Knowledge sharing of inpatriates. Empirical evidence from an ability–motivation–opportunity perspective
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2018-0073 |
| Pages | 971-996 |
| Date | 02 August 2019 |
| Published date | 02 August 2019 |
| Author | Tassilo Schuster,Dirk Holtbrügge,Franziska Engelhard |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Knowledge sharing of inpatriates
Empirical evidence from an
ability–motivation–opportunity perspective
Tassilo Schuster
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany, and
Dirk Holtbrügge and Franziska Engelhard
Department of International Management,
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of inpatriates’abilities, motivation and
opportunities on knowledge sharing and the moderating role of boundary spanning in this context.
Design/methodology/approach –By integrating the ability–motivation–opportunity framework with the
concept of boundary spanning four hypotheses are developed, which are tested against the data of 187
inpatriates working in Germany.
Findings –The study reveals that inpatriates’motivation and certain opportunities are positively related to
knowledge sharing, whereas inpatriates’abilities do not show a positive effect. Moreover, it is shown that
inpatriate boundary spanning has a moderating effect on this relationship.
Originality/value –Based on the results, the study enhances the current literature by introducing the
concept of reputation asymmetry. Moreover, requirements of how inpatriates’assignments should be
designed and implications for further research are outlined.
Keywords International assignments, Ability-motivation-opportunity framework, Knowledge sharing,
Boundary spanning, Inpatriation, Reputation asymmetry
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
International assignees are important means of knowledge transfers within multinational
corporations (MNCs) as they are able to translate culturally instilled knowledge from one
context to another(Iles et al., 2004; Minbaeva and Michailova, 2004). While MNCshad mainly
focused on headquarters’(HQs) delegates who transfer knowledge to foreign subsidiaries
(expatriates)(Chang et al., 2012; Harzing, 2001; H ocking et al.,2007; Minbaeva et al., 2014), they
have increasingly recognized the importance of knowledge creation capabilities of their
foreign subsidiaries (Colakoglu et al., 2014) to withstand the hyper-competitive nature of
global markets (Moeller and Reiche, 2017). To exploit those knowledge creation capabilities,
MNCs have progressively introduced alternative staffing options, including flexpatriation
(Mayerhofer, Hartmann and Herbert, 2004; Mayerhofer, Hartmann, Michelitsch-Riedl and
Kollinger, 2004), international business travels (Welch et al.,2007),virtualassignments
(Welch et al., 2003) and inpatriation (Harvey et al., 2011; Harvey, Speier and Novicevic, 1999;
Harvey and Buckley, 1997). In particular, inpatriation –assignees recruited from MNCs’
subsidiaries or other third countries to work in HQ locations over varying timeframes for
various purposesand on varying levels of management(Moeller et al., 2016; Reic he, 2011) –is
of particularrelevance for disseminatingknowledge created in the MNC’sforeign subsidiaries
because these employees are not only familiar with the subsidiary’s products, processes and
customers,but often possess a dense personalnetwork in their home organization and society
(Moeller et al., 2016). This makes inpatriates valuable resourcesregarding reverse innovations Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 41 No. 5, 2019
pp. 971-996
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-03-2018-0073
Received 6 March 2018
Revised 25 September 2018
Accepted 21 February 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
Financial support for this research was provided to Tassilo Schuster in the form of a research grant
from the Dr Theo and Friedl Schoeller Research Center for Business and Society.
971
Knowledge
sharing of
inpatriates
and technology transfers from their subsidiaries to the HQ (e.g. knowledge transfer agents)
(Håkanson and Nobel, 2000; Yang et al., 2008).
While the global mobility literature is replete with research on expatriates and their
value to MNCs, research on inpatriates is still very fragmented and has only received limited
attention (Moeller and Reiche, 2017). During the past two decades, several researchers have
broadened the perspective of global mobility by studying the inpatriate phenomenon, which
reflects the increasing practical relevance of this employee group (Collings et al., 2010;
Gertsen and Søderberg, 2012; Harvey, 1997; Harvey, Novicevic and Speier, 1999; Harvey,
Speier and Novicevic, 1999; Harvey and Buckley, 1997; Maley and Moeller, 2018; Moeller
et al., 2010; Reiche, 2006, 2011; Tungli and Peiperl, 2009).
These researchers consistently outline that despite similarities between expatriates and
inpatriates, differences along numerous dimensions and additional challenges, compared to
their expatriate counterparts, are apparent (Mäkelä et al., 2012; Maley and Moeller, 2018).
For instance, Harvey et al. (2005) emphasize a deep-rooted resistance toward the integration
of inpatriates in the home-country organization, which is often transmuted into silent but
concerted customs of ethnocentric stigmatization and stereotyping. This “collective
reservation”toward inpatriates (Harvey et al., 2005) particularly occurs in HQs when the
inpatriates come from peripheral units, technologically less-advanced countries, developing
economies and less important markets (Moeller et al., 2016). Moreover, inpatriates may also
face organizational barriers, such as language problems or a lack of management attention,
which may reduce their efforts to share knowledge (Chen et al., 2010; Peltokorpi, 2015).
Finally, inpatriates frequently receive less organizational support in the form of
intercultural training or mentoring, which impedes their cultural adjustment to the host
country and host organization (Maley et al., 2015).
Given these opportunities and challenges of this valuable group of assignees, MNCs seek
to understand how inpatriates’efforts to share knowledge from the subsidiary to the HQ can
be increased. While previous literature has already provided initial evidence that inpatriates
and expatriates should be treated differently (Maley and Moeller, 2018) and outlined
distinctive features of inpatriates as agents of knowledge transfer (Reiche, 2006, 2011;
Reiche, Kraimer and Harzing, 2009), we still have a limited understanding whether
inpatriates’efforts to share knowledge are primarily promoted by individual characteristics,
such as inpatriates’international work experience, motivation or by organizational support
offered by the home and host organization –factors that have been frequently mentioned in
the expatriation context. Moreover, although boundary spanning is seen as an important
aspect of inpatriation (Reiche, 2011) and knowledge sharing (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014),
the role of inpatriate boundary spanning as a moderator in this context is yet to be
examined. Boundary spanning is defined as the activity to link and establish relationships
between previously unconnected individuals at different MNC units (Barner-Rasmussen
et al., 2014; Monteiro and Birkinshaw, 2016; Reiche, 2011). As inpatriates often serve as
boundary spanners in the context of knowledge transfers –it is argued in this study that
inpatriates abilities, motivation and opportunities may have different effects on knowledge
sharing depending on the level of their boundary spanning activity. Therefore, this study
extends on previous studies and aims to explore and provide empirical evidence on the
question of how inpatriates’abilities, motivation and opportunities affect knowledge
sharing and how inpatriate boundary spanning moderates this relationship. By doing so,
the study responds to recent calls for empirical research on inpatriates as the emerging body
of literature on inpatriation remains largely conceptual (Maley and Moeller, 2018).
As a theoretical foundation, the study applies the ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO)
framework. This framework is considered to be highly suitable for analyzing inpatriates’
knowledge sharing because it addresses both individual characteristics (e.g. host-country
language skills) and organizational processes (e.g. organizational support) which have been
972
ER
41,5
To continue reading
Request your trial