Two Factors to Explain “Knowledge Appropriation vs. Knowledge Sharing”

A Comparative Case Study of Japanese Firms' Affiliates in Asia

Abstract

In the literature of international human resources, it has been widely discussed that Japanese firms are likely to be slower in their pace of localization of HRs (human resources), and this “too slow localization” (ethno-centrism) can cause various problems on the motivation as well as on the skill development of local HRs. In the recent literature, however, it has also been discussed that some problems might take place due to the “too fast localization” (geo-centrism), while some empirical studies have supported for this “mixed results,” where there is no clear relationship between “the pace of localization” of Japanese firms' foreign affiliates and “their individual performances”.

Following these literatures, this study investigates the problem of “knowledge appropriation”, or the problem caused by the newly promoted local HRs to the positions of executives, which might be associated with “too fast localization”. In some cases of the author's interviews to Japanese firms' affiliates in Asia, the problem of “knowledge appropriation” was observed, where, after some local HRs had been promoted to the division head, they tried to appropriate their “context specific skill & knowledge,” or their managing capability of “gray areas” [ “not clearly assigned task areas” as discussed in Ishida (1994) ]. Whereas, in some other cases of the author's interviews, “the knowledge sharing” was observed, where, after some local HRs had been promoted, they became more willing to share their “context specific skill & knowledge” with their subordinates.

Based on these findings, using “Gray areas engagement vs. Well-defined engagement model” framework, which is a modified version of “J vs. F-model” by Ishida (1994), both “knowledge appropriation” and “knowledge sharing” are stylized. Then, analyzing the three cases where the detailed information was available for the decision making on “knowledge appropriation vs. knowledge sharing”, the two explaining factors are pointed out, i.e., (1) “higher dependence on personal skill and knowledge” is likely to promote “knowledge appropriation,” whereas, (2) “higher prospects for growth” through cooperative efforts to develop “gray areas managing capability” is likely to promote “knowledge sharing”.