View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

occasional meeting at the PSF headquarters. This is a likely catalyst for future inter-partner
learning because organisations that can gain access to the facilities of its alliance partner are
more likely to learn (Baughn et al., 1997).
There seemed to be no reason to assume that there was any clannishness operating
between the organisations (Hamel, 1991). There were no gatekeepers in place to stop
employees gaining access of knowledge from each organisation. However, the draft
partnership document of the PSF could be seen as a protective policy, limiting the PSF’s
level of transparency. It is apparent that the document in effect articulates the limits of what
it is willing to share.
This openness that was demonstrated by each organisation seemed to prosper due to
the personal friendships that existed between employees of both organisations. These
friendships seemed to spread throughout all levels of the organisation. For example, CEO’s,
board members, coaches and communication staff had developed a friendship which had
advanced a communication channel between both partners. This would support Baughn et
al. (1997) that as friendships grow and partner employees interact with each other sharing
becomes natural. Due to this friendship, participants from both organisations felt that they
had greater levels of communication with each other. However, it was the PSF participants
that commented on the great level of communication that they had with the NSO. This level
of communication seemed to be managed principally by the senior staff, but also seen at the
operational level with employees in constant contact, usually via telephone, with their
counterpart in the partner organisation.
In summary, it is evident that both organisations are willing to share knowledge
with their partner. The NSO appears to be more transparent than the PSF.
106