Internationalization of professional service firms as ...

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-4233.htm

IJSIM 18,2

140 Received 30 May 2005 Revised 30 September 2005 Accepted 29 May 2006

Internationalization of professional service firms as learning – a constructivist approach Markus Reihlen and Birgit Alexandra Apel Department of General Management, Business Policy & Logistics, University of Cologne, Ko¨ln, Germany Abstract Purpose – Internationalization process research has conceptualized the cross-border move of firms as a process of learning. Yet, little attempts have been made to develop a constructivist learning theory of the internationalizing firm. The aim of this paper is to apply a contemporary learning theoretical framework to analyze the internationalization of professional service firms. Design/methodology/approach – A constructivist theory of learning is applied. Findings – The paper explains learning during the internationalization process of professional service firms as a process of social interaction with the socio-cultural environment. The paper outlines specific individual and social mechanisms through which firms acquire new knowledge when moving across borders and embed themselves into a new socio-cultural market domain. Research limitations/implications – The argument is theoretical in nature and has particular implications for future empirical research, which may investigate the specific social learning mechanisms of the internationalizing firm in particular professional service industries and cultural settings. Originality/value – The application of a constructivist theory of learning to the internationalization of professional service firms is unique until now to the research field. Keywords Professional services, Globalization, Learning, Social interaction Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction Previous studies that established the link between internationalization and learning have examined the influence of knowledge acquisition processes on behavioral patterns of firms. For instance, researchers of the Uppsala model argue that a business’s increasing international market involvement is explained as the result of experience-based learning processes which lead to an incremental pattern of international business commitment (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977, 1990). These learning processes, as findings of the network approach suggests, are embedded in business relations between suppliers, customers and competitors that provide access to new knowledge outside the firm (Johanson and Mattsson, 1988; Glu¨ckler, 2004). International Journal of Service Industry Management Vol. 18 No. 2, 2007 pp. 140-151 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0956-4233 DOI 10.1108/09564230710737790

The authors would like to thank the editors Levent Altinay and Bo Edvardsson as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge the support for this paper by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (research grant 01HW0168).

Further studies extended this research by analyzing factors such as multinational diversity (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1998), international experience (Barkema et al., 1997), knowledge ambiguity (Simonin, 1999), absorptive capacity and motivation (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000), as well as cultural distance (Simonin, 1999) on the ability of firms to transfer knowledge into international markets. Still, the aforementioned research ignores two main factors we consider crucial for developing a learning approach on the part of the internationalizing firm. First, contrary to the behaviorist conception of learning, contemporary learning theories emphasize that knowing and learning are subject-dependent (Bunge and Ardila, 1987). This means that international market conditions are always seen through the eyes of the managers’ subjective experience and that this subjective experience is the cognitive reference point for making judgments on international business opportunities. The Uppsala School, for instance, generally presumes a high degree of risk aversion on the part of the decision-makers and therefore homogenizes an increasingly diverse set of individuals who, in fact, have different risk preferences leading them to different subjective assessments of market conditions (Petersen et al., 2003, pp. 42-43). Second, the subjective experience of people is shaped through active engagement with and feedback from the international business environment. Although the network literature emphasizes the role of social ties between firms as bridges into foreign markets, researchers have not investigated the underlying social learning practices. Research in social learning points out that knowledge creation is also a result of social interactions through which people learn with the help of socio-cultural resources and socio-cultural feedback mechanisms (Thompson and Fine, 1999). In order to address these two main deficiencies in the existing research, we suggest a constructivist learning theoretical approach, which not only integrates the subject and subjectivity of the learner into the learning process, but also at the same time understands learning as a socially contextualized and situated process of interaction with the socio-cultural environment. The aim of this conceptual paper is to develop and apply key concepts of a constructivist theory of learning in order to explain the individual and social learning mechanisms of the internationalizing service firm. Our analysis is applied to the learning processes during the internationalization of professional service firms (PSFs) such as business consultancies, legal practices, engineering firms and advertising agencies. The paper is structured as followed: In the first section we explain the nature of PSFs emphasizing individual intellect and social learning. In the second section, we introduce key assumptions of a constructivist learning theory and apply this approach in the third section on the internationalization of PSFs. Finally, we develop conclusions with research and managerial implications. Key characteristics of professional service firms Competition in the “intellect industry” (Scott, 1998) is driven by an imperative of flexibility and learning (Empson, 2001; Greenwood et al., 2005). Despite differences between professional service industries – ranging from auditing to advertising – they all specialize in the creation, validation, and application of knowledge in order to solve client problems. Professionals are “counselors” “advisors” or “experts” who can exercise a degree of control over their clients on the basis of complex knowledge. In contrast to the practical

Professional service firms

141

IJSIM 18,2

142

knowledge of semi-skilled labor, professionals depend largely on a stock of academic knowledge usually blended with creativity, discretion and pragmatically justified rules of thumb of the experienced practitioner (Abbott, 1988). Following Fosstenløkken et al. (2003) we can distinguish two processes during the value creation and delivery of professional services. The first process is concerned with developing a knowledge base. This knowledge base is fundamental for any kind of service offered to clients. The knowledge base is created by recruiting professionals with a specific skill set, by learning from “lead clients” in industry during project work, and by advancing the knowledge base through research usually done within particular knowledge centers of the firm. The second process – the service delivery – is triggered once a client contracts the PSF to work on a specific problem, requiring customized learning processes. The general expertise of the PSF – represented by the knowledge base – has to be adapted to the local needs of clients, engaged as a co-producer of the service process. The degree of customization depends as much on the type of client problem as on the existing capability of the PSF represented by its knowledge base. The output of the service production process has been widely described as intangible and complex knowledge, making it difficult for clients to assess the quality of the service provided (Greenwood et al., 2005). Basing our position on the above discussion, we can describe professional services with the following characteristics (Løwendahl, 1997, p. 20): They are highly knowledge-intensive, provided by highly educated people, involve a high degree of customization, interaction, discretionary effort and personal judgment by the professional(s) delivering the service, and the services are provided within the constraints of professional norms of conduct. For gaining and sustaining competitive advantages, these characteristics imply that strategies of PSFs mainly emerge from managing intellectual capital embedded in social exchange relationships with clients, peers, educators, and professional associations. Taking the relevance of knowledge and learning for PSFs, it is surprising that research on this topic is still very limited. The literature has been concerned with different knowledge transfer strategies such as codification and personalization (Werr and Stjernberg, 2003; Hansen et al., 1999), the role of the client as a source of innovation (Nikolova, 2007; Fosstenløkken et al., 2003), the nature of organizational knowledge (Morris and Empson, 1998; Olivera, 2000), and institutional effects on knowledge development (Robertson et al., 2003). As Empson (2001) points out, the literature on organizational learning of PSFs either followed a functionalist tradition, regarding knowledge as an objectively definable commodity, or an interpretative tradition which viewed knowledge as socially constructed. Still, both views offer very limited insights into how the sense-making of professionals interacts with the socio-cultural context during processes of service production. We explore this next, on the basis of a constructivist theory. Theoretical assumptions of a constructivist learning theory Constructivism has no ready-made unitary theoretical structure with commonly accepted assumptions, as different “varieties” of constructivism have evolved (Ringberg and Reihlen, 2006). Accordingly, we can distinguish at least between two versions of constructivism. While cognitive constructivism (Glasersfeld, 1995; Piaget, 1977) emphasizes “that all knowledge . . . only exists in the heads of human beings and that the thinking subject can construct his/her knowledge only on the basis

of his/her own experience” (Glasersfeld, 1995, p. 22), social constructivism (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Lave and Wenger, 1991) suggests that learning is a result of social interactions within a shared socio-cultural context. More recently, researchers have taken steps to link the cognitive with the social interactionist view in order to provide a more integrative perspective on learning (Ringberg and Reihlen, 2006). With these thoughts in mind, we suggest that a constructivist learning theory is built upon two rationales: first, learning and understanding is an active, constructive, and generative process of meaning production shaped by cognitive, emotive, and volitional processes of the thinking subject (Glasersfeld, 1995; Piaget, 1977). This implies that new market signals do not simply become engraved in the professional entrepreneur’s mind during his or her international venture, but have to be enacted and interpreted on the basis of previous experience. Second, learning is a social process of enculturation where managers negotiate meanings among various groups defined by common practices, beliefs, values, and a common language (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Thompson and Fine, 1999). Learning as interaction with the socio-cultural context Learning ensures a “fit” between the organism and the environment with which it interacts. The structural coupling between the expanding business and the new interactive milieu is made more difficult by culture-specific interpretation and expectation patterns. Therefore, the necessary learning processes of an internationalizing PSF embraces not only the learning of industry-specific facts and skills, but also a certain “enculturation” in other words, the company’s “growing into” the “new” social habits, convictions, communication styles and conventions of all kinds (Siebert, 2003; Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl, 1998). Making sense of international markets International market events do not convey meaning or knowledge per se. Rather, the perceiver of an event, be it a new technology development or difficult negotiations with a client, faces the task of interpretation. This interpretation, as constructivist argue, builds upon the subjective experience (organized into cognitive frames of reference) of the interpreter (Glasersfeld, 1995, p. 141). The key to understanding the challenges of moving into a new socio-cultural market environment is that previous experience is an insufficient guide for managers when making assessments, judgments, and decisions on international venture creation. In many cases, individuals’ cognitive biases such as overconfidence or myopia lead them to false assessments of client needs, social conventions, and institutional pressures. An illustrative case of this is the internationalization of American law firms. Spar (1997) reports that American lawyers with their orientation toward corporate law and their penchant of pushing deals have encountered problems when applying American-style lobbying in European and Asian markets. While American lawyers have routinely used lobbying as a common and publicly acceptable business practice of networking and persuasion at home, the same practice was perceived as too “pushy” abroad. Lobbying was viewed as a “nasty” business practice that created resentment in Europe, Japan, and China towards US law firms applying these practices of relationship-building. Success in making deals and forming business relationships required unlearning established routines and constructing new practices compatible with the cultural norms and values of the target markets.


143

IJSIM 18,2

144

This unlearning of previous experience requires that managers construct information that is discordant with the existing cognitive frame of reference. Maturana and Varela (1987) call these “disrupting” effects on our cognitive system perturbations. Perturbations cast doubt on the viability of individual constructs (in our case the lobbying practices of law firms) and may as a result trigger a reframing. The extent to which perturbations give rise to learning processes depends in particular on how they are subjectively processed by the individual. Research suggests that mindful learning requires attentiveness to one’s situational conditions and a creative-reflective capacity to respond to unforeseen cues (Levinthal and Rerup, 2006). Constructivist learning researchers also point out that knowledge only has a lasting effect when it is situated, i.e. integrated in the contexts of life and personal biography. Only in a learning context which makes knowledge appear relevant, useful and important to their own actions will knowledge be built up by the members of the organization themselves and integrated into their own cognitive structures in such a way that it is properly understood and does not degenerate into something sluggish and superficial (Arnold and Siebert, 1997; Reich, 2002). A good example of this point is the study of Malhotra (2003), where she shows that the nature of consulting knowledge is highly embedded and contextual, making it difficult to appropriate and apply it to different cases as it cannot generate the same value in a different client setting. Dawson (2005), therefore, argues that new knowledge is created by combining different people’s ideas and this knowledge only has value within this relationship. Similarly, in an empirical study on knowledge transfer in an international consulting firm, Reihlen and Ringberg (2006) found that consultants had severe difficulties in appropriating advisory knowledge that was developed elsewhere in the company. This follows Piaget (1989, p. 252), who writes, “What has not been acquired through experience and personal reflection can only be superficially assimilated and does not modify any way of thinking.”[1] The more profound knowledge is, therefore, best acquired on the spot through the firm’s own concrete steps towards internationalization. This gives managers the opportunity to test and reflect upon their own cognitive frames of reference and abstract rules from their first-hand experience within an unfamiliar socio-cultural context. The incremental nature of learning Learning is ultimately always an achievement of the autopoietic self-referential system itself and not the result of a transfer of information or, put quite generally, of an input. Thus, every piece of information, no matter how trivial it may seem, must be considered in relation to the question of its capacity to link up with the learner’s self-referential system (Huschke-Rhein, 2003; Foerster, 2001). In order that, speaking generally, events can be recognized as meaningful signs or linguistic symbols at all, a corresponding piece of pre-existent knowledge must be anchored in the recipient’s mind. In addition, semantic contexts must be present in order to be able to encompass the more specific meanings of symbols. If there is no pre-existent knowledge present in a particular context, and if this particular semantic association does not exist in the brain of an individual, no semantic construction will take place, or maybe a different one from that intended by the sender. From a learning-theoretical perspective, this leads to various consequences for internationalizing PSF. The need for prior knowledge, in order to understand, indeed to recognize at all, information and so far unknown aspects “properly,” in other words as seen by the client, by any existing professional organizations and by the new market generally,

may require internationalization to proceed gradually, as propagated by the Uppsala model: on the one hand, in accordance with the Uppsala model, expansion within a particular foreign market follows a gradual learning process through which the firm gets to know its special features and to build on the new experiences; on the other, the international expansion in various new markets depends on their “psychological distance” (Halle´n and Wiedershiem-Paul, 1999). As the study by Glu¨ckler (2004) in the consultancy industry shows, this gradual learning is mostly achieved by relational market entry forms, as suggested by the network approach, where PSF follow their clients or use a piggyback strategy with business partners through whom the firm gets to know the special features of the new market and to build on the new experiences. The close bond with the client required during professional services production, in particular where services are tailored to the client’s needs, makes it essential that an intensive and co-operative interaction with the client and accordingly, a high degree of mutual understanding and trust, is established (Nikolova, 2007). For this reason, the existing cognitive structures of the business partners, which alongside their industry-specific similarities will be characterized by different cultural, social, and individual biographical factors, must be extended in each case in such a way that the constructions of sender and receiver, client and consultant, are comprehensible to each side, to the extent that each knows what the other’s intended meaning is. This requires built-up shared cognitive frameworks applied to incoming signals. As this is not possible from one minute to the next, so to speak, incremental internationalization within a market, as observed in the Uppsala model is, from a learning-theoretical point of view, to be supported, as is expansion into further unfamiliar foreign markets. Unlike more traditional firms that move gradually into international markets, Born Globals (firms that engage in international operations from the very beginning of their establishment) internationalize quickly as the current knowledge base is less restricting the selection and evaluation of international markets. Managers of these firms have a much more adventurous and explorative mindset from the start. Earlier research shows that the entrepreneurial ventures of Born Globals are facilitated by well-established network ties that supply them with knowledge about markets and clients. Business partners compensate for the knowledge deficits of Born Globals (Sharma and Blomstermo, 2003; Oviatt and McDougall, 1994). From a learning theoretical view, Born Globals are not necessarily more efficient learners, but rather show higher risk preferences in their learning mode and successfully exploit a broad range of network ties that allow them to enter a large number of foreign markets. Contrary to the Uppsala model which reduces learning to experiential action (Forsgren, 2002), recent studies have shown that Born Globals complement this type of learning-by-doing with other modes of knowledge creation such as learning through grafting, imitating or searching (Saarenketo et al., 2004). Still, these additional learning modes will only accelerate the knowledge-creation process when they facilitate the construction, reconstruction, and deconstruction of existing knowledge. This means that new information has to be recognized by individuals as meaningful on the basis of their previous experience and, furthermore, trigger cognitive reflections. Social embedding and networking The social character of learning is reflected by situated learning theory, which regards human cognition as being embedded in and inseparable from the socio-cultural context


145

IJSIM 18,2

146

(Lave and Wenger, 1991). Learning emerges from interactions and transactions between differently situated individuals such as clients, consultants, regulators, and educators. Knowledge creation is, therefore, a result of embedding higher mental operations into specific forms of social interactions that make it possible to acquire missing knowledge about technologies, and above all about local regulations, practices, interpretation and expectation patterns, as well as personalities and their connections. In this regard, the environment of PSFs not only provides resources such as funding, manpower, or legitimacy, but also offers cognitive networks of orientation through which professional practices are regulated. This process of regulation takes the form of cognitive feedback loops. The output of professional practices – complex knowledge – is subject to perceptions and assessments of actors outside the PSFs, such as clients, peers, educators, or regulators, who will in various ways articulate a response on how professional practices are appreciated. These feedback loops are provided through a comprehensive set of institutions in which professional work is embedded. PSFs will only gain influence on their environment if they re-orientate their professional activities according to the cognitive feedback provided through this complex network of institutions (Reihlen, 2003). This social embedding comes about first of all via client contact, whereby the business acquires market-relevant knowledge. Clients should therefore, not just be seen as the main source of income for financial success, but also, and above all, through collaboration and the resulting feedback, as a source of possible impulses, in order to re-construct the firm’s product, namely knowledge itself, whereby an attempt is accordingly made to meet the preferences, wishes and needs of the clients. But for a newcomer to a market, this necessary client contact is not automatic, but must rather in many cases first be built up. Embedding in the social structure of the market in question must therefore proceed, alongside direct client contact, also via other social interactions, such as communication and co-operation with other local institutions, in order to be able to understand special local conditions and culture-specific constructions and to re-think one’s own constructions. At the same time, the organization must attempt to signal its own competence in the market and to attain a certain degree of recognition, in order to acquire further business that will safeguard the enterprise’s continued presence in the market (Glu¨ckler, 2004). To this end, the PSF can deploy various forms of marketing its knowledge. This can be done, for example, by publishing articles in specialist journals, thereby signaling its own competence, or by giving lectures at conferences and congresses, thereby underpinning its credibility, or through workshops and seminars for clients, in order to demonstrate its expertise (Armbru¨ster and Barchewitz, 2004). Using these and similar methods, the firm has the chance to influence its image in the new market place. At the same time, the communication and interaction with clients serve to check how one’s own achievements and abilities are accepted in the foreign market. In view of the fact that academic knowledge represents a source of legitimacy for PSFs’ claim to have esoteric knowledge, contact with institutions of higher education is also helpful in the newly entered market. Unlike the practical experience gained by semi-skilled workers trained on the job, the expertise of professional service-providers depends in large measure on theoretical knowledge of an academic type (Abbott, 1988). Close relationships with institutions of higher education has the following advantages. First, since PSFs “are forced to attract and retain qualified people” (Ka¨rreman et al., 2002, p. 73), many of them have established close links to academia for selecting and

training young recruits. For instance, in emerging markets like China, the Big Four accounting firms have made substantial investments into learning centers where the new recruits are educated for the demands of a high growth business (Anonymous, 2005). Second, PSFs can advance their own knowledge by informing themselves about current developments in research in their own field and perhaps also to use research projects of their own to constantly update their own knowledge-base and to construct new services. In addition, co-operation with institutions of higher learning in turn creates the possibility of acquiring legitimacy in the market as a competent problem-solver. For professional service-providers in particular, there is also the possibility of using the network of professional associations to acquire market-specific knowledge and to keep up with new developments. In addition, they can get involved with the dissemination of knowledge. The social interactions, which arise as a result, contribute in turn to new professional knowledge being constructed. However, professional organizations have a regulatory character, in that they set standards for the work of professional service providers. But this happens not only top-down, from the organization to the individual businesses; rather, the individual business has the possibility to get involved in the association and thus to influence these standards bottom-up (Greenwood et al., 2002, p. 61). For the internationalizing PSF therefore, the conclusion is that it is necessary to embed itself in knowledge-intensive networks and the institutional structure of the new market. This embedding is done on the one hand with the aim of signaling its own competence within the connections and thus to build up a reputation and to ensure its own legitimacy in the market, and, on the other, to learn through the feedback thus received from the business partners. That means the PSF can re-think its own constructions as a result of the variety of impulses, and through deconstruction and reconstruction adapt to the demands and particularities of the market. In addition, PSF can try to use its embeddedness in knowledge-intensive networks to influence the latter according to its own ideas. One goal, therefore, consists in increasing one’s own influence on the new environment in order thus to create preferable conditions for oneself in the market and to try to institutionalize one’s own constructions, in other words one’s own view of things, as a collectively binding perspective for action (Reihlen, 2003). Conclusion Researchers of the Uppsala model and more recently of the network approach have opened up important foundations for exploring learning processes of the internationalizing firm. Still, both approaches are implicitly based on a behaviorist learning theory that treats the socio-cognitive learning processes of PSFs as a “black box.” Basing our considerations on key characteristics of PSFs such as knowledge-intensity, interactiveness with clients and network relationships we suggest a constructivist approach to learning of the internationalizing firm with implications for understanding international markets, the nature of the learning process, and the social embeddedness in the target market. Our constructivist approach to learning is essential for PSFs because it draws attention to the social processes of knowledge creation of professionals in interactions with clients and business partners of the firm’s environment while simultaneously


147

IJSIM 18,2

148

treating learning as an active process of sense-making. The position inherent in our constructivist line of reasoning is one that focuses on both individual activity of professionals and on the socio-cultural context in which they participate. From this point of view, professionals contribute to knowledge creation as they reorganize their interpretations and understandings during their international business venture. On the other hand, their participation in social practices with clients, peers or regulators provides them with cognitive feedback on how their knowledge is evaluated by outsiders. With this more integrative view, we complement and refine earlier contributions to a learning perspective on the internationalization process. A constructivist view has clear implications for managers. Managers have to be aware that their own perceptions and judgments are made within the framework of their previous experience. In order to overcome interpretative myopia, managers should develop attitudes and skills that allow them to understand and apply multiple ways of perceiving the world and expressing themselves. Creating more diverse organizations with members of different socio-cultural backgrounds can also foster learning. By increasing the diversity of organizational members, the firm cannot only facilitate innovation, but also increase their absorptive capacity for understanding and managing culturally remote markets. Our constructivist perspective is not without limits. Empirical researchers, especially, attempting to unveil the learning of managers from a constructivist stance, have to be aware of the fact that cognition or other mental activities such as emotions and volitions are not directly observable and therefore, much harder to survey. Zahra et al. (2005, p. 138) therefore remind us when studying cognitions that researchers may impose their interpretations on entrepreneurs’ behaviors and draw false conclusions, because observable behavior does not always reflect cognition. Instead, given the subjectivity of individual constructions, researchers have to engage with qualitative methodologies. One route to accomplish this is to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000) from which deeply held mental models can be identified and their influence recognized. From a theoretical perspective, future research would benefit from exploring further the link between a constructivist learning theory and the “social embeddedness” approach (Dacin et al., 1999) as knowledge creation in a PSF setting is situated within collaborative networks of learning. We also see research opportunities for investigating learning processes as they take shape in different regional settings. Addressing this issue requires carefully crafted case studies that trace the states and changes of subjective meaning constructions of participants as they enter into a new environment and make themselves familiar with the new competitive terrain. Note 1. Translated by von Glasersfeld (2000, p. 7). References Abbott, A. (1988), The System of Professions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Anonymous (2005), “China: Deloitte opens second China learning centre”, International Accounting, 9 November.

Armbru¨ster, T. and Barchewitz, C. (2004), “Marketing instruments of management consulting firms: an empirical study”, paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, New Orleans. Arnold, R. and Siebert, H. (1997), Konstruktivistische Erwachsenenbildung: von der Deutung zur Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit, Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren, Baltmannsweiler. Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1998), “International expansion through start-up or acquisition: a learning perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 7-26. Barkema, H.G., Shenkar, O., Vermeulen, F. and Bell, J.H.J. (1997), “Working abroad, working with others: how firms learn to operate international joint ventures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 426-42. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1967), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, DoubleDay, Garden City, NY. Bunge, M. and Ardila, R. (1987), Philosophy of Psychology, Springer, New York, NY. Dacin, T.M., Ventresca, M.J. and Beal, B.D. (1999), “The embeddedness of organizations: dialogue and directions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 317-56. Dawson, R. (2005), Developing Knowledge-based Client Relationships, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Empson, L. (2001), “Introduction: knowledge management in professional service firms”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 811-34. Foerster, H.v. (2001), Understanding Understanding. Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition, Springer, New York, NY. Forsgren, M. (2002), “The concept of learning in the Uppsala internationalization process model: a critical review”, International Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 257-77. Fosstenløkken, S.M., Løwendahl, B.R. and Revang, Ø. (2003), “Knowledge development through client interaction: a comparative study”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 859-79. Glasersfeld, E.v. (1995), Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning, Falmer Press, London. Glasersfeld, E.v. (2000), “Problems of constructivism”, in Steffe, L.P. and Thompson, P.W. (Eds), Radical Constructivism in Action: Building on the Pioneering Work of Ernst von Glasersfeld, Routledge, London, pp. 3-9. Glu¨ckler, J. (2004), Reputationsnetze. Zur Internationalisierung von Unternehmensberatern. Eine relationale Theorie, transcript, Bielefeld. Greenwood, R., Hinings, C.R. and Suddaby, R. (2002), “Theorizing change: the role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 58-80. Greenwood, R., Li, S.X., Prakash, R. and Deephouse, D.L. (2005), “Reputation, diversification, and organizational explanations of performance in professional service firms”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 661-73. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge flows within multinational corporations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-96. Halle´n, L. and Wiedershiem-Paul, F. (1999), “Psychic distance and buyer-seller interaction”, in Buckley, P.J. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), The Internationalization of the Firm: A Reader, Thompson, London, pp. 349-60. Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.


149

IJSIM 18,2

150

Huschke-Rhein, R. (2003), Einfu¨hrung in die systemische und konstruktivistische Pa¨dagogik. Beratung, Systemanalyse, Selbstorganisation, Beltz, Weinheim. Johanson, J. and Mattsson, L.-G. (1988), “Internationalisation in industrial systems – a network approach”, in Hood, N. and Vahlne, J-E. (Eds), Strategies in Global Competition, Croom Helm, New York, NY, pp. 287-314. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. (1977), “Internationalization process of firm – model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-32. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. (1990), “The mechanism of internationalization”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 11-24. Ka¨rreman, D., Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2002), “The return of the machine bureaucracy? Management control in the work settings of professionals”, International Studies in Management & Organization, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 70-92. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Levinthal, D. and Rerup, C. (2006), “Crossing an apparent chasm: bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 502-13. Løwendahl, B.R. (1997), Strategic Management of Professional Service Firms, Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen. Malhotra, N. (2003), “The nature of knowledge and the entry mode decision”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 935-59. Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1987), Der Baum der Erkenntnis: die biologischen Wurzeln des menschlichen Erkennens, Scherz, Bern. Morris, T. and Empson, L. (1998), “Organisation and expertise: an exploration of knowledge bases and the management of accounting and consulting firms”, Accounting Organizations & Society, Vol. 23 Nos 5/6, pp. 609-26. Nikolova, N. (2007), The Client-consultant Relationship in Professional Service Firms, Ko¨lner Wissenschaftsverlag, Ko¨ln. Olivera, F. (2000), “Memory systems in organizations: an empircal investigation of mechanisms for knowledge collection, storage, and access”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 811-32. Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1994), “Toward a theory of international new ventures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-64. Petersen, B., Pedersen, T. and Sharma, D.D. (2003), “The role of knowledge in firms’ internationalisation process: wherefrom and whereto?”, in Blomstermo, A. and Sharma, D.D. (Eds), Learning in the Internationalisation Process of Firms, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 36-55. Piaget, J. (1977), The Development of Thought: Equilibration and Cognitive Structures, The Viking Press, New York, NY. Piaget, J. (1989), Studi Sociologici, Franco Angeli, Milan. Reich, K. (2002), Konstruktivistische Didaktik: Lehren und Lernen aus interaktionistischer Sicht, Luchterhand, Neuwied. Reihlen, M. (2003), “The ecology of professional service production”, paper presented at the 19th EGOS colloquium, Copenhagen.

Reihlen, M. and Ringberg, T. (2006), “Computer-mediated knowledge systems in consultancy firms: do they work?”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 24, pp. 307-36. Reinmann-Rothmeier, G. and Mandl, H. (1998), “Wissensvermittlung: Ansa¨tze zur Fo¨rderung des Wissenserwerbs”, in Klix, F. and Spada, H. (Eds), Wissen, Enzyklopa¨die der Psychologie, Hogrefe, Go¨ttingen, pp. 457-500. Ringberg, T. and Reihlen, M. (2006), “From mindless to mindful knowledge transfer research: a socio-cognitive approach”, unpublished working paper, Cologne. Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2003), “Knowledge creation in professional service firms: institutional effects”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 831-57. Saarenketo, S., Puumalainen, K., Kuivalainen, O. and Kylaheiko, K. (2004), “Dynamic knowledge-related learning processes in internationalizing high-tech SMEs”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 363-78. Scott, M.C. (1998), The Intellect Industry – Profiting and Learning from Professional Service Firms, Wiley, Chichester. Sharma, D.D. and Blomstermo, A. (2003), “The internationalization process of Born Globals: a network view”, International Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 739-53. Siebert, H. (2003), Didaktisches Handeln in der Erwachsenenbildung. Didaktik aus konstruktivistischer Sicht, Luchterhand, Mu¨nchen. Simonin, B.L. (1999), “Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic alliances: an empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 463-90. Spar, D.L. (1997), “Lawyers abroad: the internationalization of legal practice”, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 8-28. Thompson, L. and Fine, G.A. (1999), “Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: a review and integration”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 278-302. Werr, A. and Stjernberg, T. (2003), “Exploring management consulting firms as knowledge systems”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 881-903. Zahra, S.A., Korri, J.S. and Yu, J. (2005), “Cognition and international entrepreneurship: implications for research on international opportunity recognition and exploitation”, International Business Review, Vol. 14, pp. 129-46. Corresponding author Markus Reihlen can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


151