Perceptions of Employee Knowledge Risks in Multinational, Multilevel Organisations: Managing Knowledge Leaking and Leaving

Olander, Heidi; Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen, Pia

doi:10.1142/s136391961540006x

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results support that understanding employee behavior is important for examining why business-critical knowledge leaks and how it can be protected (Baughn et al ., 1997; Hannah and Robertson, 2015); accordingly, the results respond to the calls for research into the roles of individuals in the knowledge sharing interface (Foss et al ., 2010; Ghosn and Rosenkopf, 2015; Salter et al ., 2015). For instance, research has shown that the employees’ acknowledgment and willingness to follow guidance on these issues can vary (Olander and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2015), and they might bend rules for the sake of good collaboration (Hannah and Robertson, 2015), which could have critical effects in terms of leakage if they do not use good judgment. As we have shown, this problem is especially relevant for firms pursuing radical innovations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External knowledge sharing and radical innovation: the downsides of uncontrolled openness

Ritala

Husted

Olander

et al. 2018

JKM

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Inter-firm collaborative innovation typically requires knowledge sharing among individuals employed by collaborating firms. However, it is also associated with considerable risks, especially if the knowledge sharing process is not handled using proper judgment. Such risks have been acknowledged in the literature, but the underlying empirical evidence remains unclear. This study aims to examine how sharing of business-critical knowledge with external collaboration partners affects firm’s innovation performance. Design/methodology/approach The authors develop a mediating model and hypotheses predicting that the uncontrolled sharing of knowledge leads to accidental knowledge leakage, which, in turn, hinders particularly firm’s radical innovation performance. The authors test the model by using a survey of 150 technology-intensive firms in Finland and a partial least squares structural equation model. The mediating model is tested with incremental and radical innovation performance, and the authors control for firm size, age, R&D intensity and industry. Findings The authors find strong support for the model in that uncontrolled external knowledge sharing leads to accidental knowledge leaking and to lower radical innovation performance. The same results are not found for incremental innovation, implying that uncontrolled knowledge leakage is especially detrimental to radical innovation. Originality/value These findings help in better understanding some of the downsides of too much openness and lack of judgment about knowledge sharing beyond the boundaries of the firm. Thus, firms pursuing radical innovation should carefully guide their employees with regard to what knowledge they share, to what extent they share it and with whom they share it.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External knowledge sharing and radical innovation: the downsides of uncontrolled openness

Ritala

Husted

Olander

et al. 2018

JKM

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This indicates that addressing the knowledge leaving risk through proactive HRM practices is essential. This is especially important since reactive HRM practices in general do not seem to work particularly well in preparing for leaving risks (but rather work for knowledge leakages; see e.g., Liebeskind, 1996;1997;Bulgurcu, 2010;Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al, 2015). In the following we will elaborate on the finding regarding trustworthiness and commitment in more detail.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…While different mechanisms are available to deal with these aspects, the HRM-related mechanisms have high potential in producing expected outcomes in balancing knowledge protection and sharing (Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni, 1994;Liebeskind, 1996Liebeskind, , 1997Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al, 2015;Norman, 2001, Norman, 2002. Bulgurcu et al, (2010), Hannah and Robertson (2015) and Liebeskind (1996Liebeskind ( , 1997, Olander and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen (2015) among others, address some HRM-related mechanisms that may ease the problem with knowledge leaving and leaking. These can be categorised according to their formality, for example (Olander et al, 2014), but also according to the phase in which they are applied, and where (geographically and culturally) they are most suitable (Olander and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, in press).…”

Section: Knowledge Leaving and Leaking Risks Inducing Need For Proactive Approach To Knowledge Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bulgurcu et al, (2010), Hannah and Robertson (2015) and Liebeskind (1996Liebeskind ( , 1997, Olander and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen (2015) among others, address some HRM-related mechanisms that may ease the problem with knowledge leaving and leaking. These can be categorised according to their formality, for example (Olander et al, 2014), but also according to the phase in which they are applied, and where (geographically and culturally) they are most suitable (Olander and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, in press).…”

Section: Knowledge Leaving and Leaking Risks Inducing Need For Proactive Approach To Knowledge Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proactive HRM for Reducing Knowledge Risks — Evaluating Commitment and Trustworthiness

Olander

Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen

2015

Int. J. Innov. Mgt.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the first look might suggest otherwise, knowledge protection is a complex phenomenon that does not lend itself to easy classification. Discussion easily turns to intellectual property rights (IPRs) such as patents or secrecy, while other aspects such as human resource management (HRM) for knowledge protection is neglected. Yet, innovative firms depend on their knowledgeable employees to generate new innovation, to assist in profiting from them, and maintain the capabilities for later innovative activities. Therefore both reactive and proactive action is needed to mitigate problems with knowledge leaving and leaking. This study addresses the ways in which companies can prepare for knowledge-related risks as early as during employee recruitment. The findings from our case study suggest that somewhat different issues are considered in relation to different types of risks (leaving and leaking), and that while intuition plays a notable role in proactive assessment, a more analytical approach can also be taken.

show abstract

“…Engaging CC in the NPD process also increases the risk of knowledge misappropriation. Customers and employees involved in the collaborative innovation process may leak sensitive information into the public domain unintentionally due to unawareness of its confidentiality, overenthusiasm in problem solving, and/or mistakes (e.g., leaving documents unattended) (Matusik and Hill 1998; Olander and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen 2015). Knowledge leakage can also occur when customers who disregard confidentiality clauses leak secrets to other firms intentionally for personal gain.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging Customer Cocreation in New Product Development Through Foreign Subsidiaries: Influences of Multinational Corporations’ Global Integration and Local Adaptation Mechanisms

Leung¹,

Tse²,

Yim³

2019

Journal of International Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to engage customers in cocreating new products have garnered much research attention from studies documenting customer cocreation’s (CC’s) positive impact on firm innovation and performance. Less research, however, has counterbalanced the bright side with the potential dark side of CC, especially as a strategy for multinational corporations (MNCs) operating in foreign markets. This study examines how MNC subsidiaries’ CC affects new product innovativeness and knowledge leakage to competitors. Adopting a broader agency perspective to recognize that subsidiaries often do not perform up to headquarters’ expectations due to both self-serving opportunism and honest incompetence, this study explores how CC effects are contingent on MNCs’ global management mechanisms. Using a dyadic managerial survey of 238 MNC subsidiaries, the authors find that MNCs can control knowledge leakage by implementing proper global integration and local adaptation mechanisms. However, CC may not improve new product innovativeness, except when the subsidiary has low local research-and-development staff influence. This study contributes to the CC literature by showing its benefits, challenges, and boundary conditions as a growing MNC innovation strategy.

show abstract

Perceptions of Employee Knowledge Risks in Multinational, Multilevel Organisations: Managing Knowledge Leaking and Leaving

Cited by 10 publications

References 52 publications

External knowledge sharing and radical innovation: the downsides of uncontrolled openness

External knowledge sharing and radical innovation: the downsides of uncontrolled openness

Proactive HRM for Reducing Knowledge Risks — Evaluating Commitment and Trustworthiness

Engaging Customer Cocreation in New Product Development Through Foreign Subsidiaries: Influences of Multinational Corporations’ Global Integration and Local Adaptation Mechanisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About