Overcoming Stickiness: How the Timing of Knowledge Transfer Methods Affects Transfer Difficulty

Abstract

Knowledge transfer can be facilitated through the judicious timing of transfer methods. Yet, extant research has neglected the impact of the timing of transfer methods. Departing from this observation, we theorize the existence of two knowledge transfer modes—“front-loading” and “back-loading”—based on whether the affordance for tacit knowledge exchange provided by the transfer methods used is higher during the initiation or during the implementation phase of a transfer. We suggest that the impact of front-loading and back-loading on transfer difficulty is contingent on the causal ambiguity of the knowledge being transferred and on the arduousness of the relationship between the source and the recipient of knowledge. We operationalize front-loading and back-loading and test our propositions using primary data on 2,711 instances of method use in 116 transfers of 37 organizational practices in 8 companies. We hypothesize and find empirical support for the claim that front-loading affordance for tacit knowledge exchange reduces transfer difficulty when the causal ambiguity of the knowledge to be transferred is high, whereas it increases difficulty when the relationship between the source and recipient of knowledge is arduous.

Practice Transfer in Organizations: The Role of Governance Mode for Internal and External Fit

“…First, the study unpacks the intriguing observation that transfer can be organized in different ways at the recipient unit, with important implications for the process. This extends previous research on transfer processes (D'Adderio 2014; Szulanski et al 2016), which has overlooked the importance of governance mode as a way of coordinating transfer. The study thus adds a meaningful explanatory factor for varying outcomes of transfer initiatives, going beyond dominant explanations in the literature, such as institutional differences (Kostova 1999) or internal 'stickiness' (Szulanski 1996).…”

“…This is a meaningful extension of our collective knowledge because it illustrates a critical yet so far overlooked dimension of how transfer processes can be organized and managed, going beyond specific tools and instruments (Szulanski et al 2016). Notably, it shifts the view on practice transfer from occurring predominantly between sender and receiver (Minbaeva 2007), such as between headquarters and subsidiaries, to focus attention on the activities and processes as they unfold at the recipient unit.…”

“…For example, Szulanski et al (2016) look at different transfer methods, such as manuals, informal visits, or workshops, and examine how their timing in the process affects transfer difficulty. Seminal works on the transfer of knowledge and practices discuss how the way in which organizational members perform certain tasks using particular tools can be transferred in order to retain a firm-specific competitive advantage (Argote and Ingram 2000).…”

“…Thus, organizations may use different governance modes for transfer (Jones et al 1997;Podolny and Page 1998;Powell 1990). While existing research on both domestic and cross-national transfer has looked at a variety of influencing factors at the organizational and institutional levels (Edwards et al 2007;Szulanski et al 2016), there is no mapping of 6 how different ways of organizing and coordinating transfer at the recipient level may influence both the transfer process and its outcome. This study thus addresses this unresolved puzzle: How do different governance modes influence internal and external fit over the course of practice transfer?…”

Knowledge Sharing

“…For example, Szulanski (2000), one of our key sources for this chapter, was writing about what he calls knowledge transfer, but he clearly means the wider process we are calling knowledge sharing: "Knowledge transfer is seen as a process in which an organization recreates and maintains a complex, causally ambiguous set of routines in a new setting" (p.10). His latest paper on the topic still follows this view (Szulanski, Ringov, & Jensen, 2016).…”