View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
additional factor influencing receptivity is receptors, or those people that have the ability to influence an organisation’s receptiveness, due to their own individual capacity to learn (Baughn et al., 1997; Hamel, 1991). In summary, receptivity refers to an organisation’s ability to absorb skills and knowledge from its partner. It is this receptivity that allows an organisation to learn from its partner considering that the previous two determinants of learning, intent and transparency, are satisfied. 2.8 Summary This chapter has provided a conceptual overview of knowledge, the ability of knowledge to underpin a sustainable competitive advantage and alliances. In addition, those factors that influence the ability of knowledge transfer between alliance partners were discussed in more detail. This involved a discussion of Hamel’s determinants of learning. These determinants consist of intent, transparency and receptivity. Despite been published in 1991, Hamel’s basic concepts remain cornerstones of research into learning between alliance partners (Inkpen, 2000). Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore the level of intent, transparency and receptivity within the context of an alliance between a national sport organisation and a professional sport franchise. 29
Page 1 and 2: Determinants of Inter-Partner Learn
Page 3 and 4: 3.3 Data Sources...................
Page 5 and 6: INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1: Case Stu
Page 7 and 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to of
Page 9 and 10: DEDICATION I would like to dedicate
Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Backgrou
Page 13 and 14: Harvey, 1997). However, the study o
Page 15 and 16: take over management of the Knights
Page 17 and 18: “to be New Zealand’s leading pa
Page 19 and 20: transparency and receptivity to lea
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Int
Page 23 and 24: To summarise this section, transfer
Page 25 and 26: separated into internal and externa
Page 27 and 28: least some form face-to-face contac
Page 29 and 30: experiences with a view to improvin
Page 31 and 32: are amongst the most important fact
Page 33 and 34: Whether learning becomes self-susta
Page 35 and 36: alliance. Organisations with a pref
Page 37: uncontrolled access. Organisations
Page 41 and 42: The rationale for this research was
Page 43 and 44: the organisation and the relationsh
Page 45 and 46: By keeping accounts of the research
Page 47 and 48: number of questions where developed
Page 49 and 50: interviews. Not only was there the
Page 51 and 52: The next section focussed on the se
Page 53 and 54: the opportunity to archive the data
Page 55 and 56: 3.4.4 Communication A major factor
Page 57 and 58: three determinants of learning deve
Page 59 and 60: the type of organisation but not th
Page 61 and 62: CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 4.1. Introductio
Page 63 and 64: een one of the factors that had res
Page 65 and 66: Interestingly NSO3 made this commen
Page 67 and 68: some duplication, then, there’s c
Page 69 and 70: [I]t’s mainly the management, but
Page 71 and 72: Other participants supported this b
Page 73 and 74: [the sport] in the country. And tha
Page 75 and 76: communication, April 18, 2008). Thi
Page 77 and 78: [W]e’ll come back from the intern
Page 79 and 80: [PSF1], and [PSF2] and ... the owne
Page 81 and 82: When probed further as to why this
Page 83 and 84: In certain areas the NSO1 thought i
Page 85 and 86: However in an unusual move, likely
Page 87 and 88: Since I’ve come on board, and cer
Page 89 and 90:
obviously doing it. So on that leve
Page 91 and 92:
PSF6 also reiterated this, wanting
Page 93 and 94:
with them, you never know what you
Page 95 and 96:
the answer: I think as I said, we
Page 97 and 98:
access....so, in return for univers
Page 99 and 100:
important.....we’re opening up ou
Page 101 and 102:
It was clear that there had been so
Page 103 and 104:
When questioned about who was the t
Page 105 and 106:
We have three full time coaches her
Page 107 and 108:
wanting to know more, I guess, yes,
Page 109 and 110:
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Introducti
Page 111 and 112:
Both organisations are collaboratin
Page 113 and 114:
Hamel’s (1991) study that argued
Page 115 and 116:
financial issues. However one parti
Page 117 and 118:
5.4 Receptivity of Organisations in
Page 119 and 120:
5.5 Future Research There are a num
Page 121 and 122:
REFERENCES Alexander, T., Thibault,
Page 123 and 124:
Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (2
Page 125 and 126:
Inkpen, A. C. (2002). Learning, kno
Page 127 and 128:
New Zealand Companies Office. (2008
Page 129 and 130:
Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K.-M. (199
Page 131 and 132:
Area Research Question Appendix 1:
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix 2: AUTEC Ethical Approval
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix 3: Participant Information
Page 137 and 138:
How do I agree to participate in th
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix 4: Participant Consent For
show all

View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?