View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

2.7.3 Receptivity
While intent represents desire, and transparency the opportunity, receptivity
represents the capacity to learn from an organisation’s partner (Doz & Hamel, 1998; Hamel,
1991). “Exposure of a firm to relevant external knowledge is insufficient unless an effort is
made to internalize it” (Kim, 1998, p. 507). For, example, an organisation may be high in
intent and transparency but lack the ability to be receptive. Receptivity is similar to the term
absorptive capacity (Barringer & Harrison, 2000; Chen, 2004; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990;
Lane & Lubatkin, 1998). Absorptive capacity refers to the ability to value, assimilate and
commercialize new external knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
Key to the capacity to learn is the ability of individuals to interpret information. For
example, an individual who is presented with a document in a foreign language (e.g.
Mandarin) is unable to interpret or understand that document if he/she doesn’t understand
the language due to low receptivity. However, if that document is presented to the
individual in their native language (e.g. English), they are highly receptive, as they are able
to easily understand and interpret that document.
Hamel (1991) argues that enthusiasm for learning is a key antecedent of receptivity.
The ‘Not Invented Here syndrome’ (NIH) restricts receptivity. NIH syndrome implies an
inclination to reject knowledge from external sources (Lichtenthaler & Ernst, 2006).
Another factor influencing receptivity is the ability to unlearn, which refers to the ability to
forget past behaviours (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Dodgson, 1993).
Knowledge distance refers to the degree in which source and recipient knowledge
bases overlap (Cummings & Teng, 2003). This implies that for an organisation to be
receptive it must also be on equal footing with that of its partner. However “if the skills gap
between partners is too great learning becomes almost impossible” (Hamel, 1991, p.97). An
28