Relative capacity: Retaining knowledge outside a firm's boundaries

Besides internalizing external knowledge, companies may maintain knowledge in interfirm relationships over time. Thus, interorganizational relations may be regarded as an extended knowledge base to which a firm has privileged access. We merge research into knowledge management, absorptive capacity, learning, and dynamic capabilities to analyze knowledge retention outside a firm's boundaries. Prior research into knowledge management has focused on internally storing knowledge, whereas research into knowledge transactions has primarily studied the internalization of external knowledge. The need to dynamically manage knowledge in interfirm relations over time – without necessarily internalizing this knowledge – has been relatively neglected. Therefore, we develop the foundations of the dynamic capability-based concept of relative capacity as a complement to absorptive capacity and transformative capacity in external knowledge retention. Relative capacity contributes to explaining interfirm differences in knowledge strategies, alliance strategies, organizational boundaries, open innovation, and performance. To guide further research, propositions are advanced regarding the antecedents and consequences of relative capacity.     

Mobilising knowledge across organisational boundaries: addressing human issues in the telecommunications industry

The key question addressed in this research is ‘how can we effectively manage and mobilise knowledge in the extended enterprise?’. We explore how knowledge sharing and transfer occur when developing new products, with special reference to the telecommunications industry. The benefits of implementing knowledge management strategies have been proven but research has largely focused on technology as a solution. Working together with European-based telecommunication companies, we focus instead on the softer, human issues. The main human barriers identified include international differences, accuracy and protection of knowledge, maintenance of communication channels, lack of time, fear of penalties and market position.     

Extending the boundaries of strategic leadership research

This special issue was developed to extend the boundaries of strategic leadership research, to help bridge the micro-macro divide regarding theories of strategic leadership, and to bring together theories that have emerged independently. In this introductory editorial, we provide an overview of the research on strategic leadership and emphasize the need for further integration of research from the organizational behavior, industrial and organizational psychology, organizational economics, behavioral strategy, and strategic management fields. We then introduce and summarize the eleven articles we accepted for this special issue by classifying them into two broad themes: (a) Chief executive officer (CEO) characteristics and (b) the dynamics of interactions among the CEO, the top management team, and the board. Finally, we propose recent theoretical and empirical foci for advancing strategic leadership research and offer a research agenda for future research highlighting several important research questions related to extending the dialogue among scholars across the different leadership and strategy domains.     

企业的两重边界性及其合作博弈解释

阐述了当放弃“科斯企业边界理论”中的两个并未言明的假设后,现实中的企业存在着 两重清晰的边界,一是法定边界,二是契约边界. 应用合作博弈的核心解,论证了企业参与者的 资产专用性以及相互间的交易比率在确定这两重边界中的作用     

Team creativity versus team learning: transcending conceptual boundaries to inspire future framework building

The purpose of this study was to compare team creativity and team learning – approached as interpersonal processes – conceptually and empirically and thereby inspire future framework building on team creativity. First, both concepts were compared based on present literature. In the next – empirical – step, a questionnaire consisting of a range of team creative and learning processes was developed and validated among 112 design teams, encompassing 540 employees. By means of a questionnaire validation protocol, this study assessed the empirical similarities and interrelation between team creative and learning processes. Several conceptual similarities in both frameworks were identified. The theoretically expected difference between team creativity and team learning (i.e. the aspect newness) was not supported by our empirical results. A five-factor model – consisting of team creative efficacy, facilitating team processes, basic team processes, error communication, and co-construction was validated. This study contributes to the present literature by showing that future theorising on team creative processes can certainly draw inspiration from the team learning literature in several ways.