What are the primary lessons corporate actors could extract from the Farooq article? The goal of this unit’s written assignment is to get you to think about the connections between knowledge concerning the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) in 2011 and 2021.
The goal of this unit’s written assignment is to get you to think about the connections between knowledge concerning the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) in 2011 and 2021.
Read (or re-read) the Slapper and Hall (2011) article from the Unit 1 area, then read this article by Farooq et al. (2021) Download this article by Farooq et al. (2021) .
Write a paper at least 500 words, double spaced-page in length that follows all requirements detailed on the Weekly Writing Assignments (General) page and addresses the following topics:
Explain how the Farooq et al. article advances the notions outlined concerning the TBL in the Slapper and Hall paper. (You must make clear connections between the two papers, i.e., how did Farooq et al. build upon the Slapper material?)
What are the primary lessons corporate actors could extract from the Farooq article?
Multinational Enterprises’ Knowledge Transfer Received Dimensions and Subsidiary Innovation Performance: The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices and Training and Development Types
In the knowledge-based economy, innovation has been recognized as a fundamental route for socio-economic growth (Poblete, 2022). Innovation plays a momentous function in competition at both the state and enterprise levels as it is a central driving force to economic growth (Boadu et al., 2021a).
Academics’ accentuated the concept as a dynamic capability that surges potentials for enterprises in addressing customer desires, outweighing rivalry, and aligning their strengths with and exploiting marketplace opportunities (Boadu et al., 2021a). Thus, enterprises’ success predominantly hinges on the innovation competency that enables them to be malleable and adapt to the speedy variation of the market arena (Li et al., 2019; Boadu et al., 2021a).
Today’s volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) transnational market environment has thrust multinational enterprises and their affiliates to seek survival antidotes to boost their innovation capabilities for the fiercely competitive battle among the major players.
Among different antecedents affecting innovation, knowledge management processes (such as acquisition, storage, and transfer) are considered as an important weapon for enterprises’ innovation performance, leading to growth, competitiveness, and survival in the international marketplace.
Particularly, effective knowledge transfer processes allow enterprises to inflate internal knowledge resources with external knowledge resources and transform them into dynamic capabilities such as innovation (Boadu et al., 2018, Boadu et al., 2021a). Indeed, knowledge transfer is often considered a fundamental survival approach in the era of the knowledge economy, and the vital foundation of innovation to build blocks for organizational achievement (Roy and Sarkar, 2016).
Academics assert that enterprises with excellent knowledge transfer can sustain their innovation performance in the market arena (Roy and Sarkar, 2016; Boadu et al., 2018; Zia, 2020). Thus, the concept improves a variety of business and marketing performance (Ganguly et al., 2019; López-Cabarcos et al., 2019; Arnett et al., 2021). Admittedly, it is an indispensable contributing factor to corporate innovation performance.
Although, knowledge transfer and firm innovation performances have received the attention of researchers in many disciplines in the extant literature. The current study contends that there is a shred of paucity evidence in the extant literature on how firms adopt knowledge transfer received (KTR)
mechanisms to innovate, as researchers have accentuated the impact of knowledge transfer [i.e., from the multinational enterprises’ headquarters (HQs) to the subsidiary] and reverse knowledge transfer (i.e., from the subsidiary to the multinational enterprises HQs) (Gaur et al., 2019) on firm innovation performance to the detriment of KTR (Boadu et al., 2018). Boadu et al. (2018) defined KTR as a process by which a subsidiary puts in a request and acquires knowledge
(i.e., tacit and explicit) based on strategic information of the cross-border operations and focal business environment from multinational enterprises’ headquarters.
Thus, the study intends to scrutinize the opportunities that KTR dimensions (i.e., tacit and explicit) bids to emerging market subsidiaries vis-à-vis innovation performance. Expressly, the relationship mechanisms of human resource management (HRM) practices and training and development types on the linkage amongst KTR dimensions and subsidiary’ innovation performance (SIP) have been rare.
We contend that the effects of these contextual mechanisms should not be secluded from a theoretical model in which a capability and SIP rapport are present (Schilke, 2014; Boadu et al., 2021a), in emerging economies, specifically the Chinese economy.
The country supports enterprises to use their unique resources to innovate as innovation has shifted from a “nice” to have to a “must-have” phenomenon for enterprises to pursue competitiveness and sustainability. Indeed, the Chinese market environment offers a mesmeric and apposite context to scrutinize the association between tacit and explicit KTR, HRM practices, and training and development dimensions. The research issue is novel, intriguing, and exigent that will significantly contribute to innovation ingenuities in the extant work.
Secondly, the study also explores how training and development dimensions affect the interaction of HRM practices and KTR dimensions on SIP. Training and development reflect a complex system that consists of changing the boundary of organizational
effectiveness and the workforce through programs to influence the competitive advantage toward success and survival (Zhu et al., 2018). In today’s knowledge-intensive era, major international business actors design comprehensive training and development programs for their workforce to develop new skills and creative ideas and discover new opportunities (Boadu et al., 2018) for innovation consequence and competitive advantage of an organization.
Previous scholarships have established a more significant association between on-the-job and off-the-job training and development and innovation outcomes (González et al., 2016; Boadu et al., 2018; Dostie, 2018).
The combined effect of training and development types, HRM practices, and tacit and explicit KTR on innovation performance is scant in extant works. As a result, investigating the joint effect of training and development behaviors, HRM practices and tacit and explicit KTR on SIP is inescapable to have an impeccable comprehension of the antecedent conditions of innovation.