Multinational companies (MNC’s) are characterized by geographical, cultural, and linguistic fragmentation (Kostova & Roth, 2003). Successfully melding diverse knowledge residing in different cultural parts of such an MNC can bring several advantages to the firm (Hargadon & Sutton,1997; Tsai, 2001); but to reap these benefits, MNCs must navigate and negotiate the boundaries their dispersion produces (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005; Mäkelä, Kalla, & Piekkari, 2007). Global business success depends not only on understanding different cultures, but on being able to bridge between them (Brannen et al, 2009) with the help of so-called boundary spanners. Boundary spanners are interfaces between a unit and its environment (Cross and Prusak, 2002) with several different functions, including information exchange and access to markets and resources (Jemison, 1984). Within the MNC context, boundary spanners are characterized by multiple embeddedness within the company itself (on the subsidiary level) and in local markets, with several roles and contributions through social interactions and bargaining with headquarters (Ambos et al., 2010;Meyer et al., 2011; Narula, 2014). There have been many prior studies of boundary spanning in very different settings (Birkinshaw et al, 2017). For example, some studies focused on boundary spanning in R&D departments (Mudambi and Swift, 2009; Tushman, 1977), some others looked at their role in teams (Ancona and Caldwell, 1988, 1992) and a third group focused on boundary spanning as specific organizational functions (Rao and Sivakumar, 1999). More recently, boundary spanning has also been studied in the context of multinational companies (MNC) with a specific focus on the HQ-subsidiary relationship (Schotter and Beamish, 2011). Increasingly boundary spanners are seen as knowledge bridges, facilitators, and mediators instead of static individuals that have to cross organizational boundaries (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014; Di Marco et al., 2010; Williams, 2002). he current study addresses the gaps in understanding biculturals as boundary spanners within firms. Specifically, we examine how bicultural boundary spanners in MNC’s engage in knowledge transfer across organizational, cultural and geographic boundaries. While scholars have distinguished between formal and informal mechanisms or mechanisms comprising the movement of people, routines and systems (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000), we focus our analysis on the transfer of knowledge that is tacit and complex, rather than explicit and simple. Whereas some previous research (Ancona, 1990; Richter et al., 2006) considers boundary-spanning activities as mainly performed by group leaders, we do not make any such assumption as important boundary spanners can be found also at other levels in the organization. Analyzing qualitative empirical data from bicultural managers in the Turkish subsidiaries of German MNC’s, we focus on the individual and interpersonal sensemaking processes of the managers as they navigate firm boundaries. Given that research on the antecedents of boundary spanning outcomes is mixed, with both positive (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Hansen, 1999; Tushman and Katz, 1980) and negative (Cross, Nohria, and Parker, 2002; Gould and Fernandez, 1989) outcomes reported, qualitative research looking at the situated practices and sense-making activities of cross-cultural boundary spanners can help understand the opportunities and challenges of cross-boundary interactions. More precisely, our research question involves understanding how bicultural local boundary spanners at the subsidiary level understand and engage in knowledge transfer across intra and inter-firm boundaries. In order to understand how bicultural individuals with backgrounds in relevant cultures, go about enacting global boundary spanning roles, it was important to study this phenomenon in its context. Because issues pertaining to knowledge and collaboration are deeply embedded in practice (Orlikowski, 2002) and because our aim was to develop an empirically grounded interpretive understanding of this phenomenon, we undertook an inductive qualitative study (Charmaz, 2006; Doz, 2011). We analize qualitative empirical data from in depth interviews with 17 Turkish (bicultural) managers from the Turkish subsidiaries of German MNC’s. We focus on the boundary spanning roles of these particular individuals, because numerous scholars such as Felin and Hesterley (2007) and Foss (2007) propose that individual-level analysis may provide better insights into knowledge-related issues within firms than aggregate-level approaches (whether corporate or unit level) assuming individual-level homogeneity. Also Brass et al. (2004) suggest that inter-unit ties not only consist of but are also often a function of interpersonal relationships. In fact, Doz et al. (2001) argue that people are among the most important carriers of knowledge within multinationals, and Mäkelä et al. (2007) note that the knowledge sharing that occurs when managers working in different parts of the organization interact on behalf of their respective units in order to do their work is a central aspect of inter-unit knowledge exchange. Of the various legitimate ways of writing up qualitative research (Pratt, 2008), we chose to first present relevant background literature to situate our inductive theory building. We then present our methods and findings, followed by our empirically grounded theoretical framework. We conclude with outlining our contribution, the managerial implications stemming from the findings, their limitations and directions for future research.
Frameswitching of boundary spanners: Turkish Biculturals in German Multinationals Subsidiaries
Vecchi, A.
2021
Abstract
Multinational companies (MNC’s) are characterized by geographical, cultural, and linguistic fragmentation (Kostova & Roth, 2003). Successfully melding diverse knowledge residing in different cultural parts of such an MNC can bring several advantages to the firm (Hargadon & Sutton,1997; Tsai, 2001); but to reap these benefits, MNCs must navigate and negotiate the boundaries their dispersion produces (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005; Mäkelä, Kalla, & Piekkari, 2007). Global business success depends not only on understanding different cultures, but on being able to bridge between them (Brannen et al, 2009) with the help of so-called boundary spanners. Boundary spanners are interfaces between a unit and its environment (Cross and Prusak, 2002) with several different functions, including information exchange and access to markets and resources (Jemison, 1984). Within the MNC context, boundary spanners are characterized by multiple embeddedness within the company itself (on the subsidiary level) and in local markets, with several roles and contributions through social interactions and bargaining with headquarters (Ambos et al., 2010;Meyer et al., 2011; Narula, 2014). There have been many prior studies of boundary spanning in very different settings (Birkinshaw et al, 2017). For example, some studies focused on boundary spanning in R&D departments (Mudambi and Swift, 2009; Tushman, 1977), some others looked at their role in teams (Ancona and Caldwell, 1988, 1992) and a third group focused on boundary spanning as specific organizational functions (Rao and Sivakumar, 1999). More recently, boundary spanning has also been studied in the context of multinational companies (MNC) with a specific focus on the HQ-subsidiary relationship (Schotter and Beamish, 2011). Increasingly boundary spanners are seen as knowledge bridges, facilitators, and mediators instead of static individuals that have to cross organizational boundaries (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014; Di Marco et al., 2010; Williams, 2002). he current study addresses the gaps in understanding biculturals as boundary spanners within firms. Specifically, we examine how bicultural boundary spanners in MNC’s engage in knowledge transfer across organizational, cultural and geographic boundaries. While scholars have distinguished between formal and informal mechanisms or mechanisms comprising the movement of people, routines and systems (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000), we focus our analysis on the transfer of knowledge that is tacit and complex, rather than explicit and simple. Whereas some previous research (Ancona, 1990; Richter et al., 2006) considers boundary-spanning activities as mainly performed by group leaders, we do not make any such assumption as important boundary spanners can be found also at other levels in the organization. Analyzing qualitative empirical data from bicultural managers in the Turkish subsidiaries of German MNC’s, we focus on the individual and interpersonal sensemaking processes of the managers as they navigate firm boundaries. Given that research on the antecedents of boundary spanning outcomes is mixed, with both positive (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Hansen, 1999; Tushman and Katz, 1980) and negative (Cross, Nohria, and Parker, 2002; Gould and Fernandez, 1989) outcomes reported, qualitative research looking at the situated practices and sense-making activities of cross-cultural boundary spanners can help understand the opportunities and challenges of cross-boundary interactions. More precisely, our research question involves understanding how bicultural local boundary spanners at the subsidiary level understand and engage in knowledge transfer across intra and inter-firm boundaries. In order to understand how bicultural individuals with backgrounds in relevant cultures, go about enacting global boundary spanning roles, it was important to study this phenomenon in its context. Because issues pertaining to knowledge and collaboration are deeply embedded in practice (Orlikowski, 2002) and because our aim was to develop an empirically grounded interpretive understanding of this phenomenon, we undertook an inductive qualitative study (Charmaz, 2006; Doz, 2011). We analize qualitative empirical data from in depth interviews with 17 Turkish (bicultural) managers from the Turkish subsidiaries of German MNC’s. We focus on the boundary spanning roles of these particular individuals, because numerous scholars such as Felin and Hesterley (2007) and Foss (2007) propose that individual-level analysis may provide better insights into knowledge-related issues within firms than aggregate-level approaches (whether corporate or unit level) assuming individual-level homogeneity. Also Brass et al. (2004) suggest that inter-unit ties not only consist of but are also often a function of interpersonal relationships. In fact, Doz et al. (2001) argue that people are among the most important carriers of knowledge within multinationals, and Mäkelä et al. (2007) note that the knowledge sharing that occurs when managers working in different parts of the organization interact on behalf of their respective units in order to do their work is a central aspect of inter-unit knowledge exchange. Of the various legitimate ways of writing up qualitative research (Pratt, 2008), we chose to first present relevant background literature to situate our inductive theory building. We then present our methods and findings, followed by our empirically grounded theoretical framework. We conclude with outlining our contribution, the managerial implications stemming from the findings, their limitations and directions for future research.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
