This paper reports a case study of a knowledge transfer programme in a manufacturing MNC, and suggests that firm‐internal knowledge transfer programmes are exercises requiring a great deal of recipient motivation. In contrast to existing theory, which has a tendency to address the role of cognitive factors such as tacitness, causal ambiguity and absorptive capacity, this paper suggests that motivation needs to be in place first. In the studied case, differences in local perceptions of transfer ventures, aspiration and strategic ambitions, internal competition, the view on the nature of knowledge and local communication seem to explain success and failure in transfer ventures. If motivation is not in place ‘naturally’, it can be managed in different ways, including local and corporate management control routines as well as organization structure. Consequently, we argue that knowledge transfer theory should not presume that organizational units are interested in the knowledge transferred, or that knowledge is always ‘good’. Knowledge is contextual, meaning it fits certain operations and strategies better, even in instances where intra‐organizational units are homogeneous. Hence motivation is central to transfer success.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas Kalling (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: