed to understand the strate-gic challenges of MNEs in particular locations, suchas China (see, e.g., Herrigel, Wittke, and Voskamp,2013).
Although single-context designs use data fromonly a single location, these research designs offerspecific advantages in theorizing about the impact ofcontext on learning and knowing. The advantage liesin the potential to make general learning theoriesmore context sensitive (Whetten, 2009). More thanother types of research designs, single-contextdesigns can offer rich insights into the specificcontext of a given location and its effects. This gen-erates opportunities for detailed assessments ofwhether a general theory performs as expected and,if not, what the reasons are for these deviations fromextant theory. Such insights can create a betterunderstanding of how extant learning theories mayneed to be amended to fit a certain location, or theymay lead to new insights into the specific conditionsunder which a particular hypothesis holds.
An illustration of the kind of theorizing enabledby single-context designs is found in Walsh, Bhatt,and Bartunek’s (2009) study on knowledge creationand innovation in China. Motivated by the search fora more context-sensitive understanding of knowl-edge creation processes, the authors highlight thatthe particular institutional conditions in China mayaffect these processes differently depending onwhether firms are foreign owned, state owned, orprivately owned. That is, their model suggests notonly that knowledge creation processes in Chinamay develop differently than elsewhere, but also thatthe particular pattern of knowledge processes thatfirms in China engage in may vary systematicallywith their ownership type. Thus, their work contrib-utes to a more refined understanding of knowledgecreation in the Chinese context.
1Note that the four types of research designs we distinguishdiffer only in their consideration of national contexts, not cases.The number of cases and the type of data considered also affecta study’s scope for theory development. Here, however, wefocus explicitly on how the number of national contexts con-sidered affects a study’s scope to contribute to organizationallearning.
1. Single-context designs
2. Comparative designs
3. Multi-contextdesigns
4. Inter-context designs
Figure 2. Global strategy research designs: the role ofcontext
The contribution by Chittoor, Aulakh, and Ray(2015, this issue) in this special issue, titled Accu-mulative and assimilative learning, institutionalinfrastructure, and innovation orientation of devel-oping economy firms, provides another illustration ofthe potential of single-context designs. Drawing onextensive panel data covering more than 11,000Indian firms, the authors examine how participationin international resource and product markets affectsthe innovation efforts of firms from emergingmarkets. The authors also examine whether businessgroup affiliation moderates the extent to which firmsare able to learn from and capitalize on their expo-sure to these international markets. Their findingsadd to our understanding of the drivers of invest-ments in innovation in emerging economies and alsoprovide insights into how the specific institutionalconditions in post-liberalization India, at both themicro and macro levels, shape Indian firms’ innova-tion orientation.
These examples illustrate that single-contextdesigns create opportunities for contributions toorganizational learning by facilitating theorizing incontext (Whetten, 2009). That is, single-contextdesigns allow global strategy scholars to engage inefforts to contextualize learning and knowledge pro-cesses and to make learning theory more contextsensitive. These research designs also allow for theidentification of the boundary conditions of receivedlearning theories. As the examples illustrate, sensi-tivity to context may allow global strategy scholarsto highlight location-specific nuances in learningthat organizational learning research is likely tooverlook.
Comparative research designs
Comparative research designs are research designsthat utilize in-depth qualitative or quantitative datafrom a limited number of contexts. Comparativeresearch designs differ from single-context designsboth in the greater number of contexts that are con-sidered and in their common reliance on comparativeanalysis, or the systematic comparison of similaritiesand differences in order to elicit the ‘conditions,motivations, and/or precipitating circumstances’(Boddewyn, 2012: 89) that explain the presence orabsence of a particular phenomenon or outcome.Although comparative research designs remain unde-rutilized in global strategy research (Brannen andVoisey, 2012; Nachum, 2012), they have been fruit-fully applied in studies of MNE-host government
relationships (Choudhury, Geraghty, and Khanna,2012), practice adoption (Hotho, Becker-Ritterspach,and Saka-Helmhout, 2012), and R&D international-ization (Awate, Larsen, and Mudambi, 2014), amongothers.
Whereas single-context designs create opportuni-ties to contextualize learning theory and developinsights that are context specific, comparativeresearch designs help generate insights aboutcontext effects that make learning theory morecontext sensitive. The difference is that whereas thecontextualization of learning theory creates a betterunderstanding of organizational learning in situ, orwithin the confines of a particular location, search-ing for context effects stimulates the developmentof a learning theory of context (Whetten, 2009);that is, insights into context effects on learning thathold more generally. In theory construction, suchcontext effects often take the form of moderatingconditions. Comparative research designs facilitatethe development of such insights because of theirreliance on comparative methods and theoreticalsampling (Tsang and Kwan, 1999; Whetten,2009).
An illustration of the potential of comparativedesigns is the special issue contribution by Heydenet al. (2015, this issue), Board background hetero-geneity and exploration-exploitation orientation: therole of the institutionally adopted board model. Theauthors draw on data from pharmaceutical firms inthe U.K. and Germany to explore how boards’ incli-nation for exploration or exploitation is affected bythe national board model in place. Although theauthors do not explicitly rely on comparative analy-sis, the comparative two-context design allows theauthors to illustrate context effects on the relationbetween the functional background of boardmembers and firms’ inclination to explore or exploit.That is, their findings suggest not only that higherboard functional background heterogeneity is linkedto an exploratory strategic orientation, but also thatthis relation is more pronounced in one-tier boardsettings than in settings with two-tier boards. Thus,their findings suggest a new context effect on theexploration orientation of firms.
Therefore, whereas single-context designs facili-tate the development of insights that are contextspecific, comparative research designs may be par-ticularly conducive to theorizing about context(Whetten, 2009), or the identification of new orimproved context effects on organizational learningand its consequences.
Multi-context research designs are research designsthat utilize data collected from a larger sample ofcountries. These research designs typically draw onquantitative data collected through surveys or sec-ondary sources. In addition to the consideration of agreater number of research contexts, multi-contextresearch designs also tend to differ from comparativeresearch designs in their reliance on inferential sta-tistics rather than comparative analysis. Data maycome from a single firm operating in multiple loca-tions, such as in Hofstede’s (1980) work with IBMon cultural values, or come from multiple firms inmultiple locations (e.g. Li, Li, and Shapiro, 2012b).
Due to their reliance of quantitative data frommultiple locations, multi-context research designs inglobal strategy offer specific advantages for theorydevelopment about the impact of context on learningand knowing. A first advantage is that whereas com-parative research designs in global strategy lendthemselves to the identification of new contexteffects on learning (such as possible mediating andmoderating contextual and organizational effects onthe links between learning and strategy), multi-context designs allow for such relations to be tested.An additional advantage of multi-context researchdesigns is that they may allow for the use of moreadvanced statistical techniques, such as varioustypes of multilevel modeling. Such models not onlyenable the testing of direct effects of contextualfactors on learning and strategy (i.e., cross-leveldirect effects), but also facilitate the exploration ofmore intricate relations, such as cross-level modera-tion or moderated mediation effects on organiza-tional learning and its consequences (see, e.g.,Bamberger, 2008).
A good illustration of how multi-context designsin global strategy can contribute to organizationallearning is the study by Zeng et al. (2013) on thenegative effects of MNEs’ international experience.Based on the insight that past experiences are notnecessarily beneficial and that firms may learn incor-rectly (e.g., Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Levitt and March,1988), the authors examine whether previous foreigndirect investment (FDI) experience may hamperMNEs’ ability to learn about dissimilar cultures.Using a sample of 699 Korean foreign direct invest-ments in 57 host countries, the authors test whetherculturally diverse experience moderates the effectsof experiential learning on subsidiary mortality. Theauthors not only find support for the notion that firms
may indeed learn incorrectly, but also demonstratethat differences in culture may reduce the ability offirms to draw on past experiences.
The study by Li et al. (2012b) provides anotherillustration of the potential of multi-context designs.Using data on the overseas investments of Chinesefirms in 69 countries, the authors examine the alter-native pathways through which emerging marketmultinationals can improve their technological capa-bilities. The findings show that such firms are morelikely to invest in markets that offer industry-specifictechnological advantages. However, their findingsalso show that inward FDI in their home market maylimit this effect, as the spillover effects of inwardinvestments provide an alternative source of techno-logical knowledge. Thus, their findings not onlysupport the link between locations’ technologicalattractiveness and their ability to attract foreigninvestments from emerging markets, but also high-light a context effect, by showing that home marketconditions of the investing firms may moderate thisrelation.
These examples illustrate that applications ofmulti-context designs in global strategy researchmay provide useful insights into the extent to whichcontext effects of learning can be generalized acrosscontexts. Multi-context designs also facilitate theidentification and testing of context effects that arepotentially more complex than what can be uncov-ered through other research designs. This may leadto the extension and validation of more complexcontext theories of learning.
Inter-context research designs
Inter-context research designs are research designsthat focus on phenomena that involve actors fromdiverse contexts. This includes phenomena thatinvolve firms from different countries, such as inter-national joint ventures (Lyles and Salk, 1996) andinternational alliances (Hamel, 1991), as well asactivities that involve geographically dispersed sub-units, such as international knowledge transfer(Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Ambos, Nell, andPedersen, 2013), or even teams and individuals.Thus, whereas multi-context designs aim to captureoccurrences of a phenomenon within multiple con-texts, inter-context research designs aim to capturephenomena that cross contexts.
Inter-context designs enable global strategy con-tributions to organizational learning in at least twoways. The first is that inter-context designs facilitate
the testing and extension of extant learning theoriesunder more complex organizational conditions: dueto the complexities of organizing across borders,inter-context designs provide some of the most strin-gent conditions under which extant theories can betested (Roth and Kostova, 2003). As a result, inter-context designs can bring to the fore issues that areeasily overlooked in studies that focus on onecontext (as with single-context designs) or variationbetween multiple contexts (as in comparative andmulti-context designs). Thus, inter-context researchdesigns can stimulate extensions to theory by high-lighting the need for additional constructs or rela-tionships among constructs (Roth and Kostova,2003) in order for learning theories to be morewidely applicable.
A good illustration of how inter-context designsmay facilitate extensions to learning theory is foundin Vaara et al.’s (2012) study on international acqui-sitions. Drawing on a dataset of 123 internationalacquisitions, the authors empirically examine theintricate dynamics between cultural differences,social conflict, and knowledge transfer betweenacquired and acquiring firms. Their findings illus-trate that whereas organizational cultural differencestend to increase social conflict, which reducesknowledge transfers following acquisitions, nationalcultural differences tend to reduce social conflict andenhance such knowledge flows. Thus, their inter-context research design allows these authors toextend learning theory by presenting a more nuancedpicture of the role of culture in post-acquisitionknowledge processes.
Inter-context designs also present opportunitiesfor the development of new learning theories thatare suited to the specificities of global strategy phe-nomena, such as international joint ventures andalliances. This is because inter-context designs notonly aid the identification of new antecedents andrelations, but also direct our attention to types oflearning and knowledge processes organizationallearning has not considered. That is, inter-contextdesigns in global strategy research offer opportuni-ties for generating new learning theory by facilitat-ing the study of learning processes that involvemultiple contexts.
The contribution by Erkelens et al. (2015, thisissue) in this special issue, titled Learning fromlocally embedded knowledge: facilitating organiza-tional learning in geographically dispersed set-tings, nicely illustrates the potential of inter-contextdesigns to contribute to the development of new
learning theory. The authors focus on a learning-related problem that is particular to organizationswith geographically dispersed operations, namelyhow to exploit contextually embedded knowledgeacross different locations. Using a grounded theoryapproach, the authors address this issue by exam-ining the role played by a group of internal engi-neering consultants in a multinational’s attempts tolearn from local knowledge. Their findings not onlyhighlight the enabling role played by this internalnetwork of knowledge workers, but also contributeto learning theory through the development of anew learning construct, knowledge pollination,which is explicitly concerned with the ability offirms to dis-embed and re-embed tacit knowledgeacross contexts.
CONCLUSION
With this introductory article, we aimed to set thescene for this special issue. Our purpose was two-fold. First, we wanted to provide a context to thearticles included in the special issue by presenting areview of recent work at the intersection of the fieldsof global strategy and organizational learning. Ourreview illustrated that these fields share somecommon themes and interests. However, our reviewalso reinforced the view that there is currently littledialogue between these literatures. Second, thisarticle offered us the space to reflect on how theexchange of ideas between the fields can be strength-ened. We suggested that global strategy researchwould benefit from drawing on a broader set oflearning concepts, as this may enrich our under-standing of global firms and their performance. Wealso highlighted that the explicit attention to contextmeans that global strategy research offers distinctadvantages to validate and extend existing learningtheories, as well as to develop new, contextualizedperspectives on the creation, retention, and disper-sion of knowledge. As the contributions in thisspecial issue illustrate, the attention to context can,therefore, serve as a fruitful basis for greater inter-action between the fields.
It is our hope that this special issue inspires newresearch on learning-related topics in global strat-egy and that it stimulates greater mutual engage-ment and interaction between the fields of globalstrategy and organizational learning. We hope youwill enjoy reading the contributions to this specialissue of GSJ.
We would like to thank the reviewers of this specialissue for their tireless efforts. As a small token of ourgratitude, we list their names below:
Sondos AbdelgawadRajar AgrawalRuth AguileraJoaquin AlegreJaideep AnandElena AntonacopoulouGabriel BenitoJulian BirkinshawCliff BowmanKeith BrouthersJuan CegarraAsli ColpanCraig CrosslandLuis DauPedro de FariaMartin FrieslJacky Hong
Peter Ørberg JensenAnna LaminJon LervikPeter LiMaximilian PalmiéBent PetersenAnupama PheneKendall RothMitrabarun SarkarChaminda SenaratneRobin SnellWolfgang SofkaEric TsangAnja TuschkeGurneeta VasudevaIvo ZanderMax von Zedtwitz
REFERENCES
Studies that were included in our literature review aremarked with an asterisk (*).
Alcácer J, Chung W. 2011. Benefiting from location:knowledge seeking. Global Strategy Journal 1(1/2): 132–134.
*Alcácer J, Dezsö C, Zhao M. 2013. Firm rivalry, knowl-edge accumulation, and MNE location choices. Journalof International Business Studies 44(5): 504–520.
*Alcácer J, Oxley J. 2014. Learning by supplying. StrategicManagement Journal 35(2): 204–223.
*Ambos TC, Nell PC, Pedersen T. 2013. Combining stocksand flows of knowledge: the effects of intra-functionaland cross-functional complementarity. Global StrategyJournal 3(4): 283–299.
*Anand J. 2011. Permeability to inter- and intra-firm knowl-edge flows: the role of coordination and hierarchy inMNEs. Global Strategy Journal 1(3/4): 283–300.
Argote L. 1999. Organizational Learning: Creating,Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. Kluwer Aca-demic: Boston, MA.
Argote L. 2015. An opportunity for mutual learningbetween organizational learning and global strategyresearchers: transactive memory systems. Global Strat-egy Journal 5(2): this issue.
Argote L, Miron-Spektor E. 2011. Organizational learning:from experience to knowledge. Organization Science22(5): 1123–1137.
*Arikan I, Shenkar O. 2013. National animosity and cross-border alliances. Academy of Management Journal 56(6):1516–1544.
Awate S, Larsen MM, Mudambi R. 2014. Accessing vs.sourcing knowledge: a comparative study of R&D inter-nationalization between emerging and advancedeconomy firms. Journal of International Business Studies46: 63–86.
Bamberger P. 2008. Beyond contextualization: usingcontext theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in man-agement research. Academy of Management Journal51(5): 839–846.
*Banalieva ER, Sarathy R. 2010. The impact of regionaltrade agreements on the global orientation of emergingmarket multinationals. Management InternationalReview 50(6): 797–826.
Barkema HG, Drogendijk R. 2007. Internationalising insmall, incremental or larger steps? Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 38(7): 1132–1148.
*Bass AE, Chakrabarty S. 2014. Resource security: compe-tition for global resources, strategic intent, and govern-ments as owners. Journal of International BusinessStudies 45(8): 961–979.
*Belderbos R, Olffen WV, Zou J. 2011. Generic and spe-cific social learning mechanisms in foreign entry locationchoice. Strategic Management Journal 32(12): 1309–1330.
*Berry H. 2014. Global integration and innovation:multicountry knowledge generation within MNCs. Stra-tegic Management Journal 35(6): 869–890.
Besanko D, Doraszelski U, Kryukov Y, Satterthwaite M.2010. Learning-by-doing, organizational forgetting, andindustry dynamics. Econometrica 78(2): 453–508.
Boddewyn JJ. 2012. The Choudhury, Geraghty, and Khannaand the Brannen and Voisey articles shed light on thecomparative method and its perils. Global StrategyJournal 2(1): 88–91.
*Boehe DM. 2010. Captive offshoring of new productdevelopment in Brazil: how does arbitrage influencelocal, collaborative relationships? Management Interna-tional Review 50(6): 747–773.
*Brannen MY, Voisey CJ. 2012. Global strategy formula-tion and learning from the field: three modes of compara-tive learning and a case illustration. Global StrategyJournal 2(1): 51–70.
Buckley P, Casson M. 1976. The Future of the Multina-tional Enterprise. Macmillan: London, U.K.
*Cantwell JA, Mudambi R. 2011. Physical attraction andthe geography of knowledge sourcing in multinationalenterprises. Global Strategy Journal 1(3/4): 206–232.
*Cardeñosa J, Gallardo C. 2013. Managing multilingualityin organizations. The Learning Organization 20(6): 377–389.
*Casillas JC, Moreno-Menéndez AM. 2014. Speed of theinternationalization process: the role of diversity anddepth in experiential learning. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 45(1): 85–101.
*Chang YY, Gong Y, Peng MW. 2012. Expatriate knowl-edge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and subsid-iary performance. Academy of Management Journal55(4): 927–948.
*Chen F, Bapuji H, Dyck B, Wang X. 2012. I learned morethan I taught: the hidden dimension of learning in inter-cultural knowledge transfer. The Learning Organization19(2): 109–120.
*Cheung MS, Myers MB, Mentzer JT. 2011. The value ofrelational learning in global buyer-supplier exchanges: adyadic perspective and test of the pie-sharing premise.Strategic Management Journal 32(10): 1061–1082.
Chittoor R, Aulakh PS, Ray S. 2015. Accumulative andassimilative learning, institutional infrastructure, andinnovation orientation of developing economy firms.Global Strategy Journal 5(2): this issue.
Choudhury P, Geraghty JA, Khanna T. 2012. A ‘core-periphery’ framework to navigate emerging market gov-ernments: qualitative evidence from a biotechnologymultinational. Global Strategy Journal 2(1): 71–87.
*Chung L. 2014. Headquarters’ managerial intentionalityand reverse transfer of practices. Management Interna-tional Review 54(2): 225–252.
*Ciabuschi F, Dellestrand H, Kappen P. 2011. Exploring theeffects of vertical and lateral mechanisms in internationalknowledge transfer projects. Management InternationalReview 51(2): 129–155.
Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. 1990. Absorptive capacity: anew perspective on learning and innovation. Administra-tive Science Quarterly 35(1): 128–152.
Cook SD, Yanow D. 1993. Culture and organizationallearning. Journal of Management Inquiry 2(4): 373–390.
*Corredoira RA, McDermott GA. 2014. Adaptation, bridg-ing, and firm upgrading: how non-market institutions andMNCs facilitate knowledge recombination in emergingmarkets. Journal of International Business Studies 45(6):699–722.
Cyert RM, March JG. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of theFirm. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
*Danis WM, Chiaburu DS, Lyles MA. 2010. The impact ofmanagerial networking intensity and market-based strat-egies on firm growth during institutional upheaval: astudy of small and medium-sized enterprises in a transi-tion economy. Journal of International Business Studies41(2): 287–307.
De Holan PM, Phillips N. 2004. Remembrance of thingspast? The dynamics of organizational forgetting. Man-agement Science 50(11): 1603–1613.
*Dhanaraj C, Khanna T. 2011. Transforming mental modelson emerging markets. Academy of Management Learning& Education 10(4): 684–701.
*Dikova D, Rao Sahib P, Van Witteloostuijn A. 2010.Cross-border acquisition abandonment and completion:the effect of institutional differences and organizationallearning in the international business service industry,1981–2001. Journal of International Business Studies41(2): 223–245.
Dodgson M, Gann DM, Phillips N. 2013. Organizationallearning and the technology of foolishness: the case ofvirtual worlds at IBM. Organization Science 24(5):1358–1376.
*Doh JP. 2010. From the editors: why aren’t businessschools more global and what can management educatorsdo about it? Academy of Management Learning & Edu-cation 9(2): 165–168.
*Dou W, Li H, Zhou N, Su C. 2010. Exploring relationshipsatisfaction between global professional service firms andlocal clients in emerging markets. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 41(7): 1198–1217.
*Dow D, Larimo J. 2011. Disentangling the roles of inter-national experience and distance in establishment modechoice. Management International Review 51(3): 321–355.
*Dunlap D, Marion T, Friar J. 2014. The role of cross-national knowledge on organizational ambidexterity: acase of the global pharmaceutical industry. ManagementLearning 45(4): 458–476.
Dunning JH. 1998. Location and the multinational enter-prise: a neglected factor? Journal of International Busi-ness Studies 29(1): 45–66.
Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA. 2011a. The evolving field oforganizational learning and knowledge management. InHandbook of Organizational Learning & KnowledgeManagement, Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (eds). Wiley:Chichester, U.K.
Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA. 2011b. In praise of organi-zational forgetting. Journal of Management Inquiry20(3): 311–316.
*Egelhoff WG. 2010. How the parent adds value to anMNC. Management International Review 50(4): 413–431.
*Eisenberg J, Lee HJ, Brück F, Brenner B, Claes MT,Mironski J, Bell R. 2013. Can business schools makestudents culturally competent? Effects of cross-culturalmanagement courses on cultural intelligence. Academyof Management Learning & Education 12(4): 603–621.
*Elango B, Pattnaik C. 2011. Learning before making thebig leap: acquisition strategies of emerging market firms.Management International Review 51(4): 461–481.
*Elliott C, Robinson S. 2012. MBA imaginaries: projectionsof internationalization. Management Learning 43(2):157–181.
Erkelens R, Van den Hooff B, Huysman MH, Vlaar P. 2015.Learning from locally embedded knowledge: facilitatingorganizational learning in geographically dispersed set-tings. Global Strategy Journal 5(2): this issue.
*Fang E. 2011. The effect of strategic alliance knowledgecomplementarity on new product innovativeness inChina. Organization Science 22(1): 158–172.
*Fang E, Zou S. 2010. The effects of absorptive and jointlearning on the instability of international joint venturesin emerging economies. Journal of International Busi-ness Studies 41(5): 906–924.
*Farquharson M, Örtenblad A, Hsu SW. 2014. Trustinglocal translation: experiences from transplanting a ‘Madein Britain’ entrepreneurship course in China. Manage-ment Learning 45(2): 182–199.
Fiol CM, Lyles MA. 1985. Organizational learning.Academy of Management Review 10(4): 803–813.
*Ganotakis P, Love JH. 2012. Export propensity, exportintensity, and firm performance: the role of the entrepre-neurial founding team. Journal of International BusinessStudies 43(8): 693–718.
*Gao GY, Pan Y. 2010. The pace of MNEs’ sequentialentries: cumulative entry experience and the dynamicprocess. Journal of International Business Studies 41(9):1572–1580.
*Ghauri PN, Park BI. 2012. The impact of turbulent eventson knowledge acquisition. Management InternationalReview 52(2): 293–315.
*Giarratana MS, Marian M. 2014. The relationship betweenknowledge sourcing and fear of imitation. Strategic Man-agement Journal 35(8): 1144–1163.
*Goerzen A, Sapp S, Delios A. 2010. Investor response toenvironmental risk in foreign direct investment. Manage-ment International Review 50(6): 683–708.
*Golovko E, Valentini G. 2014. Selective learning-by-exporting: firm size and product versus process innova-tion. Global Strategy Journal 4(3): 161–180.
Grant RM, Baden-Fuller C. 2004. A knowledge accessingtheory of strategic alliances. Journal of ManagementStudies 41(1): 61–84.
*Gu Q, Lu JW. 2011. Effects of inward investment onoutward investment: the venture capital industry world-wide, 1985–2007. Journal of International BusinessStudies 42(2): 263–284.
*Gubbi SR, Aulak PS, Ray S, Sarkar MB, Chittoor R. 2010.Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firmscreate shareholder value? The case of Indian firms.Journal of International Business Studies 41(3): 397–418.
*Guler I, Guillén MF. 2010. Institutions and the internation-alization of U.S. venture capital firms. Journal of Inter-national Business Studies 41(2): 185–205.
*Haas MR. 2010. The double-edged swords of autonomyand external knowledge: analyzing team effectiveness ina multinational organization. Academy of ManagementJournal 53(5): 989–1008.
*Haas MR, Cummings JN. 2014. Barriers to knowledgeseeking within MNC teams: which differences matter
most? Journal of International Business Studies 45(1):1–27.
*Hagen B, Zucchella A. 2014. Born global or born to run?The long-term growth of born global firms. ManagementInternational Review 54(4): 497–525.
Hamel G. 1991. Competition for competence andinterpartner learning within international strategic alli-ances. Strategic Management Journal, Summer SpecialIssue 12: 83–103.
*Hashai N. 2011. Sequencing the expansion of geographicscope and foreign operations by ‘born global’ firms.Journal of International Business Studies 42(8): 995–1015.
*Hashai N, Asmussen CG, Benito GRG, Petersen B. 2010.Technological knowledge intensity and entry mode diver-sity. Management International Review 50(6): 659–681.
Herrigel G, Wittke V, Voskamp U. 2013. The process ofChinese manufacturing upgrading: transitioning fromunilateral to recursive mutual learning relations. GlobalStrategy Journal 3(1): 109–125.
Heyden MLM, Oehmichen J, Nichting S, Volberda H. 2015.Board background heterogeneity and exploration-exploitation orientation: the role of the institutionallyadopted board model. Global Strategy Journal 5(2): thisissue.
*Hoang H, Rothaermel FT. 2010. Leveraging internal andexternal experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&Dproject performance. Strategic Management Journal31(7): 734–758.
Hofstede G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: InternationalDifferences in Work-Related Values. SAGE Publications:Beverly Hills, CA.
*Holland W, Salama A. 2010. Organisational learningthrough international M&A integration strategies. TheLearning Organization 17(3): 268–283.
Hotho JJ, Becker-Ritterspach F, Saka-Helmhout A. 2012.Enriching absorptive capacity through social interaction.British Journal of Management 23(3): 383–401.
*Hotho JJ, Saka-Helmhout A, Becker-Ritterspach F. 2014.Bringing context and structure back into situated learn-ing. Management Learning 45(1): 57–80.
*Huang X, Rode JC, Schroeder RG. 2011. Organizationalstructure and continuous improvement and learning:moderating effects of cultural endorsement of participa-tive leadership. Journal of International Business Studies42(9): 1103–1120.
*Hutzschenreuter T, Lewin AY, Dresel S. 2011. Time tosuccess in offshoring business processes: a multi levelanalysis. Management International Review 51(1):65–92.
Hydle KM, Kvålshaugen R, Breunig KJ. 2013. Transna-tional practices in communities of task and communitiesof learning. Management Learning 45(5): 609–629.
Johanson J, Vahlne J-E. 1990. The mechanism ofinternationalisation. International Marketing Review7(4): 11–24.
*Jonsson A, Foss NJ. 2011. International expansion throughflexible replication: learning from the internationalizationexperience of IKEA. Journal of International BusinessStudies 42(9): 1079–1102.
*Jung JC, Beamish PW, Goerzen A. 2010. Dynamics ofexperience, environment, and MNE ownership strategy.Management International Review 50(3): 267–296.
Kane AA, Argote L, Levine JM. 2005. Knowledge transferbetween groups via personnel rotation: effects of socialidentity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes 96(1): 56–71.
Kane GC, Alavi M. 2007. Information technology and orga-nizational learning: an investigation of exploration andexploitation processes. Organization Science 18(5): 796–812.
*Kapoor R, Adner R. 2012. What firms make vs. what theyknow: how firms’ production and knowledge boundariesaffect competitive advantage in the face of technologicalchange. Organization Science 23(5): 1227–1248.
Kauppila OP, Rajala R, Jyrämä A. 2011. Knowledgesharing through virtual teams across borders and bound-aries. Management Learning 42(4): 395–418.
*Kedia B, Gaffney N, Clampit J. 2012. EMNEs and knowl-edge seeking FDI. Management International Review52(2): 155–173.
Kim JU, Aguilera RV. 2015. The world is spiky: an inter-nationalization framework for a semi-globalized world.Global Strategy Journal 5(2): this issue.
*Kim M. 2013. Many roads lead to Rome: implications ofgeographic scope as a source of isolating mechanisms.Journal of International Business Studies 44(9): 898–921.
*Kim YC, Lu JW, Rhee M. 2012. Learning from age dif-ference: interorganizational learning and survival in Japa-nese foreign subsidiaries. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 43(8): 719–745.
Kogut B, Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm,combinative capabilities, and the replication of technol-ogy. Organization Science 3(3): 383–397.
Kogut B, Zander U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and theevolutionary theory of the multinational corporation.Journal of International Business Studies 24(4): 625–645.
*Kotha S, Srikanth K. 2013. Managing a global partnershipmodel: lessons from the Boeing 787 ‘Dreamliner’program. Global Strategy Journal 3(1): 41–66.
*Lamb P, Currie G. 2012. Eclipsing adaptation: the trans-lation of the U.S. MBA model in China. ManagementLearning 43(2): 217–230.
*Lamin A, Livanis G. 2013. Agglomeration, catch-up, andthe liability of foreignness in emerging economies.Journal of International Business Studies 44(6): 579–606.
*Laursen K, Masciarelli F, Prencipe A. 2012. Trapped orspurred by the home region? The effects of potentialsocial capital on involvement in foreign markets for
goods and technology. Journal of International BusinessStudies 43(9): 783–807.
Lawrence TB, Mauws MK, Dyck B, Kleysen RF. 2005. Thepolitics of organizational learning: integrating power intothe 4I framework. Academy of Management Review30(1): 180–191.
*Lederman D. 2010. An international multilevel analysis ofproduct innovation. Journal of International BusinessStudies 41(4): 606–619.
*Levine SS, Prietula MJ. 2012. How knowledge transferimpacts performance: a multilevel model of benefits andliabilities. Organization Science 23(6): 1748–1766.
Levinthal DA, March JG. 2007. The myopia of learning.Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 14:95–112.
Levitt B, March JG. 1988. Organizational learning. AnnualReview of Sociology 14: 319–340.
*Li F, Eden L, Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Garrett RP. 2012a.Governance in multilateral R&D alliances. OrganizationScience 23(4): 1191–1210.
*Li J, Li Y, Shapiro D. 2012b. Knowledge seeking andoutward FDI of emerging market firms: the moderatingeffect of inward FDI. Global Strategy Journal 2(4): 277–295.
*Li JJ, Poppo L, Zhou KZ. 2010. Relational mechanism,formal contracts, and local knowledge acquisition byinternational subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal31(4): 349–370.
*Li M, Mobley W, Kelly A. 2012c. When do global leaderslearn best to develop cultural intelligence? An investiga-tion of the moderating role of experiential learning style.Academy of Management Learning & Education 12(1):32–50.
*Liu CL. 2012. Knowledge mobility in cross-border buyer-supplier relationships. Management International Review52(2): 275–291.
*Liu X, Lu J, Choi SJ. 2014. Bridging knowledge gaps:returnees and reverse knowledge spillovers from Chineselocal firms to foreign firms. Management InternationalReview 54(2): 253–276.
*Lu J, Liu X, Wright M, Filatotchev I. 2014. Internationalexperience and FDI location choices of Chinese firms: themoderating effects of home country government supportand host country institutions. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 45(4): 428–449.
Luo Y, Peng MW. 1999. Learning to compete in a transitioneconomy: experience, environment, and performance.Journal of International Business Studies 30(2): 268–295.
Lyles MA, Salk JE. 1996. Knowledge acquisition fromforeign parents in international joint ventures: an empiri-cal examination in the Hungarian context. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 27(5): 877–903.
*Malhotra N, Hinings CR. 2010. An organizational modelfor understanding internationalization processes. Journalof International Business Studies 41(2): 330–349.
March JG. 2010. The Ambiguities of Experience. CornellUniversity Press: Ithaca, NY.
*Mitchell R, Boyle B, Nicholas S. 2011. Cross-culturalgroup performance. The Learning Organization 18(2):94–101.
*Mor S, Morris M, Joh J. 2013. Identifying and trainingadaptive cross-cultural management skills: the crucialrole of cultural metacognition. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education 12(3): 453–475.
*Morris S, Hammond R, Snell S. 2014. A micro-foundation’s approach to transnational capabilities: therole of knowledge search in an ever-changing world.Journal of International Business Studies 45(4): 405–427.
*Mulotte L. 2014. Do experience effects vary across gover-nance modes? Evidence from new product introduction inthe global aircraft industry, 1948–2000. OrganizationScience 25(3): 757–775.
Nachum L. 2012. Global comparative strategy. GlobalStrategy Journal 2(1): 92–95.
*Nachum L, Song S. 2011. The MNE as a portfolio: inter-dependencies in MNE growth trajectory. Journal of Inter-national Business Studies 42(3): 381–405.
*Nadolska A, Barkema HG. 2014. Good learners: how topmanagement teams affect the success and frequency ofacquisitions. Strategic Management Journal 35(10):1483–1507.
*Najafi-Tavani Z, Giroud A, Sinkovics RR. 2012. Mediat-ing effects in reverse knowledge transfer processes: thecase of knowledge-intensive services in the U.K. Man-agement International Review 52(3): 461–488.
*Nielsen S. 2010. Top management team internationaliza-tion and firm performance: the mediating role of foreignmarket entry. Management International Review 50(2):185–206.
*Nieto MJ, Rodríguez A. 2011. Offshoring of R&D: lookingabroad to improve innovation performance. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 42(3): 345–361.
Noorderhaven N, Harzing AW. 2009. Knowledge-sharingand social interaction within MNEs. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 40(5): 719–741.
North D. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Eco-nomic Performance. Cambridge University Press: NewYork.
*Oetzel JM, Oh CH. 2014. Learning to carry the cat by thetail: firm experience, disasters, and multinational subsid-iary entry and expansion. Organization Science 25(3):732–756.
*Oxelheim L, Gregoric A, Randøy T, Thomsen S. 2013. Onthe internationalization of corporate boards: the case ofNordic firms. Journal of International Business Studies44(3): 173–194.
*Peltokorpi V, Vaara E. 2014. Knowledge transfer in mul-tinational corporations: productive and counterproductiveeffects of language-sensitive recruitment. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 45(5): 600–622.
Penrose ET. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm.John Wiley: New York.
*Perez-Aleman P. 2011. Collective learning in globaldiffusion: spreading quality standards in a developingcountry cluster. Organization Science 22(1): 173–189.
*Phene A, Tallman S. 2012. Complexity, context, and gov-ernance in technology alliances. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 43(1): 61–83.
*Pless NM, Maak T, Stahl GK. 2011. Developing respon-sible global leaders through international service-learningprograms: the Ulysses experience. Academy of Manage-ment Learning & Education 10(2): 237–260.
Polanyi M. 1958. Personal Knowledge. University ofChicago Press: Chicago, IL.
*Prashantham S, Floyd SW. 2012. Routine microprocessesand capability learning in international new ventures.Journal of International Business Studies 43(6): 544–562.
*Rabbiosi L, Elia S, Bertoni F. 2012. Acquisitions byEMNCs in developed markets: an organizational learningperspective. Management International Review 52(2):193–212.
Ren Y, Argote L. 2011. Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: an integrative framework of key dimensions, ante-cedents, and consequences. Academy of ManagementAnnals 5(1): 189–229.
*Retna KS, Jones D. 2013. The ‘learning organization’ andSingapore culture. The Learning Organization 20(4/5):338–351.
Roth K, Kostova T. 2003. The use of the multinationalcorporation as a research context. Journal of Manage-ment 29(6): 883–902.
Rugman AM, Verbeke A. 2003. Extending the theory of themultinational enterprise: internalization and strategicmanagement perspectives. Journal of International Busi-ness Studies 34(2): 125–137.
Saka-Helmhout A. 2009. Agency-based view of learningwithin the multinational corporation. ManagementLearning 40(3): 259–274.
*Salomon R, Byungchae J. 2010. Do leading or laggingfirms learn more from exporting? Strategic ManagementJournal 31(10): 1088–1113.
Salomon R, Shaver JM. 2005. Learning by exporting:new insights from examining firm innovation. Journalof Economics & Management Strategy 14(2): 431–460.
*Salomon R, Wu Z. 2012. Institutional distance and localisomorphism strategy. Journal of International BusinessStudies 43(4): 343–367.
*Santangelo GD, Meyer KE. 2011. Extending the interna-tionalization process model: increases and decreases ofMNE commitment in emerging economies. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 42(7): 894–909.
*Sarala RM, Vaara E. 2010. Cultural differences, conver-gence, and cross-vergence as explanations of knowledgetransfer in international acquisitions. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 41(8): 1365–1390.
*Sarkar MB. 2011. Moving forward by going in reverse:emerging trends in global innovation and knowledgestrategies. Global Strategy Journal 1(3/4): 237–242.
*Sartor MA, Beamish PW. 2014. Offshoring innovation toemerging markets: organizational control and informalinstitutional distance. Journal of International BusinessStudies 45(9): 1072–1095.
*Schleimer SC, Pedersen T. 2014. The effects of MNCparent effort and social structure on subsidiary absorptivecapacity. Journal of International Business Studies 45(3):303–320.
*Sui S, Baum M. 2014. Internationalization strategy, firmresources, and the survival of SMEs in the export market.Journal of International Business Studies 45(7): 821–841.
*Surroca J, Tribó JA, Zahra SA. 2013. Stakeholder pressureon MNEs and the transfer of socially irresponsible prac-tices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal56(2): 549–572.
*Szkudlarek B, McNett J, Romani L, Lane H. 2013. Thepast, present, and future of cross-cultural managementeducation: the educators’ perspective. Academy of Man-agement Learning & Education 12(3): 477–493.
*Takeda MB, Helms MM. 2010. Globally sustainable man-agement: a dynamic model of IHRM learning andcontrol. The Learning Organization 17(2): 133–148.
Tallman S, Chacar AS. 2011. Knowledge accumulation anddissemination in MNEs: a practice-based framework.Journal of Management Studies 48(2): 278–304.
*Tan D, Meyer KE. 2011. Country-of-origin and industryFDI agglomeration of foreign investors in an emergingeconomy. Journal of International Business Studies42(4): 504–520.
Tavcar MI, Dermol V. 2012. Global SMEs’ strategy. Inter-national Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learn-ing 1(1): 109–123.
Taylor S, Osland JS. 2011. The impact of intercultural com-munication on global organizational learning. InHandbook of Organizational Learning & KnowledgeManagement, Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (eds). Wiley:Chichester, U.K.; 581–604.
Teece DJ, Al-Aali A. 2011. Knowledge assets, capabilities,and the theory of the firm. In Handbook of Organiza-tional Learning & Knowledge Management, Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (eds). Wiley: Chichester, U.K.; 505–534.
*Tippmann E, Scott PS, Mangematin V. 2012. Problemsolving in MNCs: how local and global solutions are (andare not) created. Journal of International BusinessStudies 43(8): 746–771.
*Tran Y, Mahnke V, Ambos B. 2010. The effect of quantity,quality, and timing of headquarters-initiated knowledge
flows on subsidiary performance. Management Interna-tional Review 50(4): 493–511.
Tsang EW, Kwan KM. 1999. Replication and theory devel-opment in organizational science: a critical realist per-spective. Academy of Management Review 24(4): 759–780.
Tsang EWK, Zahra SA. 2008. Organizational unlearning.Human Relations 61(10): 1435–1462.
Tsui A. 2004. Contributing to global management knowl-edge: a case for high quality indigenous research. AsiaPacific Journal of Management 21: 491–513.
*Tuschke A, Sanders WG, Hernandez E. 2014. Whoseexperience matters in the boardroom? The effects ofexperiential and vicarious learning on emerging marketentry. Strategic Management Journal 35(3): 398–418.
Tvedten K, Hansen MW, Jeppesen S. 2014. Understandingthe rise of African business: in search of business per-spectives on African enterprise development. AfricanJournal of Economic and Management Studies 5(3):249–268.
*Vaara E, Sarala R, Stahl GK, Björkman I. 2012. The impactof organizational and national cultural differences onsocial conflict and knowledge transfer in internationalacquisitions. Journal of Management Studies 49(1): 1–27.
*Vahlne JE, Ivarsson I. 2014. The globalization of SwedishMNEs: empirical evidence and theoretical explanations.Journal of International Business Studies 45(3): 227–247.
*Vasudeva G, Spencer JW, Teegen HJ. 2013. Bringing theinstitutional context back in: a cross-national comparisonof alliance partner selection and knowledge acquisition.Organization Science 24(2): 319–338.
*Verbeke A, Bachor V, Nguyen B. 2013. Procedural justice,not absorptive capacity, matters in multinational enter-prise ICT transfers. Management International Review53(4): 535–554.
Volberda HW, Foss NJ, Lyles MA. 2010. Absorbing theconcept of absorptive capacity: how to realize its poten-tial in the organization field. Organization Science 21:931–951.
*Wagner S, Hoisl F, Thoma G. 2014. Overcoming localiza-tion of knowledge: the role of professional service firms.Strategic Management Journal 35(11): 1671–1688.
Walsh IJ, Bhatt M, Bartunek J. 2009. Organizational knowl-edge creation in a Chinese context. Management andOrganization Review 5(2): 261–278.
*Wedlin L. 2011. Going global: rankings as rhetoricaldevices to construct an international field of managementeducation. Management Learning 42(2): 199–218.
Whetten DA. 2009. An examination of the interfacebetween context and theory applied to the study ofChinese organizations. Management and OrganizationReview 5(1): 29–55.
*Wu J. 2013. Diverse institutional environments andproduct innovation of emerging market firms. Manage-ment International Review 53(1): 39–59.
*Yamin M, Tsai HJ, Holm U. 2011. The performance effectsof headquarters’ involvement in lateral innovation trans-fers in multinational corporations. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 51(2): 157–177.
*Yaprak A, Xu S, Cavusgil E. 2011. Effective global strat-egy implementation: structural and process choices facili-tating global integration and coordination. ManagementInternational Review 51(2): 179–192.
Zaheer S, Nachum L. 2011. Sense of place: from locationresources to MNE locational capital. Global StrategyJournal 1(1/2): 96–108.
Zahra S, Ireland RD, Hitt MA. 2000. International expan-sion by new venture firms: international diversity, modeof market entry, technological learning, and performance.Academy of Management Journal 43(5): 925–950.
*Zeng Y, Shenkar O, Lee SH, Song S. 2013. Cultural dif-ferences, MNE learning abilities, and the effect of expe-rience on subsidiary mortality in a dissimilar culture:evidence from Korean MNEs. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 44(1): 42–65.
*Zhang Y, Li H, Li Y, Zhou L. 2010. FDI spillovers in anemerging market: the role of foreign firms’ country origindiversity and domestic firms’ absorptive capacity. Strate-gic Management Journal 31(9): 969–989.
*Zhang YA, Li Y, Li H. 2014. FDI spillovers over time in anemerging market: the roles of entry tenure and barriers toimitation. Academy of Management Journal 57(3): 698–722.
*Zhao M, Park SH, Zhou N. 2014. MNC strategy and socialadaptation in emerging markets. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 45(7): 842–861.
*Zhou L, Barnes BR, Lu Y. 2010. Entrepreneurial procliv-ity, capability upgrading, and performance advantage ofnewness among international new ventures. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 41(5): 882–905.
APPENDIX I
Articles included in our review of globalstrategy and general management journals,2010–2014 (AMJ, GSJ, JIBS, JMS, MIR,OS, SMJ)
Alcácer J, Dezsö C, Zhao M. 2013. Firm rivalry,knowledge accumulation, and MNE locationchoices. Journal of International Business Studies44: 504–520.
Alcácer J, Oxley J. 2014. Learning by supplying.Strategic Management Journal 35(2): 204–223.
Ambos TC, Nell PC, Pedersen T. 2013. Combiningstocks and flows of knowledge: the effects of intra-functional and cross-functional complementarity.Global Strategy Journal 3(4): 283–299.
Anand J. 2011. Permeability to inter- and intra-firmknowledge flows: the role of coordination andhierarchy in MNEs. Global Strategy Journal 1(3/4): 283–300.
Arikan I, Shenkar O. 2013. National animosity andcross-border alliances. Academy of ManagementJournal 56(6): 1516–1544.
Banalieva ER, Sarathy R. 2010. The impact ofregional trade agreements on the global orienta-tion of emerging market multinationals. Manage-ment International Review 50(6): 797–826.
Bass AE, Chakrabarty S. 2014. Resource security:competition for global resources, strategic intent,and governments as owners. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 45(8): 961–979.
Belderbos R, Olffen WV, Zou J. 2011. Generic andspecific social learning mechanisms in foreignentry location choice. Strategic ManagementJournal 32(12): 1309–1330.
Berry H. 2014. Global integration and innovation:multicountry knowledge generation within MNCs.Strategic Management Journal 35(6): 869–890.
Boehe DM. 2010. Captive offshoring of new productdevelopment in Brazil: how does arbitrage influ-ence local, collaborative relationships? Manage-ment International Review 50(6): 747–773.
Brannen MY, Voisey CJ. 2012. Global strategy for-mulation and learning from the field: three modesof comparative learning and a case illustration.Global Strategy Journal 2(1): 51–70.
Cantwell JA, Mudambi R. 2011. Physical attractionand the geography of knowledge sourcing in mul-tinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal1(3/4): 206–232.
Casillas JC, Moreno-Menéndez AM. 2014. Speed ofthe internationalization process: the role of diver-sity and depth in experiential learning. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 45(1): 85–101.
Chang YY, Gong Y, Peng MW. 2012. Expatriateknowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capac-ity, and subsidiary performance. Academy of Man-agement Journal 55(4): 927–948.
Cheung MS, Myers MB, Mentzer JT. 2011. Thevalue of relational learning in global buyer-supplier exchanges: a dyadic perspective and testof the pie-sharing premise. Strategic ManagementJournal 32(10): 1061–1082.
Chung L. 2014. Headquarters’ managerial intention-ality and reverse transfer of practices. Manage-ment International Review 54(2): 225–252.
Ciabuschi F, Dellestrand H, Kappen P. 2011. Explor-ing the effects of vertical and lateral mechanisms
in international knowledge transfer projects. Man-agement International Review 51(2): 129–155.
Corredoira RA, McDermott GA. 2014. Adaptation,bridging, and firm upgrading: how non-marketinstitutions and MNCs facilitate knowledgerecombination in emerging markets. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 45(6): 699–722.
Danis WM, Chiaburu DS, Lyles MA. 2010. Theimpact of managerial networking intensity andmarket-based strategies on firm growth duringinstitutional upheaval: a study of small andmedium-sized enterprises in a transition economy.Journal of International Business Studies 41(2):287–307.
Dikova D, Rao Sahib P, Van Witteloostuijn A. 2010.Cross-border acquisition abandonment andcompletion: the effect of institutional differencesand organizational learning in the internationalbusiness service industry, 1981–2001. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 41(2): 223–245.
Dou W, Li H, Zhou N, Su C. 2010. Exploring rela-tionship satisfaction between global professionalservice firms and local clients in emergingmarkets. Journal of International Business Studies41(7): 1198–1217.
Dow D, Larimo J. 2011. Disentangling the roles ofinternational experience and distance in establish-ment mode choice. Management InternationalReview 51(3): 321–355.
Egelhoff WG. 2010. How the parent adds value to anMNC. Management International Review 50(4):413–431.
Elango B, Pattnaik C. 2011. Learning before makingthe big leap: acquisition strategies of emergingmarket firms. Management International Review51(4): 461–481.
Fang E. 2011. The effect of strategic allianceknowledge complementarity on new productinnovativeness in China. Organization Science22(1): 158–172.
Fang E, Zou S. 2010. The effects of absorptive andjoint learning on the instability of internationaljoint ventures in emerging economies. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 41(5): 906–924.
Ganotakis P, Love JH. 2012. Export propensity,export intensity, and firm performance: the role ofthe entrepreneurial founding team. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 43(8): 693–718.
Gao GY, Pan Y. 2010. The pace of MNEs’ sequentialentries: cumulative entry experience and thedynamic process. Journal of International Busi-ness Studies 41(9): 1572–1580.
Ghauri PN, Park BI. 2012. The impact of turbulentevents on knowledge acquisition. ManagementInternational Review 52(2): 293–315.
Giarratana MS, Marian M. 2014. The relationshipbetween knowledge sourcing and fear of imitation.Strategic Management Journal 35(8): 1144–1163.
Goerzen A, Sapp S, Delios A. 2010. Investorresponse to environmental risk in foreign directinvestment. Management International Review50(6): 683–708.
Golovko E, Valentini G. 2014. Selective learning-by-exporting: firm size and product versus processinnovation. Global Strategy Journal 4(3): 161–180.
Gu Q, Lu JW. 2011. Effects of inward investment onoutward investment: the venture capital industryworldwide 1985–2007. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 42(2): 263–284.
Gubbi SR, Aulak PS, Ray S, Sarkar MB, Chittoor R.2010. Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firms create shareholder value? The caseof Indian firms. Journal of International BusinessStudies 41(3): 397–418.
Guler I, Guillén MF. 2010. Institutions and the inter-nationalization of U.S. venture capital firms.Journal of International Business Studies 41(2):185–205.
Haas MR. 2010. The double-edged swords ofautonomy and external knowledge: analyzingteam effectiveness in a multinational organization.Academy of Management Journal 53(5): 989–1008.
Haas MR, Cummings JN. 2014. Barriers to knowl-edge seeking within MNC teams: which differ-ences matter most? Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 45(1): 1–27.
Hagen B, Zucchella A. 2014. Born global or born torun? The long-term growth of born global firms.Management International Review 54(4): 497–525.
Hashai N. 2011. Sequencing the expansion of geo-graphic scope and foreign operations by ‘bornglobal’ firms. Journal of International BusinessStudies 42(8): 995–1015.
Huang X, Rode JC, Schroeder RG. 2011. Organiza-tional structure and continuous improvement andlearning: moderating effects of cultural endorse-ment of participative leadership. Journal of Inter-national Business Studies 42(9): 1103–1120.
Hutzschenreuter T, Lewin AY, Dresel S. 2011. Timeto success in offshoring business processes: amulti level analysis. Management InternationalReview 51(1): 65–92.
Jonsson A, Foss NJ. 2011. International expansionthrough flexible replication: learning from theinternationalization experience of IKEA. Journalof International Business Studies 42(9): 1079–1102.
Jung JC, Beamish PW, Goerzen A. 2010. Dynamicsof experience, environment, and MNE ownershipstrategy. Management International Review 50(3):267–296.
Kapoor R, Adner R. 2012. What firms make vs. whatthey know: how firms’ production and knowledgeboundaries affect competitive advantage in theface of technological change. OrganizationScience 23(5): 1227–1248.
Kedia B, Gaffney N, Clampit J. 2012. EMNEs andknowledge seeking FDI. Management Interna-tional Review 52(2): 155–173.
Kim M. 2013. Many roads lead to Rome: implica-tions of geographic scope as a source of isolatingmechanisms. Journal of International BusinessStudies 44(9): 898–921.
Kim YC, Lu JW, Rhee M. 2012. Learning from agedifference: interorganizational learning and sur-vival in Japanese foreign subsidiaries. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 43(8): 719–745.
Kotha S, Srikanth K. 2013. Managing a global part-nership model: lessons from the Boeing 787‘Dreamliner’ program. Global Strategy Journal3(1): 41–66.
Lamin A, Livanis G. 2013. Agglomeration, catch-up,and the liability of foreignness in emerging econo-mies. Journal of International Business Studies44(6): 579–606.
Laursen K, Masciarelli F, Prencipe A. 2012. Trappedor spurred by the home region? The effects ofpotential social capital on involvement in foreignmarkets for goods and technology. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 43(9): 783–807.
Lederman D. 2010. An international multilevelanalysis of product innovation. Journal of Inter-national Business Studies 41(4): 606–619.
Levine SS, Prietula MJ. 2012. How knowledgetransfer impacts performance: a multilevel model
of benefits and liabilities. Organization Science23(6): 1748–1766.
Li F, Eden L, Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Garrett RP. 2012.Governance in multilateral R&D alliances. Orga-nization Science 23(4): 1191–1210.
Li J, Li Y, Shapiro D. 2012. Knowledge seeking andoutward FDI of emerging market firms: the mod-erating effect of inward FDI. Global StrategyJournal 2(4): 277–295.
Li JJ, Poppo L, Zhou KZ. 2010. Relational mecha-nism, formal contracts, and local knowledgeacquisition by international subsidiaries. StrategicManagement Journal 31(4): 349–370.
Liu CL. 2012. Knowledge mobility in cross-borderbuyer-supplier relationships. Management Inter-national Review 52(2): 275–291.
Liu X, Lu J, Choi SJ. 2014. Bridging knowledgegaps: returnees and reverse knowledge spilloversfrom Chinese local firms to foreign firms. Man-agement International Review 54(2): 253–276.
Lu J, Liu X, Wright M, Filatotchev I. 2014. Interna-tional experience and FDI location choices ofChinese firms: the moderating effects of homecountry government support and host countryinstitutions. Journal of International BusinessStudies 45(4): 428–449.
Malhotra N, Hinings CR. 2010. An organizationalmodel for understanding internationalization pro-cesses. Journal of International Business Studies41(2): 330–349.
Morris S, Hammond R, Snell S. 2014. A micro-foundation’s approach to transnational capabili-ties: the role of knowledge search in an ever-changing world. Journal of International BusinessStudies 45(4): 405–427.
Mulotte L. 2014. Do experience effects vary acrossgovernance modes? Evidence from new productintroduction in the global aircraft industry, 1948–2000. Organization Science 25(3): 757–775.
Nachum L, Song S. 2011. The MNE as a portfolio:interdependencies in MNE growth trajectory.Journal of International Business Studies 42(3):381–405.
Nadolska A, Barkema HG. 2014. Good learners:how top management teams affect the success andfrequency of acquisitions. Strategic ManagementJournal 35(10): 1483–1507.
Najafi-Tavani Z, Giroud A, Sinkovics RR. 2012.Mediating effects in reverse knowledge transferprocesses: the case of knowledge-intensive ser-vices in the U.K. Management InternationalReview 52(3): 461–488.
Nielsen S. 2010. Top management team internation-alization and firm performance: the mediating roleof foreign market entry. Management Interna-tional Review 50(2): 185–206.
Nieto MJ, Rodríguez A. 2011. Offshoring of R&D:looking abroad to improve innovation perfor-mance. Journal of International Business Studies42(3): 345–361.
Oetzel JM, Oh CH. 2014. Learning to carry the catby the tail: firm experience, disasters, and multi-national subsidiary entry and expansion. Organi-zation Science 25(3): 732–756.
Oxelheim L, Gregoric A, Randøy T, Thomsen S.2013. On the internationalization of corporateboards: the case of Nordic firms. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 44(3): 173–194.
Peltokorpi V, Vaara E. 2014. Knowledge transfer inmultinational corporations: productive and coun-terproductive effects of language-sensitive recruit-ment. Journal of International Business Studies45(5): 600–622.
Perez-Aleman P. 2014. Collective learning in globaldiffusion: spreading quality standards in a devel-oping country cluster. Organization Science 22(1):173–189.
Phene A, Tallman S. 2012. Complexity, context, andgovernance in technology alliances. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 43(1): 61–83.
Prashantham S, Floyd SW. 2012. Routine micro-processes and capability learning in internationalnew ventures. Journal of International BusinessStudies 43(6): 544–562.
Rabbiosi L, Elia S, Bertoni F. 2012. Acquisitions byEMNCs in developed markets: an organizationallearning perspective. Management InternationalReview 52(2): 193–212.
Salomon R, Byungchae J. 2010. Do leading orlagging firms learn more from exporting?Strategic Management Journal 31(10): 1088–1113.
Salomon R, Wu Z. 2012. Institutional distance andlocal isomorphism strategy. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 43(4): 343–367.
Santangelo GD, Meyer KE. 2011. Extending theinternationalization process model: increases anddecreases of MNE commitment in emergingeconomies. Journal of International BusinessStudies 42(7): 894–909.
Sarala RM, Vaara E. 2010. Cultural differences, con-vergence, and cross-vergence as explanations ofknowledge transfer in international acquisitions.Journal of International Business Studies 41(8):1365–1390.
Sarkar MB. 2011. Moving forward by going inreverse: emerging trends in global innovation andknowledge strategies. Global Strategy Journal1(3/4): 237–242.
Sartor MA, Beamish PW. 2014. Offshoring innova-tion to emerging markets: organizational controland informal institutional distance. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 45(9): 1072–1095.
Schleimer SC, Pedersen T. 2014. The effects ofMNC parent effort and social structure on subsid-iary absorptive capacity. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 45(3): 303–320.
Sui S, Baum M. 2014. Internationalization strategy,firm resources, and the survival of SMEs in theexport market. Journal of International BusinessStudies 45(7): 821–841.
Surroca J, Tribó JA, Zahra SA. 2013. Stakeholderpressure on MNEs and the transfer of sociallyirresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy ofManagement Journal 56(2): 549–572.
Tan D, Meyer KE. 2011. Country-of-origin andindustry FDI agglomeration of foreign investors inan emerging economy. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 42(4): 504–520.
Tippmann E, Scott PS, Mangematin V. 2012.Problem solving in MNCs: how local and globalsolutions are (and are not) created. Journalof International Business Studies 43(8): 746–771.
Tran Y, Mahnke V, Ambos B. 2010. The effect ofquantity, quality, and timing of headquarters-initiated knowledge flows on subsidiary perfor-mance. Management International Review 50(4):493–511.
Tuschke A, Sanders WG, Hernandez E. 2014. Whoseexperience matters in the boardroom? The effectsof experiential and vicarious learning on emergingmarket entry. Strategic Management Journal35(3): 398–418.
Vaara E, Sarala R, Stahl GK, Björkman I. 2012. Theimpact of organizational and national cultural dif-ferences on social conflict and knowledge transferin international acquisitions. Journal of Manage-ment Studies 49(1): 1–27.
Vahlne JE, Ivarsson I. 2014. The globalization ofSwedish MNEs: empirical evidence and theoreti-
cal explanations. Journal of International Busi-ness Studies 45(3): 227–247.
Vasudeva G, Spencer JW, Teegen HJ. 2013. Bringingthe institutional context back in: a cross-nationalcomparison of alliance partner selection andknowledge acquisition. Organization Science24(2): 319–338.
Verbeke A, Bachor V, Nguyen B. 2013. Proceduraljustice, not absorptive capacity, matters in multi-national enterprise ICT transfers. ManagementInternational Review 53(4): 535–554.
Wagner S, Hoisl F, Thoma G. 2014. Overcominglocalization of knowledge: the role of professionalservice firms. Strategic Management Journal35(11): 1671–1688.
Wu J. 2013. Diverse institutional environments andproduct innovation of emerging market firms.Management International Review 53(1): 39–59.
Yamin M, Tsai HJ, Holm U. 2011. The performanceeffects of headquarters’ involvement in lateralinnovation transfers in multinational corporations.Journal of International Business Studies 51(2):157–177.
Yaprak A, Xu S, Cavusgil E. 2011. Effective globalstrategy implementation: structural and processchoices facilitating global integration and coordi-nation. Management International Review 51(2):179–192.
Zeng Y, Shenkar O, Lee SH, Song S. 2013. Culturaldifferences, MNE learning abilities, and the effectof experience on subsidiary mortality in a dissimi-lar culture: evidence from Korean MNEs. Journalof International Business Studies 44(1): 42–65.
Zhang Y, Li H, Li Y, Zhou L. 2010. FDI spillovers inan emerging market: the role of foreign firms’country origin diversity and domestic firms’absorptive capacity. Strategic ManagementJournal 31(9): 969–989.
ZhangYA, LiY, Li H. 2014. FDI spillovers over timein an emerging market: the roles of entry tenureand barriers to imitation. Academy of ManagementJournal 57(3): 698–722.
Zhao M, Park SH, Zhou N. 2014. MNC strategy andsocial adaptation in emerging markets. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 45(7): 842–861.
Zhou L, Barnes BR, Lu Y. 2010. Entrepreneurialproclivity, capability upgrading, and performanceadvantage of newness among international newventures. Journal of International BusinessStudies 41(5): 882–905.
APPENDIX II
Articles included in our review of organizationallearning journals, 2010–2014 (AMLE, ML, LO)
Cardeñosa J, Gallardo C. 2013. Managingmultilinguality in organizations. The LearningOrganization 20(6): 377–389.
Chen F, Bapuji H, Dyck B, Wang X. 2012. I learnedmore than I taught: the hidden dimension of learn-ing in intercultural knowledge transfer. The Learn-ing Organization 19(2): 109–120.
Dhanaraj C, Khanna T. 2011. Transforming mentalmodels on emerging markets. Academy of Man-agement Learning & Education 10(4): 684–701.
Doh JP. 2010. From the editors: why aren’t businessschools more global and what can managementeducators do about it? Academy of ManagementLearning & Education 9(2): 165–168.
Dunlap D, Marion T, Friar J. 2014. The role of cross-national knowledge on organizational ambidexter-ity: a case of the global pharmaceutical industry.Management Learning 45(4): 458–476.
Eisenberg J, Lee HJ, Brück F, Brenner B, Claes MT,Mironski J, Bell R. 2013. Can business schoolsmake students culturally competent? Effects ofcross-cultural management courses on culturalintelligence. Academy of Management Learning &Education 12(4): 603–621.
Elliott C, Robinson S. 2012. MBA imaginaries:projections of internationalization. ManagementLearning 43(2): 157–181.
Farquharson M, Örtenblad A, Hsu SW. 2014. Trust-ing local translation: experiences from transplant-ing a ‘Made in Britain’ entrepreneurship coursein China. Management Learning 45(2): 182–199.
Holland W, Salama A. 2010. Organisational learningthrough international M&A integration strategies.The Learning Organization 17(3): 268–283.
Hotho JJ, Saka-Helmhout A, Becker-Ritterspach F.2014. Bringing context and structure back intosituated learning. Management Learning 45(1):57–80.
Lamb P, Currie G. 2012. Eclipsing adaptation: thetranslation of the U.S. MBA model in China. Man-agement Learning 43(2): 217–230.
Li M, Mobley W, Kelly A. 2012. When do globalleaders learn best to develop cultural intelligence?An investigation of the moderating role of experi-ential learning style. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education 12(1): 32–50.
Mitchell R, Boyle B, Nicholas S. 2011. Cross-cultural group performance. The Learning Orga-nization 18(2): 94–101.
Mor S, Morris M, Joh J. 2013. Identifying and train-ing adaptive cross-cultural management skills: thecrucial role of cultural metacognition. Academy ofManagement Learning & Education 12(3): 453–475.
Pless NM, Maak T, Stahl GK. 2011. Developingresponsible global leaders through internationalservice-learning programs: the Ulysses experi-ence. Academy of Management Learning & Edu-cation 10(2): 237–260.
Retna KS, Jones D. 2013. The ‘learning organiza-tion’ and Singapore culture. The Learning Orga-nization 20(4/5): 338–351.
Szkudlarek B, McNett J, Romani L, Lane H. 2013.The past, present, and future of cross-culturalmanagement education: the educators’ perspec-tive. Academy of Management Learning & Educa-tion 12(3): 477–493.
Takeda MB, Helms MM. 2010. Globally sustainablemanagement: a dynamic model of IHRM learningand control. The Learning Organization 17(2):133–148.
Wedlin L. 2011. Going global: rankings as rhetoricaldevices to construct an international field of man-agement education. Management Learning 42(2):199–218.
