Valuing Internal vs. External Knowledge: Explaining the Preference for Outsiders

This paper compares how managersvalue knowledge from internal and external sources. Although many theories account for favoritism toward insiders, we find that preferences for knowledge obtained from outsiders are also prevalent. Two complementary case studies and survey data from managers demonstrate the phenomenon of valuing external knowledge more highly than internal knowledge and reveal some mechanisms through which this process occurs. We found evidence that the preference for outsider knowledge is the result of managerial responses to (1) the contrasting status implications of learning from internal versus external competitors, and (2) the availability or scarcity of knowledge-internal knowledge is more readily available and hence subject to greater scrutiny, while external knowledge is more scarce, which makes it appear more special and unique. We conclude by considering some consequences of the external knowledge preference for organizational functioning.

[1]  Margaret A. Neale,et al.  The effects of negotiation and arbitration cost salience on bargainer behavior: The role of the arbitrator and constituency on negotiator judgment , 1984 .

[2]  M. Mizruchi,et al.  The Structure of Corporate Political Action: Interfirm Relations and Their Consequences. , 1992 .

[3]  N. K. Uberoi.  Competing Through Knowledge , 1998 .

[4]  L. Strickland.  Surveillance and trust. , 1958, Journal of personality.

[5]  Michael Niblock,et al.  Managing on the edge , 1992 .

[6]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[7]  L. Festinger.  Social pressures in informal groups : a study of human factors in housing / by Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back , 1950 .

[8]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[9]  Darío Páez,et al.  Social Identity: International Perspectives , 1998 .

[10]  G. Davis.  Agents without Principles? The Spread of the Poison Pill through the Intercorporate Network , 1991 .

[11]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Variations in Decision Makers' Use of Information Sources: The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information. , 1980 .

[12]  Lee,et al.  When the Going Gets Tough, Do the Tough Ask for Help? Help Seeking and Power Motivation in Organizations. , 1997, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[13]  Frederic M. Scherer,et al.  Mergers, sell-offs, and economic efficiency , 1987 .

[14]  M. Tushman,et al.  Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and Their Antecedents , 1981 .

[15]  M. Tushman,et al.  Readings in the Management of Innovation , 1988 .

[16]  Ellen J. Langer,et al.  Horizontal Hostility: Relations Between Similar Minority Groups , 1999 .

[17]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  Who gets power — and how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power , 1977 .

[18]  S. Fiske,et al.  Interpersonal competition can cause individuating processes. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  Eric D. Darr,et al.  The Acquisition, Transfer, and Depreciation of Knowledge in Service Organizations: Productivity in Franchises , 1995 .

[20]  E. Hippel.  Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation , 1994 .

[21]  D. Mackie,et al.  Intergroup relations. , 2019, Annual Review of Psychology.

[22]  B. Barber,et al.  Men, Machines, and Modern Times. , 1967 .

[23]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. , 1976 .

[24]  S. Finkelstein,et al.  The Influence of Organizational Acquisition Experience on Acquisition Performance: A Behavioral Learning Perspective , 1999 .

[26]  R. Daft,et al.  Chief executive scanning, environmental characteristics, and company performance: An empirical study , 1988 .

[27]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  OPPORTUNITY AND CONSTRAINT: ORGANIZATIONS’ LEARNING FROM THE OPERATING AND COMPETITIVE EXPERIENCE OF INDUSTRIES , 1997 .

[28]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[29]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[30]  W. Edwards Deming,et al.  Out of the Crisis , 1982 .

[31]  P. Blau.  The Dynamics Of Bureaucracy , 1955 .

[32]  L. Porter,et al.  The Measurement of Organizational Commitment. , 1979 .

[33]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[34]  A. Athos,et al.  The Art of Japanese Management , 1982 .

[35]  Linda S. Lotto.  Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods , 1986 .

[36]  A. Tesser,et al.  Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: the pain and pleasure of being close. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  Eric D. Darr,et al.  Exchanging best practices through computer-aided systems , 1996 .

[38]  Pamela R. Haunschild.  Interorganizational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity , 1993 .

[39]  Heather A. Haveman.  Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets , 1993 .

[40]  張富鈞,et al.  從人際吸引(interpersonal attraction)的觀點談體育課中師生的互動 , 2000 .

[41]  Thomas J. Allen,et al.  Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome : A Look at the Performance, Tenure, and Communication Patterns of 50 R&D Project Groups : R&D Management , 1987 .

[42]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences , 1993 .

[43]  Mary J. Culnan,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING: THE EFFECTS OF TASK COMPLEXITY AND SOURCE ACCESSIBILITY ON INFORMATION GATHERING BEHAVIOR* , 1983 .

[44]  E. Johnsen.  Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[45]  Douglas N. Jones.  The Structure of Corporate Political Action: Interfirm Relations and Their Consequences , 1993 .

[46]  L. Strickland.  Surveillance and trust1 , 1958 .

[47]  Dominic Abrams,et al.  Social identity and intragroup differentiation as subjective social control , 1998 .

[48]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[49]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. , 1991 .

[50]  Gabriel Szulanski.  Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm , 1996 .

[51]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[52]  M. Brewer.  In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. , 1979 .

[53]  Shelley E. Taylor.  Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. , 1983 .

[54]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[55]  John C. Narver,et al.  The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability , 1990 .

[56]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[57]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. , 1992 .

[58]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

[59]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[60]  R. Katz,et al.  Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups , 1982 .