Why did good people do bad things (commit white-collar crimes) Essay - 1

Why did good people do bad things (commit white-collar crimes) - Essay Example Jeffrey Skilling was a former Enron Chief Executive officer who was convicted of several counts of conspiracy and actual fraud. Russell Wasendorf was the CEO of the bankrupt Peregrine Financial group. Jeffrey Skilling was convicted of making false financial statements, wire fraud and securities fraud and sentenced to 24 years in prison. He was accused of committing a series of frauds that were geared at misleading investors and business analysts (Friedrichs 325). On his part, Russell Wasendorf admitted to stealing millions from about 13,000 investors who had entrusted him with their investment through his Peregrine Financial group. The judge sentenced him to 50 years jail imprisonment depending on the huge financial loss and sophistication of the fraud. Jeffrey Skilling and Russell Wasendorf were both not born criminals. Jeffrey Smilling was born in Pennsylvani and graduated from West Aurora High school. He attained a Bachelor of Science degree at Southern Methodist University in 1975 and after an MBA from Harvard Business School. Jeffrey was smart in class and in his early career since he was the youngest partner at Mckinsey consulting. There is no evidence that shows that Jeffrey Smilling had negative behaviours in his early childhood. On the other hand, Russell Wasendorf was born in 1948 and never displayed any signs of criminal behaviour in his early childhood. In the case of Jeffery Skilling, it was a case of a good person doing the bad things. According to his previous employment records, he displayed financial discipline and intense management qualities that helped McKinsey attain higher profitability and customer satisfaction. Russell Wasendorf is also a case of a good person doing the wrong thing. This is evidenced by his ability to stand the best direct online trading system that could connect the traders with the CME’s Globex in 1998 (Friedrichs 325). The two fraudulent crimes can be explained by the fraud triangle theory that asserts that

Kitsch Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Kitsch - Essay Example This is, in fact, etymologically correct, as the term comes from the German word "kitschen" which refers to the action of collecting rubbish from the street. There are various definitions of kitsch, most of them designating it as a bad art or even as non-art. Jean Baudrillard is quite harsh in his conception of kitsch. He defines it as "an army of trashy objects" (Baudrillard, 109) made out of plaster of Paris or an imitation of it, "a gallery of cheap-junk accessories, folksy knickknacks, souvenirs, lampshades or fake African masks- which proliferate everywhere, especially in resort areas"(110). In his opinion, "to the aesthetics of beauty and originality, kitsch opposes its aesthetics of simulation: it everywhere reproduces objects smaller or larger than life; it imitates materials (in plaster, plastic, etc.); it apes forms or combines them discordantly; it repeats fashion without having been part of the experience of fashion."(111) According to Matei Calinescu, who studies this subject extensively, kitsch is a result of romanticist. The theorist gives two reasons for his opinion: the first refers to the fact that the romantic revolution brought about an almost complete relativization of taste, the second reason is connected to romanticist's promotion of a sentimentalist type and view of art.(237) He says that "the desire to escape from adverse or simply dull reality is perhaps the main reason for the wide appeal of kitsch." (237) So we have two views; the first of them is a harsh criticism of kitsch, the second constitutes itself in an explanation of its appearance. Each point of view is relevant in producing the image of the contemporary kitsch and in identifying its features. A kitsch is, thus, a imitation, something that lacks originality. It is so spread throughout the world and to be found in all cultures as a result of man's need to escape and people's tendency of being sentimental when dealing with art as well as to their tendency of disregarding established values. Kitsch is present in different forms in all the fields of human creation. It is to be seen in art, clothing, home decoration, children's toys, and architecture. It is so ubiquitous that there has even been created a dictionary of kitsch objects. There are kitsch cars, kitsch clocks, kitsch dolls and furniture, kitsch lamps, kitsch tents and there are a multitude of such examples. At the level of interior design, kitsch is produced either by the choice of decoration objects or by the combination of decorative elements. Some interiors, or designer's creations can be shocking at first sight because of the explosion of colors and forms or because of the combination of objects that lack value or originality, with objects with valuable and stylish works of art. It is difficult to decide nowadays where the border between a real kitsch and a trendy interior is. This border seems to have dissolved in world where a plastic imitation of a stylish candelabrum doesn't surprise anyone anymore. Kitsch is a copy without value, or in today's design, a re-taking or a conceptualization of clisheistic lines. The glamorous style is inspired by the Hollywood world where everything is appearance. A neoclassic villa is a home made out of cartoon and gypsum, a poque chair has got the mark of time a day ago, plastic can imitate elaborate forms. A porcelain, the decoration object present in many

Determinants in the Process of Knowledge Transfer

Determinants in the Process of Knowledge Transfer Knowledge was closely investigated by academic researchers for the last few decades. It is nowadays considered as one of the most important strategic assets (Winter, 1987) that contribute to the competitive advantage of the firms (Kogut and Zander, 1992); this perspective is associated with the knowledge-based view (Grant, 1996). Resulting from that numerous studies exist about knowledge. As Winter (1987) suggests, knowledge can be created, stored and transmitted (transferred), exploited and the ability to success in these activities represents the essence of the firm. Different studies consider these various stages. However, the process of transfer is very interesting to reflect on because it is precisely knowledge transfer that has been established by several academics as having a major impact on performance (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Osterloh and Frey 2000). Some literature analyzes the process of knowledge transfer itself (ODell and Grayson, 1998; Szulanski, 2000), and its determinants (Grant and Baden- Fuller, 2000), other its boundaries (Szulanski, 1996; Salk, 1996; Hennart et al. 1999; Dyer and Hatch, 2006; Heiman and Nickerson, 2004). Together the authors try to shed light on the stages of knowledge transfer and factors that can positively or negatively contribute to it. Despite the abundance of studies, some researchers like Wagner (2005) call for the investigation of soft issues such as absorptive capacity and culture in successful knowledge sharing. Moreover, different researchers (Inkpen, 2000; Mowery et al. 1996), studied knowledge in the context of a strategic alliance. Some studies convey the idea that this might be the most appropriate form of collaboration in order to share (transfer) knowledge because of several advantages (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004). Other academics, as Simonin (1999), define difficulties that alliances face in the process of knowledge transfer. Therefore it might be useful to combine these ideas and see what makes alliances being so unique and how knowledge can be transferred in these structures. This literature review is meant to integrate various studies to make a clear picture of what makes the transfer of knowledge successful in-between partners of strategic alliance by reviewing determinants of knowledge transfer, particularities of alliances and possible strategies to follow in order to achieve the transfer. Problem statement The problem indication brings us to delimitate the following area of research: Successful knowledge transfer in a strategic alliance Research Questions Since knowledge becomes an essential asset, and its manipulation might have strong impact on the wellbeing and performance of the firm, it is interesting to investigate the knowledge transfer. Our inquiry will be done by first looking at what is knowledge and its different kinds. Then the models of knowledge transfer (in general) will be considered to see how knowledge is shared, finishing with the factors that can impact positively or negatively (barriers) on this process, this includes the soft issues sited previously. Research question 1: What are the key determinants in the process of knowledge transfer? Strategic alliances are often used by firms to transfer knowledge. Several studies might convey the idea that alliances is the most appropriate form of cooperation in order to transfer knowledge, that is why in the second research question we are going to discuss characteristics and particularities of alliances that contribute to build a solid ground for knowledge transfer. Research question 2: What characteristics and particularities of the strategic alliance might shape the process of knowledge transfer in this form of cooperation? Perhaps the most practical issue for organizations involved in the process of knowledge transfer within a strategic alliance is the one that deals with practices to implement and strategies to follow for both partners. Therefore the third research question will deal with possible behavior and ways of doing that can facilitate the knowledge transfer within a strategic alliance. Research question3: What strategies and behavior could the parties of the strategic alliance adopt  (implement) to enhance the transfer of knowledge and cope with the difficulties alliance might face? Research methods This is a descriptive research that will be done in the form of literature review. The data sources are the existing academic literature in the field of management, strategy and organization science. The literature includes top journals such as Journal of Management Studies, Strategic Management Journal, Knowledge and Process Management, Academy of Management Journal Structure of the thesis In the second chapter the investigation will be done in order to gain knowledge of what could be the determinants of the knowledge transfer in general (without considering the context of the strategic alliances). To do this, first of all, knowledge and its different kinds have to be defined. Following that the review of the literature about the process of knowledge transfer itself will be made. Chapter 2 will end with the review of possible factors that can affect the process by whether contributing to its success or by creating barriers to it. In the third chapter we are going to take a closer look on the strategic alliances. Following the definition, the discussion will pursue in order to understand why certain researchers think that strategic alliances are the most appropriate form of collaboration between firms for the process of knowledge transfer. Moreover, in this chapter we are going to look if certain characteristics of the alliance can ameliorate the transfer (i.e. firms similarities, orientation, strategy, resources). The last research question will be answered in the fourth chapter by examining the possible strategies and behaviors that companies involved in the alliance could undertake to enable a successful knowledge transfer, while they might face several challenges. At the end, conclusions will summarize this literature review bringing up possible questions for future discussion and useful recommendations about knowledge transfer within a strategic alliance. Chapter 2: The determinants in the process of knowledge transfer 1/ What is knowledge In general knowledge is considered to be gained by observation, study and experiences. It is the mixture of values, context information, expert insight (Davenport and Prusak, 1998) that resides within the person. It can be accumulated and subjected to improvements unlimited number of times. It is difficult to distinguish knowledge in itself from data and from information. Knowledge is neither of these two. Data results from transactions and information is derived from data. Fransman (1998) clearly underlines the fact that knowledge is indeed processed information. In this sense it is also possible to say that knowledge is socially constructed (Pentland 1995): individuals produce knowledge by processing information through their intellect. They act on knowledge by their actions and going through experiences, meanwhile their perspectives and insights change creating the opportunity to proceed differently in new situations, when new sets of information are available (Quinn et al. 1998; Weick 1995). 2/ Types of knowledge Another approach to introduce knowledge would be to state its different kinds: tacit and explicit. The observation of the existence of the explicit knowledge goes back to Polanyi (1966). Later the number of terms used were substantially enlarged to: formal, verbal knowledge (Corsini, 1987), declarative knowledge (Kogut and Zander, 1992), theoretical kind of knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), articulated or articulable knowledge (Hedlund, 1994; Winter, 1987), a know-why knowledge (Sanchez 1997). To Polanyi (1966) explicit knowledge is easily subjected to codification in a formal language (can be stated or written down). Winter (1987, p. 171) agrees on that definition by saying that this type of knowledge can be communicated from its possessor to another person in symbolic form and the recipient of the communication becomes as much in the know as the originator. Sobol and Lei (1994) identified two ways in which one can think about explicit knowledge. The first one in terms of communicability: it is easily written down, encoded, explained, or understood (Sobol and Lei, 1994, p. 170). Its also possible to think about this kind of knowledge in terms of possession: such knowledge is not specific or idiosyncratic to the firm or person possessing it (p. 170). Perhaps for this research the most interesting type of knowledge is the tacit knowledge because it is the one that largely contributes to competitive advantage of the firm. In fact, it was determined by several scholars (Delios and Beamish, 2001; Fang et al., 2007; Pisano, 1994) that tacit (as well as complex and specific) knowledge brings organizations to better-quality performance if its transfer was successfully accomplished. Also it is the type of knowledge that is considered to bring substantial competitive advantage by several academics (Nonaka, 1991; Grant, 1993; Spender, 1993). Polanyi (1966) wrote that tacit knowledge is non-verbalizable, intuitive and unarticulated. Consequently it is hard to replicate and share. Deeper understanding was brought by Nonaka (1994) and (Sternberg, 1994) who both support the fact that tacit knowledge is context-specific: it is a knowledge typically acquired on the job or in the situation where it is used (Sternberg, 1994, p. 28). Nonaka (1994) as other researchers also wrote that tacit knowledge is personal (Sanchez 1997), difficult to articulate, and highly linked with action (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Therefore, on the one hand tacit knowledge is very difficult to transfer but on the other hand this same characteristic makes it being a critical and strategic resource of the firm and its competitive advantage, because competitors can hardly replicate it (Grant,1993; Sobal and Lei, 1994). 3/ Models: How to transmit knowledge Before getting to discussion in which the transfer of knowledge involves strategic alliances, it is useful to look at the process itself. Several models attempt to explain the basics of knowledge transfer. Some of them identify key elements that play a role this process, other present stages and steps, finally some conditions are also acknowledged. In order to understand how knowledge is transferred it is possible to first look at the definitions in cognitive psychology. At the individual level, the transfer was defined as how knowledge acquired in one situation applies (or fails to apply) to another by Singley and Anderson (1989). The transfer of knowledge in the organizational context also involves transfer at the individual level because the evolution of knowledge merely occurs when individuals express the will to share their experiences and insights with others (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Kim and Mauborgne, 1998). This movement of knowledge through various levels of organization from individual, through group, up to organizational was identified by Nonaka (1994) as the concept of spiral of knowledge creation. The same process as on individual level occurs also at other levels such as group, department, divisionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Here the transfer of knowledge is the process in which knowledge and experience of one unit (company, group or department) affects another. Szulanski (2000, p.10) supports this vision: Knowledge transfer is seen as a process in which an organization recreates and maintains a complex, causally ambiguous set of routines (i.e. knowledge and experiences) in a new setting (i.e. another com pany, department, divisionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦). Knowledge transfer can be regarded as process which is composed of basic elements. Szulanski (2000) identified them as: source, channel, message, recipient, and context. Obviously, source is the unit from which the message (knowledge) will flow to the recipient by the channel and the whole process will be considered in a particular organizational context which can be fertile (facilitates knowledge transfer) or barren (problems occur with transfer). In the same research he explained several stages of the process of knowledge transfer. The process usually starts by the initiation. Then comes the implementation phase divided into several stages: the initial implementation effort, the ramp-up to satisfactory performance, and subsequent follow-through and evaluation efforts to integrate the practice with other practices of the recipient (Szulanski 2000, p.12) Furthermore, ODell and Grayson (1998) elaborated six steps in the knowledge transfer. Primary the identification of important knowledge is necessary. From this point on it is essential to collect the knowledge systematically and then organize the knowledge. When knowledge has been organized it can be shared (transferred), but before the final stage of usage of knowledge to solve problems, it has to be adapted. A number of conditions of knowledge transfer were presented by Grant and Baden-Fuller (2000). There are three main conditions of knowledge transfer. Firstly, the transmitters knowledge must be capable of being expressed in a communicable form. It is effortlessly done with explicit knowledge, however tacit knowledge has to be made explicit with the help of an expert system or be shared trough process of observation and imitation (p.122). What is more, transferred knowledge must be understandable to the source and the recipient. Therefore both have to use common knowledge which can be expressed in terms of the same language, information technology skills and culture. Finally, the new knowledge transferred from the source to recipient must be capable of aggregation which means that it would be possible to add to already existing knowledge. 4/What factors can influence the transfer of knowledge (positive and negative) Several features may play a substantial role in the process of knowledge transfer. When looking at the literature the most obvious in terms of determinants of knowledge transfer, might be the type of knowledge that is transferred. Explicit knowledge is easy to codify and to transfer. Conversely, a large number of studies, like Grant (1996), report the negative influence of knowledge tacitness on its transfer. In general it is considered that tacit knowledge is very difficult to share because of the complexity of its codification (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990) and organizational embeddedness (Kogut and Zander 1992) and that it contributes to creating ambiguity which can most of the times create barriers to the process of transfer. Simonin (1999, 2004) proposed a model in which knowledge tacitness indirectly influences knowledge transfer through ambiguity; it nevertheless specifies the importance of knowledge tacitness as critical factor which makes knowledge transfer difficult. Academics like Grant (1996), Reed and DeFillippi (1990) and Zander and Kogut (1995) raise the issue of complexity of knowledge. Complexity may appear for example when different kinds of skills and wide range of knowledge (individual, team-based experiences, technologies) have to be shared. The more complex the knowledge, the more difficult it is to share. Reed and DeFillippi (1990) also considered the influence of the specificity on knowledge transfer. The term refers to knowledge which is related only to certain kind of transaction relations. Williamson (1999) defined specificity as the ease with which an asset can be redeployed to alternative uses and by alternative users without loss of productive value. From these studies it is now clear that tacitness, complexity and specificity impedes to knowledge transfer by creating ambiguity. According to Simonin (1999) tacitness has the greatest influence in this relationship, followed by specificity, which is much less significant and finally complexity. It seems that culture and willingness to share, elements often cited as factors that can influence knowledge transfer, are interrelated. Willingness to share is one of the key determinants of knowledge transfer; this means that one must be willing to share and the other one to receive. It is not always easy to let go from knowledge. As Bernstein (2000) suggests that willingness to share is influenced by identity because an individual might have a psychological ownership over the knowledge he possesses. Furthermore, Alavi and Leidner (1999) made a good remark about the fact that it will be difficult for organizations to share knowledge and integrate knowledge-based systems without primary having the information sharing culture (i.e. valuing information sharing). Davenport (1997) describes this as open versus closed culture. Very similar to the concept of willingness to share, Szulanski (1996, p.12) argued that lack of motivation also has to be considered as one of the barriers to the process of knowledge transfer because it may result in procrastination, passivity, feigned acceptance, sabotage, or outright rejection in the implementation and use of new knowledge. Szulanski (1996) also noticed another barrier of knowledge transfer. Absorptive capacity is one of the very well known elements that influence the transfer of knowledge. It is the ability to exploit outside sources of knowledge (Cohen Levinthal, 1990, p. 128) and integrate it by replacing old practices by new ones, which is not always effortless (Glaser, Abelson, Garrison, 1983). Chapter 3: Particularities of strategic alliances shaping the process of knowledge transfer Combining resources is the logical response to the harshness of nowadays competition. Other factors as the increase in customers expectations and the less strict regulatory barriers also led companies to form alliances (Gomes-Casseres 1994; Harrigan 1988; Kogut 1988; Nielsen 1988). However these are not the only possibilities alliances are able to provide. Alliances can be considered as one of the means for knowledge gaining and sharing, besides mergers and acquisitions. According to Inkpen (2000) there exist several possibilities for companies to transfer and gain knowledge: internalization within the firm, market contracts, and relational contracts. He considers individual strategic alliances as relational contracts that permit knowledge acquisition and transfer, suitable in the context where knowledge is complex and hard to codify, whereas market based transfers are considered to be more efficient for product related (embodied) knowledge. Number of other researchers also supported the fact that alliances permit firms to share knowledge and ultimately to learn from the partners (Grant, 1996; Hamel, 1991; Khanna et al., 1998; Kogut, 1998). Inkpen (2000, p.1019) wrote: Through the shared execution of the alliance task, mutual interdependence and problem solving , and observation of alliance activities and outcomes, firms can learn from their partners. 1/ Definition strategic alliance In the literature it is possible to find several key characteristics of an alliance. An alliance is usually created between two or more firms that cooperate together in order to achieve some strategic objective, create value that they would not be able to achieve on their own (Borys and Jemison, 1989) and pursue a set of goals (Harrigan 1988; Yoshino and Rangan 1995). Partners are complementary and contribute with their resources and capabilities (Teece, 1992); they are involved in a range of interdependent activities (Contractor and Lorange 1988>2002) and share benefits and risks of the alliance. Dussauge et al. (2000, p.99) described an alliance between two Knowledge Based Enterprises as: an arrangement between two or more independent companies that choose to carry out a project or operate in a specific business area by co-coordinating the necessary skills and resources jointly rather than either operating alone or merging their operations. Some academics consider alliances to be arrangements in which firms establish exchange relationship without joint ownership being considered as a form of alliance (Dickson Weaver, 1997); others consider equity alliances such as joint ventures, also be a form of alliance (Mowery et al. 1996). In this research all possible forms of alliances are considered: a non-equity alliance (co-operation without creation of new organization or exchange of equity); an equity alliance (unilateral or bilateral equity holding among partners without creation of the a new firm); a joint venture (new firm is created, involving joint resources, where partners share ownership and control) 2/ Why strategic alliance can be considered (by certain researchers) the most appropriate form of collaboration for knowledge transfer? Accordingly, of all approaches to knowledge imitability between a knowledge holder and a knowledge seeker, strategic alliances constitute perhaps the most adequate, but nevertheless challenging vehicle for internalizing the others competency Simonin (1999, 595). There are several forms of interorganizational exchange that enable firms to protect valuable resources including mergers and acquisitions, licensing and alliances (Coff, 1997). There are two kinds of knowledge explicit and tacit (Polanyi, 1966), therefore if two firms share knowledge, it will be explicit explicit, explicit tacit or tacit tacit. Licensing can provide a solution for the first two combinations. Yet, it is very hard to gain competitive advantage with explicit knowledge resources, because they might be sold to other companies. By contrast, competitive advantage occurs when tacit knowledge assets are combined, provided their ambiguity, complexity and inimitability (Barney 1991; Dierickx and Cool 1989). This is done through alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Conventional sale contracts, markets, mergers and acquisitions seem to be less attractive structures for knowledge transfer in comparison with alliances. Coff (1997) found that it is not easy to evaluate the value of knowledge based resources, primary because of their tacitness (Mowery, 1983; Pisano, 1990). Firms that want to acquire new knowledge will have to face uncertainty concerning its characteristics and difficulties to determine its quality and to be certain of the transferability of the knowledge held by another firm. Some researchers raise a concern about the fact that in some cases the firm that will acquire knowledge is not certain to be able to deploy it (Flamholtz and Coff 1994; Haspeslagh and Jemison 1991; Polanyi 1966; Zander and Kogut 1995). In this sense, alliance permits to mitigate risks of bad investments. The indigestibility problem of MA, quite the opposite of alliances, was discussed by several academics (Hennart and Reddy, 1997; Inkpen and Beamish, 1997; Dunning, 1997). Indigestible assets are those who come with valuable assets during the transaction (Nonaka 1994). In fact, for some of these assets (in this case knowledge) the aftermarket may not exist after the acquisition. Within an alliance the company does not have to pay for digestion of non-valuable assets and has access to important knowledge resources held by the partner. Reid, Bussiere, Greenaway 2001 (alliance formation issues) Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) identified some advantages of alliances related to knowledge like possibility to achieve early-mover advantage and risk spreading. Early-mover advantage signifies recombining knowledge into innovative products in a quickly advancing knowledge environment. More precisely, this means to quickly identify, access, and integrate across new knowledge combinations. In this situation strategic alliances enable company to quickly access knowledge necessary for introduction of new products to market. Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) wrote: The greater the benefits of early-mover advantage in technologically-dynamic environments, the greater the propensity for firms to establish interfirm collaborative arrangements in order to access new knowledge. A risk exists in terms that sometimes a company might be uncertain about the future knowledge requirements and knowledge acquisition and integration takes time, the investments are risky (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004): The greater the uncertainty as to the future knowledge requirements of a firms product range, the greater its propensity to engage in interfirm collaborations as a means of accessing and integrating additional knowledge. Powell (1987) also noticed that alliance formation diminishes the risk that knowledge will dissipate quickly. 3/ Which characteristics and capabilities of alliance partners can ameliorate the transfer of knowledge? Before considering the transfer of knowledge, it is important to underline, that both partners of an alliance are expected to possess valuable knowledge (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven 1996). Ahuja (2000) considered such knowledge possession as opportunity for linkage-formation. He also identified three categories of valuable knowledge assets that are: technical capital (capability to create new products, technology and processes), commercial capital (supporting resources) and social capital (useful networks). Throughout the literature it is possible to distinguish some capabilities that are important for proper functioning of the knowledge based alliance: absorptive capacity, combinative capability, experience with alliances, suitable design for knowledge exchange, and choice of alliance structure. In numerous studies, absorptive capacity plays an essential role in the process of knowledge transfer and learning within strategic alliances (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998). Van den Bosch et al. (1999) wrote that it combined the evaluation, acquisition integration and commercial utilization of knowledge obtained from sources exogenous to the firm. Absorptive capacity is susceptible to evolve and augment through activity (Barringer and Harrison, 2000) because it is historical and path dependent in nature as was defined by Cohen and Levinthal (1990). Grant (1996) recognized that knowledge absorption capability can be influenced by: the degree to which the expert knowledge held by organizational members is utilized; the width of specialized knowledge required from firm members; the degree to which a capability can access additional knowledge and reconfigure existing knowledge. Defined by Kogut and Zander (1992) combinative capability refers to the ability of the parties of an alliance to extend, interpret, apply, current and acquired knowledge with the goal of generating new applications from existing knowledge base. Collaborative know-how affects firms ability to form a successful partnership and create a solid ground for knowledge transfer. Simonin (1997) refers to it as to ability to institutionalize organizational routines as a result of previous experiences. Pennings et al. (1994) supports that firms tend to reproduce the behavior from their past experiences. When firms have previous experiences of collaboration within alliance, they acquire knowledge that helps them to effectively design future alliances (Lyles, 1988) and develop superior capabilities at managing particular organizational forms such as alliances (Kale et al., 2002, p. 748). This experience permits avoiding various difficulties (Doz, 1996; Powell et al., 1996). Teece (2000) stressed the importance of the design of the firm to enhance performance and knowledge sharing. He identified distinctive characteristics of design in successful firms. Among these, entrepreneurial orientation and flexibility expressed in rapid responses to ephemeral market opportunities flexible boundaries (outsourcing and alliances). They were also characterized by their non-bureaucratic decision making and rapid internal knowledge sharing owing to the not really strict hierarchies. The choice of alliance structure should be determined considering the perspective of gaining valuable resources (knowledge) from a partner without losing its own (Das and Teng, 2000). Different views exist as to effectiveness of equity joint venture form of alliance for successful knowledge transfer. Several researchers find that this form is the most suitable for the transfer of tacit knowledge and complex capabilities (Kogut, 1988, Mowery et al., 1996). However, Das and Teng (2000) think that this structure is too risky for partnership based on knowledge-based contribution, and that it is more suitable for contributing property-based resources. Inkpen (2002) identifies five categories of antecedents of alliance learning: learning partner characteristics; teaching partner characteristics; knowledge characteristics; relationship factors; and alliance form. Two key characteristics of the learning partner, identified by Nielsen and Nielsen (2009), are important, namely collaborative know-how (same as previous experience of alliances) and knowledge protectiveness (Simonin, 1997, 1999). Protectiveness matches the concept of openness and the degree to which partners are protective of their knowledge. How well do the support the risk of knowledge leakage or spillover (Inkpen, 2000). Chapter 4: potential strategies and behavior that parties of the strategic alliance might adopt to enhance the transfer of knowledge and to cope with difficulties alliances might face Strategic alliances might face a number of difficulties. The first thing that comes out from the numerous literature on strategic alliance and knowledge sharing, is the fear of knowledge spillovers, that are assumed to be inevitable consequence of alliance involvement, despite the efforts companies make in order to protect their valuable knowledge assets (Inkpen, 2000). Therefore, it immediately comes to the issue of trust. In the late 90 a discussion was raised about the possibility that some firms use strategic alliance as a Trojan Horse in order to steal knowledge from its partners. This was especially thought about Japanese partners. However empirical studies do not find support for this hypothesis (Hennart et al. 1999; Mowery 1996). The literature elaborates on so called learning races (Khanna et al. 1998) when one partner (acts opportunistically) tries to gain more knowledge in the alliance exchange, than he shares. Hamel (1991, 86) described alliances as transitional devices where the primary objective was the internalization of partner skills. This creates a significant challenge for strategic alliance. To deal with with this issue, norms and systems can be designed; functional rules can be developed to structure partner engagement (QuÃÆ' ©lin, 1997). When little trust is involved, this may lead to knowledge protectiveness from one or both of the partners. Nielsen and Nielsen (2009) wrote that protectiveness not only may lead to uncertainty and conflict but it also reduces the amount of information exchanged. Determinants in the Process of Knowledge Transfer Determinants in the Process of Knowledge Transfer Knowledge was closely investigated by academic researchers for the last few decades. It is nowadays considered as one of the most important strategic assets (Winter, 1987) that contribute to the competitive advantage of the firms (Kogut and Zander, 1992); this perspective is associated with the knowledge-based view (Grant, 1996). Resulting from that numerous studies exist about knowledge. As Winter (1987) suggests, knowledge can be created, stored and transmitted (transferred), exploited and the ability to success in these activities represents the essence of the firm. Different studies consider these various stages. However, the process of transfer is very interesting to reflect on because it is precisely knowledge transfer that has been established by several academics as having a major impact on performance (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Osterloh and Frey 2000). Some literature analyzes the process of knowledge transfer itself (ODell and Grayson, 1998; Szulanski, 2000), and its determinants (Grant and Baden- Fuller, 2000), other its boundaries (Szulanski, 1996; Salk, 1996; Hennart et al. 1999; Dyer and Hatch, 2006; Heiman and Nickerson, 2004). Together the authors try to shed light on the stages of knowledge transfer and factors that can positively or negatively contribute to it. Despite the abundance of studies, some researchers like Wagner (2005) call for the investigation of soft issues such as absorptive capacity and culture in successful knowledge sharing. Moreover, different researchers (Inkpen, 2000; Mowery et al. 1996), studied knowledge in the context of a strategic alliance. Some studies convey the idea that this might be the most appropriate form of collaboration in order to share (transfer) knowledge because of several advantages (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004). Other academics, as Simonin (1999), define difficulties that alliances face in the process of knowledge transfer. Therefore it might be useful to combine these ideas and see what makes alliances being so unique and how knowledge can be transferred in these structures. This literature review is meant to integrate various studies to make a clear picture of what makes the transfer of knowledge successful in-between partners of strategic alliance by reviewing determinants of knowledge transfer, particularities of alliances and possible strategies to follow in order to achieve the transfer. Problem statement The problem indication brings us to delimitate the following area of research: Successful knowledge transfer in a strategic alliance Research Questions Since knowledge becomes an essential asset, and its manipulation might have strong impact on the wellbeing and performance of the firm, it is interesting to investigate the knowledge transfer. Our inquiry will be done by first looking at what is knowledge and its different kinds. Then the models of knowledge transfer (in general) will be considered to see how knowledge is shared, finishing with the factors that can impact positively or negatively (barriers) on this process, this includes the soft issues sited previously. Research question 1: What are the key determinants in the process of knowledge transfer? Strategic alliances are often used by firms to transfer knowledge. Several studies might convey the idea that alliances is the most appropriate form of cooperation in order to transfer knowledge, that is why in the second research question we are going to discuss characteristics and particularities of alliances that contribute to build a solid ground for knowledge transfer. Research question 2: What characteristics and particularities of the strategic alliance might shape the process of knowledge transfer in this form of cooperation? Perhaps the most practical issue for organizations involved in the process of knowledge transfer within a strategic alliance is the one that deals with practices to implement and strategies to follow for both partners. Therefore the third research question will deal with possible behavior and ways of doing that can facilitate the knowledge transfer within a strategic alliance. Research question3: What strategies and behavior could the parties of the strategic alliance adopt  (implement) to enhance the transfer of knowledge and cope with the difficulties alliance might face? Research methods This is a descriptive research that will be done in the form of literature review. The data sources are the existing academic literature in the field of management, strategy and organization science. The literature includes top journals such as Journal of Management Studies, Strategic Management Journal, Knowledge and Process Management, Academy of Management Journal Structure of the thesis In the second chapter the investigation will be done in order to gain knowledge of what could be the determinants of the knowledge transfer in general (without considering the context of the strategic alliances). To do this, first of all, knowledge and its different kinds have to be defined. Following that the review of the literature about the process of knowledge transfer itself will be made. Chapter 2 will end with the review of possible factors that can affect the process by whether contributing to its success or by creating barriers to it. In the third chapter we are going to take a closer look on the strategic alliances. Following the definition, the discussion will pursue in order to understand why certain researchers think that strategic alliances are the most appropriate form of collaboration between firms for the process of knowledge transfer. Moreover, in this chapter we are going to look if certain characteristics of the alliance can ameliorate the transfer (i.e. firms similarities, orientation, strategy, resources). The last research question will be answered in the fourth chapter by examining the possible strategies and behaviors that companies involved in the alliance could undertake to enable a successful knowledge transfer, while they might face several challenges. At the end, conclusions will summarize this literature review bringing up possible questions for future discussion and useful recommendations about knowledge transfer within a strategic alliance. Chapter 2: The determinants in the process of knowledge transfer 1/ What is knowledge In general knowledge is considered to be gained by observation, study and experiences. It is the mixture of values, context information, expert insight (Davenport and Prusak, 1998) that resides within the person. It can be accumulated and subjected to improvements unlimited number of times. It is difficult to distinguish knowledge in itself from data and from information. Knowledge is neither of these two. Data results from transactions and information is derived from data. Fransman (1998) clearly underlines the fact that knowledge is indeed processed information. In this sense it is also possible to say that knowledge is socially constructed (Pentland 1995): individuals produce knowledge by processing information through their intellect. They act on knowledge by their actions and going through experiences, meanwhile their perspectives and insights change creating the opportunity to proceed differently in new situations, when new sets of information are available (Quinn et al. 1998; Weick 1995). 2/ Types of knowledge Another approach to introduce knowledge would be to state its different kinds: tacit and explicit. The observation of the existence of the explicit knowledge goes back to Polanyi (1966). Later the number of terms used were substantially enlarged to: formal, verbal knowledge (Corsini, 1987), declarative knowledge (Kogut and Zander, 1992), theoretical kind of knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), articulated or articulable knowledge (Hedlund, 1994; Winter, 1987), a know-why knowledge (Sanchez 1997). To Polanyi (1966) explicit knowledge is easily subjected to codification in a formal language (can be stated or written down). Winter (1987, p. 171) agrees on that definition by saying that this type of knowledge can be communicated from its possessor to another person in symbolic form and the recipient of the communication becomes as much in the know as the originator. Sobol and Lei (1994) identified two ways in which one can think about explicit knowledge. The first one in terms of communicability: it is easily written down, encoded, explained, or understood (Sobol and Lei, 1994, p. 170). Its also possible to think about this kind of knowledge in terms of possession: such knowledge is not specific or idiosyncratic to the firm or person possessing it (p. 170). Perhaps for this research the most interesting type of knowledge is the tacit knowledge because it is the one that largely contributes to competitive advantage of the firm. In fact, it was determined by several scholars (Delios and Beamish, 2001; Fang et al., 2007; Pisano, 1994) that tacit (as well as complex and specific) knowledge brings organizations to better-quality performance if its transfer was successfully accomplished. Also it is the type of knowledge that is considered to bring substantial competitive advantage by several academics (Nonaka, 1991; Grant, 1993; Spender, 1993). Polanyi (1966) wrote that tacit knowledge is non-verbalizable, intuitive and unarticulated. Consequently it is hard to replicate and share. Deeper understanding was brought by Nonaka (1994) and (Sternberg, 1994) who both support the fact that tacit knowledge is context-specific: it is a knowledge typically acquired on the job or in the situation where it is used (Sternberg, 1994, p. 28). Nonaka (1994) as other researchers also wrote that tacit knowledge is personal (Sanchez 1997), difficult to articulate, and highly linked with action (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Therefore, on the one hand tacit knowledge is very difficult to transfer but on the other hand this same characteristic makes it being a critical and strategic resource of the firm and its competitive advantage, because competitors can hardly replicate it (Grant,1993; Sobal and Lei, 1994). 3/ Models: How to transmit knowledge Before getting to discussion in which the transfer of knowledge involves strategic alliances, it is useful to look at the process itself. Several models attempt to explain the basics of knowledge transfer. Some of them identify key elements that play a role this process, other present stages and steps, finally some conditions are also acknowledged. In order to understand how knowledge is transferred it is possible to first look at the definitions in cognitive psychology. At the individual level, the transfer was defined as how knowledge acquired in one situation applies (or fails to apply) to another by Singley and Anderson (1989). The transfer of knowledge in the organizational context also involves transfer at the individual level because the evolution of knowledge merely occurs when individuals express the will to share their experiences and insights with others (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Kim and Mauborgne, 1998). This movement of knowledge through various levels of organization from individual, through group, up to organizational was identified by Nonaka (1994) as the concept of spiral of knowledge creation. The same process as on individual level occurs also at other levels such as group, department, divisionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Here the transfer of knowledge is the process in which knowledge and experience of one unit (company, group or department) affects another. Szulanski (2000, p.10) supports this vision: Knowledge transfer is seen as a process in which an organization recreates and maintains a complex, causally ambiguous set of routines (i.e. knowledge and experiences) in a new setting (i.e. another com pany, department, divisionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦). Knowledge transfer can be regarded as process which is composed of basic elements. Szulanski (2000) identified them as: source, channel, message, recipient, and context. Obviously, source is the unit from which the message (knowledge) will flow to the recipient by the channel and the whole process will be considered in a particular organizational context which can be fertile (facilitates knowledge transfer) or barren (problems occur with transfer). In the same research he explained several stages of the process of knowledge transfer. The process usually starts by the initiation. Then comes the implementation phase divided into several stages: the initial implementation effort, the ramp-up to satisfactory performance, and subsequent follow-through and evaluation efforts to integrate the practice with other practices of the recipient (Szulanski 2000, p.12) Furthermore, ODell and Grayson (1998) elaborated six steps in the knowledge transfer. Primary the identification of important knowledge is necessary. From this point on it is essential to collect the knowledge systematically and then organize the knowledge. When knowledge has been organized it can be shared (transferred), but before the final stage of usage of knowledge to solve problems, it has to be adapted. A number of conditions of knowledge transfer were presented by Grant and Baden-Fuller (2000). There are three main conditions of knowledge transfer. Firstly, the transmitters knowledge must be capable of being expressed in a communicable form. It is effortlessly done with explicit knowledge, however tacit knowledge has to be made explicit with the help of an expert system or be shared trough process of observation and imitation (p.122). What is more, transferred knowledge must be understandable to the source and the recipient. Therefore both have to use common knowledge which can be expressed in terms of the same language, information technology skills and culture. Finally, the new knowledge transferred from the source to recipient must be capable of aggregation which means that it would be possible to add to already existing knowledge. 4/What factors can influence the transfer of knowledge (positive and negative) Several features may play a substantial role in the process of knowledge transfer. When looking at the literature the most obvious in terms of determinants of knowledge transfer, might be the type of knowledge that is transferred. Explicit knowledge is easy to codify and to transfer. Conversely, a large number of studies, like Grant (1996), report the negative influence of knowledge tacitness on its transfer. In general it is considered that tacit knowledge is very difficult to share because of the complexity of its codification (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990) and organizational embeddedness (Kogut and Zander 1992) and that it contributes to creating ambiguity which can most of the times create barriers to the process of transfer. Simonin (1999, 2004) proposed a model in which knowledge tacitness indirectly influences knowledge transfer through ambiguity; it nevertheless specifies the importance of knowledge tacitness as critical factor which makes knowledge transfer difficult. Academics like Grant (1996), Reed and DeFillippi (1990) and Zander and Kogut (1995) raise the issue of complexity of knowledge. Complexity may appear for example when different kinds of skills and wide range of knowledge (individual, team-based experiences, technologies) have to be shared. The more complex the knowledge, the more difficult it is to share. Reed and DeFillippi (1990) also considered the influence of the specificity on knowledge transfer. The term refers to knowledge which is related only to certain kind of transaction relations. Williamson (1999) defined specificity as the ease with which an asset can be redeployed to alternative uses and by alternative users without loss of productive value. From these studies it is now clear that tacitness, complexity and specificity impedes to knowledge transfer by creating ambiguity. According to Simonin (1999) tacitness has the greatest influence in this relationship, followed by specificity, which is much less significant and finally complexity. It seems that culture and willingness to share, elements often cited as factors that can influence knowledge transfer, are interrelated. Willingness to share is one of the key determinants of knowledge transfer; this means that one must be willing to share and the other one to receive. It is not always easy to let go from knowledge. As Bernstein (2000) suggests that willingness to share is influenced by identity because an individual might have a psychological ownership over the knowledge he possesses. Furthermore, Alavi and Leidner (1999) made a good remark about the fact that it will be difficult for organizations to share knowledge and integrate knowledge-based systems without primary having the information sharing culture (i.e. valuing information sharing). Davenport (1997) describes this as open versus closed culture. Very similar to the concept of willingness to share, Szulanski (1996, p.12) argued that lack of motivation also has to be considered as one of the barriers to the process of knowledge transfer because it may result in procrastination, passivity, feigned acceptance, sabotage, or outright rejection in the implementation and use of new knowledge. Szulanski (1996) also noticed another barrier of knowledge transfer. Absorptive capacity is one of the very well known elements that influence the transfer of knowledge. It is the ability to exploit outside sources of knowledge (Cohen Levinthal, 1990, p. 128) and integrate it by replacing old practices by new ones, which is not always effortless (Glaser, Abelson, Garrison, 1983). Chapter 3: Particularities of strategic alliances shaping the process of knowledge transfer Combining resources is the logical response to the harshness of nowadays competition. Other factors as the increase in customers expectations and the less strict regulatory barriers also led companies to form alliances (Gomes-Casseres 1994; Harrigan 1988; Kogut 1988; Nielsen 1988). However these are not the only possibilities alliances are able to provide. Alliances can be considered as one of the means for knowledge gaining and sharing, besides mergers and acquisitions. According to Inkpen (2000) there exist several possibilities for companies to transfer and gain knowledge: internalization within the firm, market contracts, and relational contracts. He considers individual strategic alliances as relational contracts that permit knowledge acquisition and transfer, suitable in the context where knowledge is complex and hard to codify, whereas market based transfers are considered to be more efficient for product related (embodied) knowledge. Number of other researchers also supported the fact that alliances permit firms to share knowledge and ultimately to learn from the partners (Grant, 1996; Hamel, 1991; Khanna et al., 1998; Kogut, 1998). Inkpen (2000, p.1019) wrote: Through the shared execution of the alliance task, mutual interdependence and problem solving , and observation of alliance activities and outcomes, firms can learn from their partners. 1/ Definition strategic alliance In the literature it is possible to find several key characteristics of an alliance. An alliance is usually created between two or more firms that cooperate together in order to achieve some strategic objective, create value that they would not be able to achieve on their own (Borys and Jemison, 1989) and pursue a set of goals (Harrigan 1988; Yoshino and Rangan 1995). Partners are complementary and contribute with their resources and capabilities (Teece, 1992); they are involved in a range of interdependent activities (Contractor and Lorange 1988>2002) and share benefits and risks of the alliance. Dussauge et al. (2000, p.99) described an alliance between two Knowledge Based Enterprises as: an arrangement between two or more independent companies that choose to carry out a project or operate in a specific business area by co-coordinating the necessary skills and resources jointly rather than either operating alone or merging their operations. Some academics consider alliances to be arrangements in which firms establish exchange relationship without joint ownership being considered as a form of alliance (Dickson Weaver, 1997); others consider equity alliances such as joint ventures, also be a form of alliance (Mowery et al. 1996). In this research all possible forms of alliances are considered: a non-equity alliance (co-operation without creation of new organization or exchange of equity); an equity alliance (unilateral or bilateral equity holding among partners without creation of the a new firm); a joint venture (new firm is created, involving joint resources, where partners share ownership and control) 2/ Why strategic alliance can be considered (by certain researchers) the most appropriate form of collaboration for knowledge transfer? Accordingly, of all approaches to knowledge imitability between a knowledge holder and a knowledge seeker, strategic alliances constitute perhaps the most adequate, but nevertheless challenging vehicle for internalizing the others competency Simonin (1999, 595). There are several forms of interorganizational exchange that enable firms to protect valuable resources including mergers and acquisitions, licensing and alliances (Coff, 1997). There are two kinds of knowledge explicit and tacit (Polanyi, 1966), therefore if two firms share knowledge, it will be explicit explicit, explicit tacit or tacit tacit. Licensing can provide a solution for the first two combinations. Yet, it is very hard to gain competitive advantage with explicit knowledge resources, because they might be sold to other companies. By contrast, competitive advantage occurs when tacit knowledge assets are combined, provided their ambiguity, complexity and inimitability (Barney 1991; Dierickx and Cool 1989). This is done through alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Conventional sale contracts, markets, mergers and acquisitions seem to be less attractive structures for knowledge transfer in comparison with alliances. Coff (1997) found that it is not easy to evaluate the value of knowledge based resources, primary because of their tacitness (Mowery, 1983; Pisano, 1990). Firms that want to acquire new knowledge will have to face uncertainty concerning its characteristics and difficulties to determine its quality and to be certain of the transferability of the knowledge held by another firm. Some researchers raise a concern about the fact that in some cases the firm that will acquire knowledge is not certain to be able to deploy it (Flamholtz and Coff 1994; Haspeslagh and Jemison 1991; Polanyi 1966; Zander and Kogut 1995). In this sense, alliance permits to mitigate risks of bad investments. The indigestibility problem of MA, quite the opposite of alliances, was discussed by several academics (Hennart and Reddy, 1997; Inkpen and Beamish, 1997; Dunning, 1997). Indigestible assets are those who come with valuable assets during the transaction (Nonaka 1994). In fact, for some of these assets (in this case knowledge) the aftermarket may not exist after the acquisition. Within an alliance the company does not have to pay for digestion of non-valuable assets and has access to important knowledge resources held by the partner. Reid, Bussiere, Greenaway 2001 (alliance formation issues) Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) identified some advantages of alliances related to knowledge like possibility to achieve early-mover advantage and risk spreading. Early-mover advantage signifies recombining knowledge into innovative products in a quickly advancing knowledge environment. More precisely, this means to quickly identify, access, and integrate across new knowledge combinations. In this situation strategic alliances enable company to quickly access knowledge necessary for introduction of new products to market. Grant and Baden-Fuller (2004) wrote: The greater the benefits of early-mover advantage in technologically-dynamic environments, the greater the propensity for firms to establish interfirm collaborative arrangements in order to access new knowledge. A risk exists in terms that sometimes a company might be uncertain about the future knowledge requirements and knowledge acquisition and integration takes time, the investments are risky (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004): The greater the uncertainty as to the future knowledge requirements of a firms product range, the greater its propensity to engage in interfirm collaborations as a means of accessing and integrating additional knowledge. Powell (1987) also noticed that alliance formation diminishes the risk that knowledge will dissipate quickly. 3/ Which characteristics and capabilities of alliance partners can ameliorate the transfer of knowledge? Before considering the transfer of knowledge, it is important to underline, that both partners of an alliance are expected to possess valuable knowledge (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven 1996). Ahuja (2000) considered such knowledge possession as opportunity for linkage-formation. He also identified three categories of valuable knowledge assets that are: technical capital (capability to create new products, technology and processes), commercial capital (supporting resources) and social capital (useful networks). Throughout the literature it is possible to distinguish some capabilities that are important for proper functioning of the knowledge based alliance: absorptive capacity, combinative capability, experience with alliances, suitable design for knowledge exchange, and choice of alliance structure. In numerous studies, absorptive capacity plays an essential role in the process of knowledge transfer and learning within strategic alliances (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998). Van den Bosch et al. (1999) wrote that it combined the evaluation, acquisition integration and commercial utilization of knowledge obtained from sources exogenous to the firm. Absorptive capacity is susceptible to evolve and augment through activity (Barringer and Harrison, 2000) because it is historical and path dependent in nature as was defined by Cohen and Levinthal (1990). Grant (1996) recognized that knowledge absorption capability can be influenced by: the degree to which the expert knowledge held by organizational members is utilized; the width of specialized knowledge required from firm members; the degree to which a capability can access additional knowledge and reconfigure existing knowledge. Defined by Kogut and Zander (1992) combinative capability refers to the ability of the parties of an alliance to extend, interpret, apply, current and acquired knowledge with the goal of generating new applications from existing knowledge base. Collaborative know-how affects firms ability to form a successful partnership and create a solid ground for knowledge transfer. Simonin (1997) refers to it as to ability to institutionalize organizational routines as a result of previous experiences. Pennings et al. (1994) supports that firms tend to reproduce the behavior from their past experiences. When firms have previous experiences of collaboration within alliance, they acquire knowledge that helps them to effectively design future alliances (Lyles, 1988) and develop superior capabilities at managing particular organizational forms such as alliances (Kale et al., 2002, p. 748). This experience permits avoiding various difficulties (Doz, 1996; Powell et al., 1996). Teece (2000) stressed the importance of the design of the firm to enhance performance and knowledge sharing. He identified distinctive characteristics of design in successful firms. Among these, entrepreneurial orientation and flexibility expressed in rapid responses to ephemeral market opportunities flexible boundaries (outsourcing and alliances). They were also characterized by their non-bureaucratic decision making and rapid internal knowledge sharing owing to the not really strict hierarchies. The choice of alliance structure should be determined considering the perspective of gaining valuable resources (knowledge) from a partner without losing its own (Das and Teng, 2000). Different views exist as to effectiveness of equity joint venture form of alliance for successful knowledge transfer. Several researchers find that this form is the most suitable for the transfer of tacit knowledge and complex capabilities (Kogut, 1988, Mowery et al., 1996). However, Das and Teng (2000) think that this structure is too risky for partnership based on knowledge-based contribution, and that it is more suitable for contributing property-based resources. Inkpen (2002) identifies five categories of antecedents of alliance learning: learning partner characteristics; teaching partner characteristics; knowledge characteristics; relationship factors; and alliance form. Two key characteristics of the learning partner, identified by Nielsen and Nielsen (2009), are important, namely collaborative know-how (same as previous experience of alliances) and knowledge protectiveness (Simonin, 1997, 1999). Protectiveness matches the concept of openness and the degree to which partners are protective of their knowledge. How well do the support the risk of knowledge leakage or spillover (Inkpen, 2000). Chapter 4: potential strategies and behavior that parties of the strategic alliance might adopt to enhance the transfer of knowledge and to cope with difficulties alliances might face Strategic alliances might face a number of difficulties. The first thing that comes out from the numerous literature on strategic alliance and knowledge sharing, is the fear of knowledge spillovers, that are assumed to be inevitable consequence of alliance involvement, despite the efforts companies make in order to protect their valuable knowledge assets (Inkpen, 2000). Therefore, it immediately comes to the issue of trust. In the late 90 a discussion was raised about the possibility that some firms use strategic alliance as a Trojan Horse in order to steal knowledge from its partners. This was especially thought about Japanese partners. However empirical studies do not find support for this hypothesis (Hennart et al. 1999; Mowery 1996). The literature elaborates on so called learning races (Khanna et al. 1998) when one partner (acts opportunistically) tries to gain more knowledge in the alliance exchange, than he shares. Hamel (1991, 86) described alliances as transitional devices where the primary objective was the internalization of partner skills. This creates a significant challenge for strategic alliance. To deal with with this issue, norms and systems can be designed; functional rules can be developed to structure partner engagement (QuÃÆ' ©lin, 1997). When little trust is involved, this may lead to knowledge protectiveness from one or both of the partners. Nielsen and Nielsen (2009) wrote that protectiveness not only may lead to uncertainty and conflict but it also reduces the amount of information exchanged.

Tradgedy:The Scarlet Letter :: essays research papers

Tragedy, many people have defined it so many different ways. So, what is a tragedy? Arthur Miller has defined a tragedy by specifying certain characteristics that must be included in the story; there must be living and breathing characters, it must bring knowledge or enlightenment, there must be an internal conflict, and there must be a struggle for happiness. This definition does a really good job of defining what a tragedy is, but I think that there is more to it. I believe for a story to become a tragedy it does not have to have the above aspects, but every reader has to decide whether it is a tragedy to them. Take The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne for example. Arthur Miller states that the story has to have living characters. In The Scarlet Letter, the main characters are Hester Prynne, Arthur Dimmesdale, Pearl, and Roger Chillingworth. Nathaniel Hawthorne successfully brings these characters to life by showing us human nature and by making them breathe and cry and have emotions that only real people can feel. Hester has real emotions as Hawthorne shows us when he tells what is going through her head when she is on the scaffold in the first scaffold scene; â€Å"†¦she saw her own face, glowing with girlish beauty†¦Ã¢â‚¬  He also shows us Dimmesdale and the guilt he endures â€Å"†¦the judgement of God is on me†¦it is too mighty for me to struggle with!† He shows us how Pearl’s darkness throughout the book, â€Å"Hester could not help question†¦if Pearl was a human child†¦. deeply black eyes†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Hawthorne brilliantly portrays these characters as living. Finding enlightenment or knowledge from this book is a bit more difficult. In a specific section of this book, Hawthorne tells the reader right out what the knowledge to gain from this book is, he says that to lie and to be dishonest to oneself and to the public and to carry guilt, as Dimmesdale and Hester did, is the worst possible thing that a human can do. Dimmesdale carried his guilt for so long that it deteriorated his physical and emotional state and drove him nearly mad. Hester carried Dimmesdale’s secret along with Chillingworth’s and it hurt her emotionally also. The third aspect of a tragedy is that there must be a conflict internally. There is definitely a conflict in Dimmesdale about his guilt. When Dimmesdale and Chillingworth are discussing why men keep their sins quiet, Dimmesdale becomes weak from the emotional pain that it brings him.

Libyan Tourism and Rescuing Strategy Essay

Early in 2011, a wave of political protests against Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi took a violent turn, leading to the outbreak of a civil war between Gaddafi-controlled forces and rebel forces. As the conflict stretched on, Libya’s nascent travel and tourism industry came to standstill. A no-fly zone was imposed over Libya and external forces participated in the conflict; airport runways at Benghazi Airport were destroyed, Tripoli’s port was targeted by NATO forces, and there was significant damage to the country’s infrastructure, the extent of which is yet to be revealed. This brought more than five years of consecutive growth to a halt, as Libya started to emerge from its isolation after the lifting of UN and US sanctions in 2003. The future remains unclear, with the possible opening up of Libya to yet more growth in a post-Gaddafi era. The future is uncertain, and Libya’s travel and tourism industry is expected to suffer losses for at least another two years, even if the conflict comes to an end by the end of 2011. There is a great deal of reconstruction needed, and efforts will be geared towards getting the country back on its feetbefore engaging in more tourism developments. That said, the longer-term prospect may end up proving more encouraging if any reminiscence and residue of the Gaddafi regime is forever scrapped, and a new government aims to truly improve the lives of Libyans and the image of Libya abroad, in an effort to boost the economy, and, ultimately, the travel and tourism industry need urgent recovery strategy however, Libya’s political and economic weaknesses resulted in uprising and Political instability in the whole country starting from 2011. Consequently the destination image of Libya which is a vital component of the decision making of a potential tourist was significantly damaged. In addition the reports on newspapers and other mass media, have frightened potential tourists and significantly weakened the tourism industry during and after the Libyan civil war. after almost two years Libyan authorities have perfected their official efforts to rescue the country from the consequences of the conflict but the main problem is the broken trust in Libya as safe and comfortable area to be visited. The non organized coordination between the government departments created more obstacles with the absence of smart policies and modern strategic planning of using the public media and the multimedia. Literature View Tourism  is  travel  for  recreationalor  business  purposesthe  WorldTourismOrganization  defines  tourists  as people â€Å"travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes Tourism has become a popular global leisure activity, In 2011, there were over 983 million international tourist arrivals worldwide, representing a growth of 4. 6% when compared to US$ 940 billion in 2010. International tourism receipts (the travel item of the balance of payments) grew to  US$1. 3  trillion (â‚ ¬740 billion) in 2011, corresponding to an increase in  real terms  of 3. 8% from 2010. In 2011, international  travel demand  continued to recover from the losses resulting from the  late-2000s recession, where tourism suffered a strong slowdown from the second half of 2008 through the end of 2009. After a 5% increase in the first half of 2008, growth in international tourist arrivals moved into negative territory in the second half of 2008, and ended up only 2% for the year, compared to a 7% increase in 2007. 4]  The negative trend intensified during 2009, exacerbated in some countries due to the outbreak of the  H1N1 influenza virus, resulting in a worldwide decline of 4. 2% in 2009 to 880 million international tourists arrivals, and a 5. 7% decline in international tourism receipts. Tourism is important, and in some cases, vital for many  countries. It was recognized in the  Manila Declaration on World Tourism of 1980as â€Å"an activity essential to the life of nations because of its direct effects on the social, cultural, educational, and economic sectors of national societies and on their international relations. Tourism brings in large amounts of income in payment for  goods and services available, accounting for 30% of the world’s  exports  of services, and 6% of overall exports of goods and services. It also creates opportunities for  employment  in the  service sector of the economy, associated with tourism, these service industries include transportation services, such as  airlines,  cruise ships, and  taxicabs;  hospitality services, such as  accommodations including  hotels  and resorts; and entertainment venues, such as  amusement parks,  casinos,  shopping malls,  music venues, and  theatres. Libya, with its recent embrace of tourism, is not alone among developing nations. Since the early 1970s, an increasing number of developing nations have listed tourism into their economic plans . It was in the 1970s that international tourism became a global phenomenon. Improvements in international transportation like the jumbo jets, which entered service in 1970, improvements in communication networks and a growing affluence among Western nations made the world both accessible and affordable. growing list of nations have tried to provide western travellers with convenience. THE IMPORTANCE OF IMAGE 1 Media Impact Introduction It has been estimated that a remarkable 25% of all news stories involve disasters or crises of some sort, disasters attract the media in very large numbers, and it’s not hard to see why disasters are spectacular, action-orientated, dramatic events which routinely feature human suffering and feats of durance and bravery. From a media perspective they are relatively easy to cover, provide ample opportunity for dramatic photographs, and are guaranteed to attract an audience or sell newspapers, disaster and crisis events inevitably prove an irresistible combination for the media, and for the general public who will be avid consumers of what the media produces. News will normally be reported as soon as it becomes available, and this is the case regardless of how inadequate the initial information is, or how uncertain the source. The advances in modern technology mean that news stories and pictures can be transmitted around the world within minutes even if the media isn’t present in the initial stage of a disaster or crisis, members of the public will be, with mobile telephones and video cameras in hand, and their pictures will be accessed by the media and transmitted. Passengers in the London Underground rail system following the bombings in July 2005, were transmitting pictures to the media from their wrecked carriages and as they evacuated through tunnels to safety. Media personnel usually have little understanding of the fact that in the confused aftermath of a disaster, information may be difficult or impossible to obtain. This can make them suspect that authorities are hiding information from them when the truth is that it just isn’t availableJournalists are usually generalists, not specialists this means that they are unlikely to have any depth of understanding of a disaster or crisis event, the cause, effects or the necessary response and recovery processes. They can, therefore, easily misunderstand what they see and hear in the case of a tourism crisis, it is essential that local tourism operators only comment to the media on matters which are within the scope of their responsibilities and that they do not comment on operational matters which are the responsibility of emergency services or disaster management agencies. The Media and Human Development In Libya the civil war has destroyed the truth in the region as touristic destination and that added more presser on the tourism industry which already was suffering of the ignorance of the previous regime, not all is about the media affect also there are many other factors control the declining of the performance, the main element in the tourism business

Leadership of Martin Luther

Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) was a catholic priest and a theology professor in the late 15th and early 16th century. He was also a central protagonist during the reformation movement In the 16 century, which fathered what Is now known as the protestant reformation. Martin Luther has subsequently become one of the most recognized and Influential leaders In the history of the Charlatans Church. Leadership Defined: The ecclesial context of Lather's leadership Those who try to fine leadership will find themselves at a disadvantage due to the limitations of language.To illustrate this disadvantage: we understand that a â€Å"ball† is a â€Å"spherical object that we play with. † But depending on the context, a ball can be understand as many different things. In football, we play with a ball but it is not spherical. The sun however, is a spherical ball, but we cannot play with it. We can describe a fun time as having a ball, even though we are not playing with a ball. W e can also go to a ball, even though we may not be having a ball. We will rarely have difficulty in understanding the meaning that Is being expressed In all these situation.The same cannot be said for leadership because the word will Invoke different meanings for different people In different situations (Morehouse, 2010). Rewords Describe the definition of Leadership in Morehouse and Hickman, possibly touch on servant leadership in Hickman as the overall â€Å"Nature† of Lather's leadership. Try to give examples that would support servant leadership or whatever leadership he expressed. Rewords Traits and Skills Martin Luther exhibited many of the qualities of what Morehouse describes as trait dervish.The premise of trait leadership Is that certain traits are perceived as more crucial than others In order to lead effectively (Morehouse, 2010). These traits are generally endowed within the leader and cannot be learned. â€Å"Some of these traits that are central to this this I nclude Intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability' (Morehouse, 2010, p. 19). When comparing Martin Luther with these traits, it is easy to see how he naturally exhibited many of them. For example: outside his obvious professorship, Martin Luther was a very intelligent man.His Ninety-Five Theses objected to several traditional catholic practices, but they were intended as a scholarly dispute with a tone of inquisition. Also, Martin Luther possessed tremendous amounts of self-confidence. He challenged the most powerful religious institution in the history of mankind because he was so confident that he alone was correct and that they were the ones in error. He was eventually excommunicated but he still remained determined to stand for his conviction about catholic dogma. Martin Luther was effective with this method of leadership. HISIntelligence appealed too many while his classically helped him begin his own church by 1526. HIS determination to hold bibli cal truths as higher then catholic traditions prompted him to translate the New Testament in the vernacular of the people by allowed people to have the same access to these biblical truths. Martin Luther also demonstrated many of the skills that Morehouse associates with successful leaders. Briefly define traits Rewords Martin Luther traits and how that contributed to his effectiveness (give examples) Rewords Briefly define skills Rewords