Practicing effective knowledge sharing in international hotel joint ventures

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Practicing effective knowledge sharing in international hotel joint ventures Vincent P. Magnini Virginia Tech, Pamplin College of Business, 362 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA

Abstract Knowledge sharing can be described as the process by which individuals mutually exchange their knowledge and collaboratively generate new knowledge. Since international hotel joint venture partners typically possess skills in competing areas, this process of knowledge sharing is critical to the success of these alliances. Therefore, this article presents a framework that can be used to foster effective knowledge sharing at the individual joint venture manager level, at the relationship level between individuals, and across the entire organization. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Hotel joint ventures; Knowledge sharing; Knowledge transfer; Knowledge transformation; Knowledge harvesting

1. Introduction A joint venture is a common form of international expansion for hotel corporations (Kivela and Leung, 2005). This is largely due to the fact that the foreign partner and the domestic partner typically possess knowledge and expertise in different areas (Dhanaraj et al., 2004). Often in the hotel industry, the foreign partner is proficient in the use of the latest technology (for example, managing global distribution systems) and the domestic partner is well versed in the local culture (for instance, managing the local labor force). Hotel joint ventures have been likened to snowflakes because no two are alike (Kokish, 2000); yet, regardless of form, all hotel joint ventures are repositories of knowledge. Hence, the vital issue is how individual or group interactions feed organizational knowledge creation. Joint ventures cannot create knowledge without individuals, but unless individual knowledge is disseminated to other individuals and groups, the knowledge will be of little or no benefit to the joint venture. Stated differently, the knowledge that the foreign and domestic partners bring to the international joint venture (IJV) must be managed in order to realize the benefits of forming the partnership. Tel.: +1 540 2315515.

E-mail address: [email protected] 0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.015

With the multitude of IJVs that currently exist in the hotel industry this issue of IJV knowledge sharing is of paramount managerial relevance, but has received very little attention in extant hospitality literature. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to begin filling this gap by explicating a knowledge-sharing framework for hotel IJVs. Consequently, the novel contribution of this research is a framework that considers knowledge sharing from the individual joint venture manager level, at the relationship level between individuals, and at an organization-wide level. No previous work has considered each of these three levels. Thus, the remainder of this paper is organized as follows: first, a conceptual background on knowledge sharing in IJVs is presented; second, knowledge sharing is explored at the individual level; third, knowledge sharing is addressed at the relationship level between parties; next, organization-wide characteristics that foster effective knowledge sharing are outlined; lastly, managerial and research implications are presented.

2. Conceptual background on international joint venture knowledge sharing In the broadest sense, knowledge sharing can be defined as the process by which individuals mutually exchange

ARTICLE IN PRESS 250

V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258

their knowledge and collaboratively generate new knowledge (Van den Hoof and DeRidder, 2004). In a marketplace where knowledge can serve as a sustainable competitive advantage, in addition to managing tasks and human resources, managers must manage knowledge itself, just as any other resource (Berdrow and Lane, 2003). In an international hotel joint venture, the knowledge possessed by an individual must be shared with other individuals in order for its value to be maximized (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005). In other words, knowledge is a highly valuable asset that must be appropriately exchanged between joint venture partners. Different types of knowledge exist within hotel corporations. One type, tacit knowledge, can be described as knowledge that is non-verbalizable, intuitive, and unarticulated (Polanyi, 1962). This type of knowledge has been transformed into habits and can only be transmitted through active involvement of the teacher (Spender, 1996). Stated differently, it is highly context specific which makes it difficult to formalize and communicate (Nonaka, 1994). For instance, in the hotel business, handling service failure recovery situations can be viewed as a form of tacit knowledge as each failure scenario is context specific. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge that is transmitted in formal, systematic language (Polanyi, 1966; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). For example, in a hotel, explicit knowledge can be conveyed through the use of written standard operating procedures (SOPs). In most cases the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge is grey and the two should not be viewed as a dichotomy, but instead a continuum should be conceptualized with the two types of knowledge at either end (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). More specifically, Inkpen and Dinur (1998) posit that these two types of knowledge should be classified on a spectrum that ranges from explicit knowledge characterized by specific processes and tacit knowledge gained through experience and contained in individual cognition and organization routines. For instance, the written hotel corporation’s SOPs referred to in the previous paragraph are likely the ‘‘bare-essentials’’ of hotel operations likely require the exchange of tacit knowledge in order to fully implement them. In a hotel IJV, there exist three interrelated paths through which knowledge can flow. The first path, called transfer, encompasses the flow of existing knowledge between the IJV partners and between the parent companies (Berdrow and Lane, 2003). This flow of knowledge can include, for instance, a partner observing the use of a technology such as a centralized reservation system. More specifically, a western joint venture partner may be familiar with technology such as WizCom that updates hotel reservation information simultaneously across all four global distribution systems (Adams, 2000). Or a western joint venture partner may be proficient using data mining technology such as Hilton’s E. piphany E.4 software (Stevens, 2001) and Starwood Hotel Corporation’s Unica Corp’s Affinium software (Tichelle and

Maselli, 2001) that allow these companies to more clearly understand changing customer wants and predict future demand trends. Therefore, within the context of knowledge sharing, transfer entails accepting what the partner does, assimilating it into one’s own systems or altering one’s own resources to imitate it without fully comprehending how it works (Berdrow and Lane, 2003). Sometimes, however, this imitation can eventually result in an understanding of deep-rooted tacit knowledge. This positive outcome can be termed internalization. Nevertheless, on the contrary, the peril is that the underlying tacit knowledge may never become fully developed or can be incorrectly interpreted resulting in eventual negative consequences (Berdrow and Lane, 2003). While potentially good and bad outcomes can derive from knowledge transfer, if managed correctly the positive can typically far outweigh the negative. The second path of knowledge flow in a hotel IJV is termed transformation. This type of knowledge flow can be described as the integration, application, and leveraging of contributed knowledge and the creation of new knowledge as a result of the activities (Berdrow and Lane, 2003, pp. 18). That is, when an IJV is formed the partners are now experiencing new circumstances and situations. Consequently, any new knowledge or insights gained through these novel experiences can be categorized as knowledge transformation. For example, in a hotel IJV in Saudi Arabia, the two joint venture partners must use their combined knowledge to adapt to the recent Saudization policy in which expatriate hotel workers must be replaced by local workers within 2 years (Sadi and Henderson, 2005). That is, the foreign and Saudi partners most work together to interpret and comply with this new government mandated policy. Hence, knowledge gained in this new situation can be characterized as transformation. The third possibility for the flow of knowledge in a hotel IJV is called harvesting and it entails the flow of knowledge from the IJV to the parent where it can be applied to company efforts elsewhere. For instance, knowledge harvested from a hotel IJV in Beijing may be applicable to a hotel project in Shanghai. For example, between 1986 and 1988, the Chinese government passed regulations on hiring Chinese labor by foreign enterprises (Li, 1995). The regulations stipulated that Chinese employees of a foreignowned operation must be paid 20–50% higher than state employees in similar operations. In turn, government agencies passed laws stating that the foreign enterprises are sometimes responsible for their employee’s housing, education, and old age pensions; consequently, the knowledge gained on one joint venture project in China can be harvested and used as guidance on future projects. Thus, parent firms should actively seek opportunities to harvest knowledge because IJVs typically provide ample opportunities for the parents to learn from the experience (Inkpen, 1995). In other words, corporate headquarters can use the knowledge gained through IJV operations in Beijing to better manage IJVs in Shanghai. Not too surprising, however, extant research indicates that parent companies

ARTICLE IN PRESS V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258

are more apt to harvest knowledge from well-performing IJVs than from struggling ones (Berdrow and Lane, 2003). 3. Enhancing knowledge sharing in international joint ventures Since effective knowledge sharing is vital to the successful performance of IJVs (Berdrow and Lane, 2003; Dhanaraj et al., 2004; Inkpen and Dinur, 1998), the identification of factors that foster knowledge transfer, transformation and harvesting is of paramount importance. This section advances the contention that heightened knowledge flow results from the confluence of forces that fall into the following categories: (1) an individual IJV manager’s learning orientation and emotional intelligence; (2) interpersonal relationships between IJV managers; and (3) organization-wide values. 3.1. Fostering knowledge sharing on an individual level As can been seen in Fig. 1, there are a number of individual-level factors that can influence knowledge sharing within a hotel IJV. First, several researchers (Slater and Narver, 1995; Teare and Pantin, 2002; Teare and

Individual Level Variables Learning Orientation

+

Emotional Intelligence + Agreeableness

+

Job Satisfaction

+

Relationship Level Variables + Awareness + Access +

Trust

-

Knowledge transfer, transformation, and harvesting

Cost + Respect

Organization-Wide Level + Variables Commitment to Learn + Innovativeness Conflict + Shared Vision

Fig. 1. Model of effective information sharing in hotel IJVs.

251

Rayner, 2002) have posited that spawning the knowledge flow within a firm should begin by cultivating learning orientation at the individual manager’s level. Intuitively, this is sound logic because an organization is actually a group of individuals bound together by a shared vision of the future that they are creating together (Teare and Pantin, 2002). Therefore, nurturing learning orientation at an individual level is an adequate starting point for cultivating the knowledge flow within an organization. From a theoretical perspective, stimulating organizational knowledge flow at the individual level is an adequate starting point for enhancing overall organizational knowledge flow because the learning orientation construct at the individual level has been developed and purified over the past two decades (Dweck, 1986, 1989; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Porter and Tansky, 1996; VandeWalle et al., 1999, 2000; VandeWalle, 2001; VandeWalle and Cummings, 1997). Specifically, two goal orientations exist at the individual level: performance goal orientation and learning goal orientation (Dweck, 1986, 1989; Dweck and Leggett, 1988). A performance goal orientation can be described as ‘‘a preference to demonstrate and validate one’s competence by seeking favorable judgments from others’’ (VandeWalle, 2001, p. 163). On the other hand, a learning goal orientation is ‘‘a preference to develop one’s competence by acquiring new skills and mastering new situations’’ (VandeWalle, 2001, p. 163). With learning goal behavior, individuals possess an adaptive response pattern, in that they persist, increase effort, partake in solutionoriented self-instruction, and claim to enjoy the challenge (VandeWalle and Cummings, 1997). That is, a person with a high learning goal orientation will continually evaluate the results of his/her behavior to develop a plan for his/her next attempt at the same task (Porter and Tansky, 1996). Consequently, in a hotel IJV it would be wise for both parent companies to attempt to fill the managerial posts in the joint venture with individuals that possess high learning orientations. Such individuals would likely be apt to absorb both explicit and tacit knowledge from their foreign counterparts. In addition, these individuals would be more prone to set aside ethnocentric views than those who do not have well-developed learning orientations. For example, in the circumstance of a hotel IJV in China, research indicates that the influence of guanxi networks [personalized networks of influence] can be both highly complex and cumbersome to newcomers (Geddie et al., 2005). Therefore, in summary, filling JV slots with learningoriented individuals would likely stimulate both knowledge transfer and transformation in the joint venture. As summarized in Table 1, knowledge transfer, for example, will be enhanced since the parties involved will be open to new perspectives; likewise, knowledge transformation will be bolstered since the parties will likely seek new and challenges situations rather than avoiding them. Lastly, knowledge harvesting should improve because learningoriented joint venture managers should be more prone to exchange information with corporate headquarters.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 252

V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258

Table 1 Relationships between variables and path of knowledge flow

Learning orientation (IND) Emotional intelligence (IND) Agreeableness (IND) Job satisfaction (IND)

Knowledge transfer will occur because

Knowledge transformation will occur because

Knowledge harvesting will occur because

Individuals will be open to new perspectives (e.g., Porter and Tansky, 1996)

Individuals will seek and embrace new situations rather than avoid them (e.g., Porter and Tansky, 1996) Individuals will generate emotions to aid problem solving in new situations (e.g., Tan et al., 2005) Individuals will be cooperative and supportive when new situations surface (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2006) Individuals will have positive attitudes when new situations surface (e.g., Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977) Partners will be better able to face new situations if they know where the other’s expertise lies (e.g., Borgatti and Cross, 2003) Partners will be better able to face new situations if they feel comfortable asking for information (e.g., Borgatti and Cross, 2003) Partners will be better able to face new situations if they have established trust (e.g., Wang and Nicholas, 2005) Partners will be better able to exchange knowledge as new situations arise if the cost of the exchange is low (e.g., Blau, 1964) Partners will be more apt to exchange knowledge as new situations arise if they feel that the partner’s information is accurate Partners will be more apt to exchange knowledge as new situations arise if a learning climate is fostered by the firm (e.g., Day, 1991) Partners will be more apt to exchange knowledge as new situations arise if innovativeness is fostered by the firm (e.g., Sinkula et al., 1997) Partners will be less likely to share knowledge as new situations arise if conflict exists between them (e.g., Madhok, 1995) Partners will be more apt to share knowledge in new situations if a shared vision exists across the firm (e.g., Sinkula et al., 1997)

Individuals will be more likely to exchange information with corporate headquarters Individuals will be more likely to exchange information with corporate headquarters Individuals will be more likely to exchange information with corporate headquarters Individuals will be more likely to exchange information with corporate headquarters Corporate headquarters will be better able to extract knowledge from the JV if it knows who possesses a particular expertise Corporate headquarters will be better able to extract knowledge if the JV partners are easy to approach for knowledge More information will likely be generated for use by corporate if trust exists between the JV partners More information will likely be generated for use by corporate if cost does not impede exchange between the JV partners More information will likely be generated for use by corporate if respect exists between the JV partners

Individuals will channel emotions to promote growth (e.g., Tan et al., 2005) Individuals will be cooperative and supportive when exchanging knowledge (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2006) Individuals will be more eager to collect knowledge (de Vries et al., 2006)

Awareness (REL)

Partners will better able to exchange knowledge if they know where the other’s expertise lies (e.g., Borgatti and Cross, 2003)

Access (REL)

Partners will better able to exchange knowledge if they feel comfortable asking for information (e.g., Borgatti and Cross, 2003)

Trust (REL)

Partners will better able to exchange knowledge if they have established trust (e.g., Wang and Nicholas, 2005) Partners will be more apt to seek information if they do not perceive doing so as being costly (e.g., Blau, 1964)

Cost (REL)

Respect (REL)

Commitment to learn (ORG)

Partners will be more apt to exchange knowledge if they feel that the other’s information is accurate (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2006) Partners will be more apt to share knowledge if a learning climate is fostered by the firm (e.g., Day, 1991)

Innovativeness (ORG)

Partners will be more apt to share knowledge if innovativeness is fostered by the firm (e.g., Sinkula et al., 1997)

Conflict (ORG)

Partners will be less likely to share knowledge if conflict exists between them (e.g., Madhok, 1995)

Shared vision (ORG)

Partners will be more apt to share knowledge if a shared vision exists across the firm (e.g., Sinkula et al., 1997)

An additional trait at the individual level that may enhance IJV knowledge sharing is emotional intelligence (also termed emotional maturity). This trait can be described as a range of capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence an individual’s capacity to cope with environmental demands (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). As described by Tan et al. (2005, p. 8), emotional intelligence involves: (1) the capability to assess and manifest emotions; (2) regulation of emotion in the self and in others; (3) the ability to channel emotion to promote intellectual and

Corporate headquarters will be better able to extract knowledge from the JV if a learning climate is fostered by the firm Corporate headquarters will be better able to extract knowledge from the JV if innovativeness is fostered by the firm More information will likely be generated for use by corporate if the JV partners are not in conflict Headquarters will be better able to extract knowledge from the JV if a shared vision exists across the firm

emotional growth; and (4) the capacity to generate emotions to aid problem solving. Emotional intelligence is a necessary prerequisite of effective knowledge sharing in IJVs that are formed between partners that possess a sufficient degree of cultural distance between them [for example, an IJV with English and Japanese partners] because even if individual managers in culturally distant IJVs possess learning orientations they are still likely to experience culture shock induced stress (Avril and Magnini, 2007). Emotional intelligence is also particularly useful

ARTICLE IN PRESS V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258

in the hotel industry because recent research points to a gap between what is taught by hospitality schools and the realities of the business itself (Zhang and Wu, 2004). This gap can contribute to job stress and if this stress is not managed appropriately by the individual his/her ability to transfer and transform knowledge within the hotel joint venture can become severely impaired (Avril and Magnini, 2007); hence, emotional intelligence can aid the individual in managing this culture-related stress. Moreover, joint ventures would likely be better able to exchange knowledge with corporate headquarters (aiding knowledge harvesting) if they can channel their emotions in a positive fashion. Agreeableness is another characteristic that can potentially influence an individual’s propensity to successfully share knowledge (de Vries et al., 2006). Someone who agreeable is perceived by peers as being cooperative, cheerful, and supportive, as opposed to rude aggressive and antagonistic (Cabrera et al., 2006, p. 248). Being a ‘‘people’’ business, this attribute of agreeableness is an essential characteristic of any hotel manager or associate (Wagner, 2001). More specifically, however, in terms of knowledge sharing, an individual’s agreeableness influences knowledge transfer because if s/he is agreeable then others are more likely to come to him/her for information. Moreover, if s/he is agreeable then others will be more willing to share knowledge with him/her. Hence, joint ventures managers whom are agreeable will likely be more cooperative when new situations surface (aiding knowledge transformation) and in communicating with the home office (aiding knowledge harvesting). An individual’s job satisfaction can also impact his/her willingness to share knowledge (Pascoe et al., 2002). That is, job satisfaction triggers positive attitudes, motivation, behavior (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977), and value-based organizational commitment (Cabrera et al., 2006). Therefore, as an individual’s job satisfaction increases, his/her willingness to donate both tacit and explicit knowledge increases, as well as, his/her eagerness to collect knowledge (de Vries et al., 2006). Hence, job satisfaction bolsters knowledge transfer, but also knowledge transformation and harvesting since satisfied individuals will be apt to transform their combined knowledge into novel applications within the IJV and to supply knowledge to the home office for harvesting. It is prudent to note here, that due to the labor intensive nature of the hotel industry, factors that drive job satisfaction in the hotel business may be different then factors in other industries (Raub et al., 2006). For example, a recent study conducted within the Norwegian hotel sector found that variables such as internal promotions, seniority-based pay increases and wages above the industry average typically foster job satisfaction in this sample (Gjelsvik, 2002). 3.2. Fostering the flow of knowledge at the relationship level While filling joint venture positions with individuals that possess the proper traits should aid joint venture knowl-

253

edge sharing, all three forms of knowledge flow (transfer, transformation, and harvesting) can also be enhanced by understanding various relationship factors between individuals (see Fig. 1). First, the parties involved in the hotel joint venture must be aware of who possesses what knowledge. Specifically stated, the act of soliciting information from someone in a given scenario is influenced by one’s awareness of another person’s expertise (Borgatti and Cross, 2003). Even though when a hotel expatriate begins an assignment his/her schedule is very busy (Magnini and Honeycutt, 2003), information such as work experience, training, educational qualifications, and other work-related experience should be disseminated to all mangers and decision-makers in the joint venture. Similarly, information regarding localnationals must be diffused as well. That is, if a particular Japanese manager possesses extensive knowledge regarding Japanese human resources regulations then that expertise must be communicated. Likewise, if a particular Western manager has expertise in data mining, then the fact that this manager possesses this knowledge should be known by all involved. An awareness of a partner’s competencies is sometimes necessary for the transfer of explicit knowledge, but is a certain prerequisite for the transfer of tacit knowledge since the transfer of the latter entails necessary person-to-person interaction. The same logic evidently applies to the transformation of knowledge in novel situations. Furthermore, in order for the parent companies to harvest knowledge from the IJV individuals at the corporate headquarters must have an understanding of who in the joint venture possesses which expertise. Access is another relationship factor that moderates knowledge flow in IJVs. Partner A might be aware that partner B possesses a particular expertise, but may also feel that s/he does not have access to partner B (Borgatti and Cross, 2003; Cabrera et al., 2006). In business, no decisions are made with all the possible information, but rather decision-makers satisfice when they feel that they have enough information (March and Simon, 1958). This point of satisfice is a function of the ease with which information is located. Due to the proliferation of modern communication technologies, if partner A does not feel as if s/he has access to partner B’s knowledge, the problem rarely lies in the inability of the two to make contact, but rather in the comfort level of the relationship between the individuals. Therefore, in order to foster knowledge transfer in IJVs, partner A (the information seeker) must know what questions to ask and when to ask them and partner B (the information holder) must make partner A feel comfortable in seeking the information. To transition from the knowledge transfer to knowledge transformation the same comfort level between partners must exist. Similar psychology applies for knowledge harvesting as well; those in the parent companies (the knowledge seekers) must feel comfortable seeking and extracting knowledge from the joint venture.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 254

V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258

Knowledge sharing between individuals depends upon the level of trust between them (Parkhe, 1998). Characterbased trust can be described as a situation in which parties have a common cultural or ethnic identity (Wang and Nicholas, 2005). Since partners in a hotel IJV typically do not have a common culturally identity, knowledge sharing could suffer do to this fact. Nevertheless, a learning orientation and emotional intelligence discussed in the previous section can potentially circumvent many culturerelated problems. Another type of trust, termed processbased trust is, however, likely to be correlated with knowledge sharing in IJVs. Process-based trust is a form of trust that relies on past and expected future exchanges between the same parties (Wang and Nicholas, 2005). In other words, one IJV partner builds trust in the other through a series of successfully completed information exchanges and through his/her assessment that these exchanges will continue to transpire in the future. Building this trust may be slightly more difficult in the hotel sector in comparison to other industries because hotel expatriates have a high rate of turnover (Shay and Tracey, 1997); nevertheless, as listed in Table 1, trust is a necessary relationship-level factor in order for knowledge to be transferred, transformed and harvested in a hotel joint venture. Related to trust, cost is an additional relationship factor that can hamper the transfer of explicit knowledge and can severely kink the transfer of tacit knowledge in hotel IJVs. That is, a joint venture partner may ponder the question: ‘‘If I ask for help or advice, what is going to be expected of me in return?’’ Thus, in order for the knowledge to be sought, the information seeker must surmise that the information is not too costly in terms of interpersonal repercussions or obligations. In other words, according to social exchange theory, people monitor their interactions with others based upon perceived costs and benefits (Blau, 1964). One example of an interpersonal repercussion would be the risk of appearing unknowledgeable on a certain topic. In addition, obligations may include unfair or unbalanced expectations of reciprocity. A joint venture partner may wonder, for example, ‘‘Is the debt that I owe the information provider worth it?’’ Perceptions of high interpersonal debt will impede the transfer and transformation of knowledge and, therefore, IJV managers should attempt to create an environment of generous information exchange. In a similar vein, more information can likely be harvested for use by corporate if cost does not impede exchanges between IJV partners. Lastly, respect is another interpersonal relationship factor that can impact the exchange of knowledge between joint venture partners. That is, if the seeker of information believes that the content of another’s information is of sufficient quality (i.e., s/he respects the other’s knowledge) then the seeker will be more prone to engage in knowledge sharing (Borgatti and Cross, 2003; Cabrera et al., 2006). Specifically, in a joint venture, partner A must respect the expertise of partner B before information can be exchanged

successfully. For instance, a study conducted by O’Reilly (1982) found that when individuals need to select nonhuman sources of information, convenience is a leading factor in determining which information source is utilized. Conversely, the same study found that when people need information from other individuals, the quality of the source is a driving determinant in the source selection process. Therefore, the extent to which partner A seeks information from partner B is dependent upon the extent to which partner A positively assesses partner B’s knowledge. In a hotel joint venture, this respect is a prerequisite for the transfer of both explicit and tacit knowledge. In addition, knowledge transformation will not transpire if an adequate level of this respect is absent. Furthermore, more information will likely be available for harvesting by the home office if respect exists between the joint venture partners. 3.3. Fostering the flow of knowledge at an organization-wide level As depicted in Fig. 1, the final drivers of successful knowledge sharing in a hotel IJV are organization-wide factors. This article has addressed knowledge flow from the perspective of the individual manager and flow with respect to interpersonal relationships. Now organization-wide characteristics are presented. An organizational value often correlated with healthy knowledge sharing is its ‘‘commitment to learning’’ (Day 1991, 1994; Senge 1990, 1992; Tobin, 1993). One indicator that a firm has a commitment to learn is that the managers of the firm concur that the business unit’s ability to learn is a key component of their competitive advantage (Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Sinkula et al., 1997). Another statement that serves as a proxy for ‘‘commitment to learning’’ is the declaration that: ‘‘The basic values of this business unit include learning as a key to improvement’’ (Baker and Sinkula, 1999, pp. 425). An alternate indicator of a ‘‘commitment to learn’’ is that the parent companies of a joint venture view managerial learning as an investment as opposed to an expense (Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Sinkula et al., 1997). If the parents of an IJV foster this sort of learning climate then the transfer of both explicit and tacit knowledge is more probable, the transformation of knowledge (when the IJV is placed in new circumstances) is more likely, and the harvesting of knowledge by the parents is more apt to occur. For instance, consider the example of Mirage Resorts: CEO Steve Wynn stated that ‘‘everything Mirage does is about being receptive to change, learning new ways to do things, and developing good ideas’’ (Dube and Renaghan, 1999, pp. 21). In an effort to encourage creative thinking, senior managers have no specific job descriptions. Instead of being hired to perform a set of tasks, they are hired to achieve a goal (Jogaratnam and Tse, 2006). Whether or not other hotel corporations choose to adopt these extreme measures practiced by Mirage Corporation, at a bare-minimum (since nearly all hotel executives are compensated in part through bonus plans),

ARTICLE IN PRESS V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258

they should include knowledge-sharing criterion as part of such plans; as this action leads to enhanced knowledge sharing (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005). Related to ‘‘commitment to learn’’ is a firm’s ‘‘innovativeness’’ that can be described in the following fashion: mental models are well-entrenched images of how the world works (Sinkula et al., 1997); these mental models limit firms to familiar ways of thinking and behaving (Day and Nedungadi, 1994). As situations change, these mental models may no longer be valid, but may still be the guiding paradigm unless the firm has the open-mindedness or ‘‘innovativeness’’ to change them (Day, 1994; Porac and Thomas, 1990; Senge, 1992; Sinkula, 1994). As such, if a firm is not reluctant to criticize the assumptions it has about conducting business then it can be said that it has an innovative culture (Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Sinkula et al., 1997). Four Seasons Hotel Corporation, for example, continuously launches new products and services that make a returning guest’s stay even more comfortable and enjoyable then his/her previous visit (Dube and Renaghan, 1999). An innovative culture such as this has a direct correlation with IJV performance largely due to the fact that knowledge is best managed and updated in such an environment (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1995). An innovative culture is likely to make IJV managers feel more comfortable transferring and transforming knowledge; and is likely to make those in the parent offices more apt to harvest knowledge from the joint venture. Since establishing an IJV involves contracts between strangers from disparate countries, cultures, and organizations, a certain level of conflict is bound to be a part of the formation process (Madhok, 1995). For example, in Thailand the hotel industry is regulated by the Alien Business Act of 1999. According to this Act, a foreign partner in an IJV is only permitted to contribute up to 49% of the total investment in the IJV (Panvisavas and Taylor, 2006). Hence, it is not possible for the foreign parent to have equal or majority ownership in a hotel joint venture in Thailand. Because of this, conflict typically arises when the initial contractual agreements regarding the structure and operation of the IJV are being explicated. This sort of conflict between IJV parents is negatively associated with knowledge sharing throughout the IJV. More specifically, if the parent firms set a tone of non-cooperation, such a tone is likely to resonate throughout the IJV; consequently, hindering knowledge transfer, transformation, and harvesting at all levels. Another firm-level construct generally associated correlated with a firm’s ability to effectively manage its knowledge is termed ‘‘shared vision’’ (Day, 1991, 1994; Senge, 1990, 1992; Tobin, 1993). A ‘‘shared vision’’ can be defined as an agreement on the business unit’s vision across all levels, functions, and divisions (Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Sinkula et al., 1997). That is, there exists a wellaccepted and well-communicated notion about what the business is and where it is going (Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Sinkula et al., 1997). Shared vision is a valuable component

255

in organizations because it supplies a focus for learning that generates energy, commitment, and purpose among individuals (Day, 1994). Consider, for instance, Steigenberger Hotel Group: in 2005 this German-based company abandoned their strategy of extending their premium Steigenberger brand into the mid- and low-budget markets (Daun and Klinger, 2006). In this example, it is critical that everyone in the organization be well versed in reasoning behind this strategic action because research indicates that a shared vision (i.e., a consensus regarding the direction in which the organization is moving) is generally highly correlated with motivation to exchange knowledge (McKee, 1992; Nornan, 1985; Senge, 1990). Since empirical evidence supports this linkage between a shared vision and a willingness to share expertise, it stands as axiomatic that the presence of a shared vision is also correlated with knowledge transfer, transformation, and harvesting in hotel joint ventures. Please note, however, that a shared vision is more difficult to achieve in the hotel sector than in many other industries because: (1) hotel corporations operate in a wide array of business environments; (2) foreign joint ventures sometimes have a limited dependency on headquarters; and (3) there is relatively high turnover of ownership in the hotel sector (Mongiello and Harris, 2006). Yet, despite these challenges, a shared vision is a critical precursor to successful knowledge sharing in hotel IJVs. 4. Discussion While effective knowledge sharing is not a panacea for success, a hotel IJV that can effectively and efficiently transfer, transform, and harvest both explicit and tacit knowledge should have a sizable advantage over one that cannot. This article explicates a framework that illustrates factors at the individual manager level, the relationship level, and at an organization-wide level. As depicted by the vertical arrows in Fig. 1, the variables within each of these three areas are interrelated with variables in other areas. For example, job satisfaction [an individual level variable] can help drive knowledge access [a relationship-level variable]. Further, access can help foster innovativeness [an organization-wide level variable]. This framework can be used be hoteliers to better understand how knowledge sharing can be cultivated in their IJVs. With 26 hotel joint venture hotels opening between 1990 and 1993 in Beijing alone (Austin, 1993), the importance of this issue should not be ignored. This research is the first to integrate theories and empirical findings from diverse disciplines into a framework that describes how knowledge transfer, transformation, and harvesting can be spawned in international hotel joint ventures. Since hotel IJVs are commonplace, and because there is a relatively high failure rate among them, this work is warranted. From a managerial perspective, first, hotel practitioners are advised to consider the learning orientations and the emotional intelligence of candidates

ARTICLE IN PRESS 256

V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258

when filling IJV job openings. In addition, corporations should strive to create a knowledge-exchange climate between IJV players that is healthy and absent of characteristics that could thwart knowledge flow, such as one individual feeling that going to another for information could have costly repercussions. Lastly, IJV knowledge sharing can be enhanced if the company exudes a commitment to learn, innovativeness, and a shared vision on an organization-wide basis. Since staffing a joint venture with learning-oriented individuals appears to aid IJV knowledge sharing, questionnaires can be developed to assess the learning orientations of joint venture managers during the selection and hiring process (Magnini and Honeycutt, 2003). Moreover, these questionnaires can also be employed to identify the training needs of joint venture managers because training can develop individual learning goal orientation (Magnini and Honeycutt, 2003). Again, hiring joint venture managers with high learning goal orientations and/or developing the individual’s learning-centric perspective will likely aid the knowledge transfer and knowledge transformation that transpires in the joint venture since it is the collection of these individuals who are the decision-makers of the business entity. In addition, since emotional intelligence likely aids knowledge sharing in IJVs, a person’s emotional intelligence can be gauged through the use of behavioral interviewing. A behavioral interview differs from a traditional interview in that behavioral interviews are composed of: (1) situational questions that pose hypothetical scenarios to which the respondent is asked how s/he would respond; and (2) past behavior questions that ask the interviewee to describe their actions when they faced particular circumstances at a past job (Barclay, 2001). As such, questions asked in a traditional interview may include: what are your strengths and weaknesses? Why are you interested in working for us? On the other hand, items in a behavioral interview are much more situationbased and behavior-based. For instance, tell me about a time when you had too many things to do and you were required to prioritize your tasks; or give me an example of a time when you had to make a split second decision. Practitioners must also understand that learning in a joint venture is time dependent. That is, at the beginning of the alliance much knowledge will need to be exchanged. Likewise, practitioners must also realize that the exchange of knowledge between IJV partners alters the dependency relationship between the two. Therefore, the race to learn in a joint venture must be followed by a race to remain attractive to the partner. In other words, in a wellperforming IJV, each partner must continue to bring new skills to the table and must continually derive ways in which combined knowledge can be transformed in order for the joint venture to succeed as new situations and conditions surface. Also from a practitioner’s perspective, interestingly, recent empirical research indicates that trust and knowl-

edge exchange often co-evolve in IJVs (Inkpen and Currall, 2004). That is, as partners become more comfortable exchanging skills they also develop trust in one another. Nevertheless, one of the biggest fears in an IJV situation is that one partner is using the alliance as a ‘‘Trojan Horse’’ to capture the other’s knowledge and then will compete against the partner in the same or different markets. Therefore, if a situation surfaces of unequal learning between partners, the managers involved should be advised to use the guidance contained in this article to try and rectify the situation. For example, a shared vision can be communicated to everyone involved in the entity. If unequal learning persists, perhaps the joint venture should eventually be dissolved because effective knowledge sharing is a necessary cornerstone of a successful hotel IJV. From a research perspective, future empirical work is warranted that empirically tests the relationships discussed in this paper. Future research could also examine knowledge sharing in various cross-cultural contexts. It would seem plausible to conjecture that the greater the cultural distance between IJV partners, the greater the difficulty in exchanging knowledge; but, this may not be the case at all. Hence, researchers may be well served to examine whether various combinations of nationalities exchange knowledge better than other combinations. Along these lines, it may be informative to also include intervening factors such as corporate culture variables and a company’s international experience and structurally model how these variables influence knowledge sharing in IJVs. Lastly, future research could attempt to identify different propositions depending upon the type of knowledge being transferred. In a similar vein, tacit and explicit knowledge can be examined at every phase of the knowledge value chain. Since research covering these topics is scarce in the hospitality literature, such inquiry could prove beneficial to those working within hotel joint ventures. References Adams, B., 2000. Electronic distribution tools change the face of hotel marketing. Hotel and Motel Management 215 (19), 98–100. Austin, G., 1993. Challenging China. Hotel and Motel Management 208 (6), 32–34. Avril, A., Magnini, V., 2007. A holistic approach to expatriate success. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19 (1), 53–64. Baker, W., Sinkula, J., 1999. The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (4), 411–427. Barclay, J., 2001. Improving selection interviews with structure: organizations’ use of ‘behavioral’ interviews. Personnel Review 30 (1), 81–94. Berdrow, I., Lane, H., 2003. International joint ventures: creating value through successful knowledge management. Journal of World Business 38 (1), 15–30. Blau, P., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York. Borgatti, S., Cross, R., 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science 49 (4), 432–445. Cabrera, E., Cabrera, A., 2005. Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of Human Resources Management 16 (5), 720–735.

ARTICLE IN PRESS V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258 Cabrera, A., Collins, W., Salgado, J., 2006. Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management 17 (2), 245–264. Cooper, R., Kleinschmidt, E., 1995. Performance typologies of new product projects. Industrial Marketing Management 24, 439–456. Daun, W., Klinger, R., 2006. Delivering the message: how premium hotel brands struggle to communicate their value proposition. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (3), 246–252. Day, G., 1991. Learning about markets. Marketing Science Institute Report Number 91–117. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Day, G., 1994. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing 58 (4), 37–52. Day, G., Nedungadi, P., 1994. Managerial representations of competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing 58 (2), 31–44. de Vries, R.E., van den Hoof, B., Ridder, J.A., 2006. Explaining knowledge sharing: the role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research 33 (2), 115–135. Dhanaraj, J., Lyles, M., Steensma, H., Tihanyi, L., 2004. Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: the role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies 35 (5), 428–443. Dube, L., Renaghan, L.M., 1999. Strategic approaches to lodging excellence. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 40 (6), 16–26. Dweck, C., 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist 41, 1040–1048. Dweck, C., 1989. Motivation. In: Lesgold, A., Glaser, R. (Eds.), Foundations for a Psychology of Education. Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Dweck, C., Leggett, E., 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95, 256–273. Geddie, M., DeFranco, A., Geddie, M., 2005. A comparison of relationship marketing and guanxi: its implications for the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (7), 614–632. Gjelsvik, M., 2002. Hotels as learning areas. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 2 (1), 31–48. Inkpen, A., 1995. Organizational learning and international joint ventures. Journal of International Management 1 (2), 165–198. Inkpen, A., Currall, S., 2004. The coevolution of trust, control, and learning in joint ventures. Organization Science 15 (5), 586–600. Inkpen, A., Dinur, A., 1998. Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science 9 (4), 454–468. Jogaratnam, G., Tse, E., 2006. Entrepreneurial orientation and the structuring of organizations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (6), 454–468. Kivela, J., Leung, L., 2005. Doing business in the People’s Republic of China. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 46 (2), 125–152. Kokish, B., 2000. Top 200 hotel companies. Hotel and Motel Management 215 (16), 34,78. Li, L., 1995. Human resource management in Chinese hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 7 (1), 3–6. Madhok, A., 1995. Revisiting multinational firms’ tolerance for joint ventures: a trust-based approach. Journal of International Business Studies 26 (1), 117–137. Magnini, V., Honeycutt, E., 2003. Learning orientation and the hotel expatriate manager experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management 22 (3), 267–280. March, J., Simon, H., 1958. Organizations. Wiley, New York. McKee, D., 1992. An organizational learning approach to product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9 (September), 232–245. Mongiello, M., Harris, P., 2006. Management accounting and corporate management: insights into multinational hotel companies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (5), 364–379. Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge. Organization Science 5, 14–37.

257

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. Nornan, R., 1985. Developing capabilities for organizational learning. In: Johannes, M.P. (Ed.), Organizational Strategy and Change. JosseyBass, San Francisco. O’Reilly, C., 1982. Variations on decision-makers use of information sources: the impact of quality and accessibility of information. Journal of the Academy of Management 25, 756–771. Panvisavas, V., Taylor, J., 2006. The use of management contracts by international hotel firms in Thailand. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (3), 231–245. Parkhe, A., 1998. Understanding trust in international alliances. Journal of World Business 33 (3), 219–240. Pascoe, C., Ali, T.M., Warne, L., 2002. Yet another role for job satisfaction and work motivation—enabler of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. In: Proceedings of the Informing Science+IT Education Conference, pp. 1239–1248. Polanyi, M., 1962. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Polanyi, M., 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, NY. Porac, J., Thomas, H., 1990. Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review 15 (2), 224–240. Porter, G., Tansky, J., 1996. Learning orientation of employees: moving toward an organization-based assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly 7 (2), 165–178. Raub, S., Alvarez, L., Khanna, R., 2006. The different roles of corporate and unit level human resources managers in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (2), 135–144. Sadi, M., Henderson, J., 2005. Local versus foreign workers in the hospitality and tourism industry: a Saudi Arabian Perspective. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 46 (2), 247–257. Salancik, G., Pfeffer, J., 1977. An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 427–456. Salovey, P., Mayer, J., 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 9, 185–211. Senge, P., 1990. The Fifth Discipline. Doubleday, New York. Senge, P., 1992. Mental models. Planning Review 20 (March–April), 4–10. Shay, J., Tracey, B., 1997. Expatriate managers: reasons for failure and implications for training. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 38 (2), 30–35. Sinkula, J., 1994. Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing 58 (1), 35–45. Sinkula, J., Baker, W., Noordeweir, T., 1997. A framework for marketbased organizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (4), 305–318. Slater, S., Narver, J., 1995. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing 59 (3), 63–74. Spender, J., 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 45–62 (special issue). Stevens, L., 2001. CRM analytics—CRM by the slice—running analytics is expensive, so companies are focusing on areas with customers. Internetweek, 9 April, pp. 35–38. Tan, J.A., Hartel, C.E., Panipucci, D., Strybosch, V.E., 2005. The effect of emotions in cross-cultural expatriate experiences. Cross Cultural Management 12 (2), 4–15. Teare, R., Pantin, D., 2002. Cascading organizational learning. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 (7), 349–353. Teare, R., Rayner, C., 2002. Capturing organizational learning. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 (7), 354–360. Tichelle, G., Maselli, J., 2001. Hotels turn to IT to stem losses. Informationweek, 17 December, pp. 31–32. Tobin, D., 1993. Re-Educating the Corporation: Foundations for the Learning Organization. Oliver Wright, Essex Junction, VT.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 258

V.P. Magnini / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 249–258

Van den Hoof, B., DeRidder, J.A., 2004. Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management 8 (6), 117–130. VandeWalle, D., 2001. Why wanting to look successful doesn’t always lead to success. Organizational Dynamics 30 (2), 162–171. VandeWalle, D., Cummings, L., 1997. A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (3), 390–400. VandeWalle, D., Brown, S., Cron, W., Slocum, J., 1999. The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation on sales performance: a longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (2), 249–259.

VandeWalle, D., Challagalla, G., Ganesan, S., Brown, S., 2000. An integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior: disposition, context and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (6), 996–1003. Wagner, B., 2001. The right stuff. Lodging Hospitality 57 (8), 31. Wang, Y., Nicholas, S., 2005. Knowledge transfer, knowledge replication, and learning in non-equity alliances: operating contractual joint ventures in China. Management International Review 45 (1), 99–118. Zhang, H., Wu, E., 2004. Human resources issues facing the hotel and travel industry in China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 16 (7), 424–428.