El efecto moderador del aprendizaje relacional en el vínculo PACAP-RACAP. Un estudio en el sector español de fabricantes de componentes para la automoción

Revista

Europea

de

Dirección

y

Economía

de

la

Empresa

w w w . e l s e v i e r . e s / r e d e e

Article

The

moderating

role

of

relational

learning

on

the

PACAP–RACAP

link.

A

study

in

the

Spanish

automotive

components

manufacturing

sector

Antonio

L.

Leal-Rodríguez

,

José

L.

Roldán

a_{DepartamentodeOrganizacióndeEmpresas,UniversidadLoyolaAndalucía,C/EnergíaSolar,1,41014Sevilla,Spain}

b_{DepartamentodeAdministracióndeEmpresasyMarketing,UniversidaddeSevilla,RamónyCajal,1,41018Sevilla,Spain}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received9March2013 Accepted1July2013

Availableonline26October2013

JELclassification: M10 M14 M15 C31 Keywords: Absorptivecapacity Relationallearning Potentialabsorptivecapacity Realizedabsorptivecapacity

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Startingfromtheconstructabsorptivecapacity(ACAP),thispaperadoptsZahraandGeorge(2002) con-ceptualizationofabsorptivecapacity,whichconsidersitastwosubsets–potentialabsorptivecapacity (PACAP)andrealizedabsorptivecapacity(RACAP).Hencewehavehypothesizedapositiverelationship betweenPACAPandRACAP.Wealsohypothesizedapositiverelationshipbetweenrelationallearning (RL)andRACAP.FinallywehaveassessedthemoderatingroleofRLinthePACAP–RACAPlink.Datawere collectedfromasampleof110firmsbelongingtotheSpanishautomotivecomponentsmanufacturing sector.Resultsfromavariance-basedstructuralequation-modelingtoolshowthatRLmoderates (rein-forces)theinfluenceofPACAPonRACAP.Inadditionthispaperprovidesevidenceabouttheimportant rolethatRLplaysasantecedentofRACAP.

©2013AEDEM.PublishedbyElsevierEspaña,S.L.Allrightsreserved.

El

efecto

moderador

del

aprendizaje

relacional

en

el

vínculo

PACAP-RACAP.

Un

estudio

en

el

sector

espa ˜

nol

de

fabricantes

de

componentes

para

la

automoción

Palabrasclave:

Capacidaddeabsorción Aprendizajerelacional Capacidaddeabsorciónpotencial Capacidaddeabsorciónrealizada

r

e

s

u

m

e

n

Partiendodelconstructocapacidaddeabsorción(ACAP),estetrabajoadoptaelconceptodecapacidad deabsorciónpropuestoporZahrayGeorge(2002),queloconcibencomounconceptocompuestopor dos–capacidaddeabsorciónpotencial(PACAP)ycapacidaddeabsorciónrealizada(RACAP)–Deahíque hayamoshipotetizadounarelaciónpositivaentrePACAPyRACAP.Asimismohemoshipotetizadouna relaciónpositivaentreelaprendizajerelacional(RL)yRACAP.Finalmentehemosanalizadoelrol mode-radordelRLsobreelvínculoPACAP-RACAP.Losdatosfueronobtenidosdeunamuestrade110empresas pertenecientesalsectorespa ˜noldefabricantesdecomponentesparalaautomoción.Losresultados arro-jadosporunatécnicademodelosdeecuacionesestructuralesbasadosenlavarianzamuestranqueelRL modera(reforzando)lainfluenciadePACAPsobreRACAP.Ademásesteestudioproporcionaevidencia empíricasobreelimportantepapelquedesempe ˜naelRLcomoantecedentedeRACAP.

©2013AEDEM.PublicadoporElsevierEspaña,S.L.Todoslosderechosreservados.

Introduction

Withinthecontextofthesocietyofknowledge,thereareplenty ofcompaniesthatroottheircompetitiveadvantageonknowledge.

∗ _{Correspondingauthor.}

E-mailaddress:[email protected](A.L.Leal-Rodríguez).

Theseknowledge-basedorknowledge-intensivefirmsare gener-allycharacterizedbytheirdeterminedorientationorcommitment toinnovation,and theirsupportof learningand, whenneeded, unlearning mechanisms.These firmsusually rely ontheuseof projectteamsinwhichinnovationisakeysurvivalcapability.

Theautomotivecomponentsmanufacturingsector(ACMS)is composedbyfirmswhichsupposequitegoodexamplesofthiskind ofknowledge-intensivecompanies.Moreover,thissectorhasbeen 1019-6838/$–seefrontmatter©2013AEDEM.PublishedbyElsevierEspaña,S.L.Allrightsreserved.

oneofthefastestgrowingonesinthelastyearsinSpain.Thefirms belongingtothissectortendtoorientatetheirproductiontoother firms,principallylargestautomobilemanufacturers(i.e.,Renault, Peugeot,Citroen,etc.)providingthemwithcomponentsandhighly customizedproductsandservices.MostfirmsintheACMSsector areSMEs,whichinordertobeinnovative,needtoacquire spe-cializedknowledgeaswellastofostercumulativelearning.This willallowthemtobeabletodifferentiatetheiroutputsfromtheir competitors.Thesenewskillsandcapabilitiesarenecessaryto gen-eratenewproducts, servicesorprocessesthatcouldleadtothe achievementandsustainmentofacompetitiveadvantage.

Increasingly,thesocio-economicsituationinwhich organiza-tionsareinvolved ischaracterizedbyagreatercomplexity.The businessenvironmenthasbecomedeeplyglobalized,andthedaily scenariothatfirmshavetodealwithismarkedbydynamismand diversity.Thisnewscenarioinwhich theexcessof information anduncertaintyareproliferating,makescompanies,aswellasthe setof adjacentstakeholders,progressivelymoreorientedtothe generationofasustainablecompetitiveadvantagetoward knowl-edgemanagement(KM)procedures.

Thisglobalization of economy,markets and production pro-cedureshasledorganizationstoincreasetheirawarenessabout knowledge.Knowledgecanbebothinternallygeneratedwithinthe organizationorexternallyobtained.Thefirstmethodis tradition-allyreferredtoas“knowledgecreation”or“knowledgegeneration”. On the other hand, the second method is named “knowledge capture”or“knowledgeabsorption”.Theknowledgecreation com-prisesthefirm’sinternaldevelopmentofinsight,knowledgeand know-how.Onthecontrary,theknowledgeabsorptiondealswith theidentificationandsubsequentacquisitionofexternal knowl-edgebytheorganization.Onceanorganizationhasdiscovereda specificpieceofexternal knowledgewhichis interestingforits ownactivityand goals, thenextstepdealswithabsorbingthis knowledge.

Identifyingnew external knowledge sourceshas becomean importantstrategicscopeforplentyoffirms.AccordinglywithLee andWu(2010,p.118),“theabilitytocreateandtransferknowledge internallyisoneofthemaincompetitiveadvantagesof multina-tionalcorporations”.Inparalleltoitsacquisition,thisknowledge shouldbeeffectivelysharedanddisseminatedwithinthedifferent organizationareasanddepartments.“Asknowledgeiscreatedand disseminatedthroughoutthefirm,ithasthepotentialtocontribute tothefirm’svaluebyenhancingitscapabilitytorespondtonewand unusualsituations”(Leal-Rodríguez,Leal-Millán,Roldán-Salgueiro, &Ortega-Gutiérrez,2013).Inthissensetheorganizations’ capa-bilitytoabsorbknowledge, namely,absorptive capacity (ACAP) facilitatesaneffectiveacquisitionandutilizationofexternalaswell asinternalknowledge,whichwillinturnpositivelyinfluencethe firm’sinnovativecapabilityanditsabilitytoadapttothechanging environmentandhence,remaincompetitive.

InthisstudywewilladoptZahraandGeorge’s(2002) conceptu-alizationofabsorptivecapacityasasetofdynamicorganizational routinesandprocessesbywhichfirmsacquire,assimilate, trans-form,andexploitknowledge.Accordingtotheseauthors,ACAPis composedbytwosubsets:potentialabsorptivecapacity(PACAP) andrealizedabsorptivecapacity(RACAP).Thefirstonecomprises theacquisitionandassimilationofknowledge.Thisislinkedwith theeffortexpendedintheidentificationandacquisitionofnew externalknowledge.Thesecondonedealswithtransforming, com-biningandfinallyexploitingthisrecentlyacquiredknowledge.

ZahraandGeorge(2002)theorizedthatthelinkbetweenPACAP andRACAPismoderatedbyaseriesofsocialintegration mecha-nisms.Theysuggestedthat“socialintegrationmechanismslower thebarrierstoinformationsharingwhileincreasingtheefficiency ofassimilationandtransformationcapabilities”.Takingthis sug-gestionintoconsideration,weextendthisideabytheintroduction

of the relational learning construct (RL). This construct can be understoodasajointactivitybetweentheorganizationandone ormoreparts–supplier,customer,partner,etc.–inwhich the purposeistocooperateandshareinformationandknowledge.We proposethatRLcouldmoderatethePACAP-RACAPlink.

Thepurposeofthispaperis hencetodevelopamodel that: (i)examinestherelationship betweentheabsorptive capacity’s dimensions(PACAPandRACAP)and(ii)investigatesthe moder-ating role of RL in the PACAP-RACAPlink. The paper proceeds asfollows.Nextsectionpresentsthetheoreticalbackgroundand hypotheses. This is followed by a description of the research methodologyusedtotestthesehypotheses,andthentheresults ofthedataanalyses.Finally,theimplicationsandfutureresearch directionsarediscussed.

Theoryandhypotheses

Potentialandrealizedabsorptivecapacity

CohenandLevinthal(1990)coinedthetermabsorptivecapacity (ACAP)withregardtoafirm’sabilitytovalue,assimilate,andapply newknowledge.Kim(1997a,1997b)alsodefineditasthefirms’ capacityoflearningandsolvingproblems.Thisconceptinspired anextensiverangeofresearchontheknowledgetransfertopic.A laterZahraandGeorge’s(2002)studyarousedagreatinterestand supposedanimportantreconceptualizationofabsorptivecapacity. Inthispaper,wewillfocusonthetheoryproposedbyZahra andGeorge(2002).Thecentralideaofthistheorydealswiththe distinctionbetween“potentialabsorptivecapacity”(PACAP)and “realizedabsorptivecapacity”(RACAP).Theseauthorssuggested thenecessitytodistinguishamongfourdistinctbut complemen-tarycapabilities,namelyacquisition,assimilation,transformation andexploitation.Adelimitationofthesefourcapabilitieswillbe assessedinthefollowingparagraphs.

Acquisitionreferstothefirm’scapabilityoffirstlyidentifying andthenacquiringnewexternalknowledge.Thisisconsistentwith CohenandLevinthal’s(1990,p.128)viewoftheprocessof identi-ficationandevaluationofexternalknowledge.Astheytheorized, “Theabilitytoevaluateandutilizeoutsideknowledgeislargelya functionofthelevelofpriorrelatedknowledge.[...]Prior knowl-edgeconfersanabilitytorecognizethevalueofnewinformation, toassimilateit,andtoapplyittocommercialends”.

Assimilationdealswiththefirm’sprocesses,habits,methods androutinesthatleadthemtoaneffectiveassessing,processing and understanding of the information captured from external sources (Kim, 1997a,1997b; Szulanski,1996).Thiscapabilityis rootedonindividuals’understandingandknowledge interpreta-tion.ThisphaseofACAPisclosertotheindividuallevelthanto thecollectiveone.Actually,knowledgeassimilationisbasedonthe firm’sabilitytograspnewexternalknowledgeandlinkitwithits priorrelatedknowledge.

The internalization of new external knowledge in existing firms’processes andproductsis what Zahraand George(2002, p.190)labeledastransformationcapability.Theysuggestedthat thisdimension“denotesafirm’scapabilitytodevelopandrefine theroutinesthatfacilitatecombiningexistingknowledgeandthe newlyacquiredandassimilatedknowledge”.Thisisachievedby addingordeletingknowledgeorbythesimpleinterpretationof knowledgeinadifferentway.

Zahraand George(2002,p. 190)defined exploitation “asan organizationalcapabilitythatisbasedontheroutinesthatallow firms to refine, extend, and leverage existing competencies or tocreate newones byincorporating acquiredand transformed knowledgeintoitsoperations”.Thisphasehasbeentraditionally consideredasmorerelevant.IfweattendtoCohenandLevinthal’s

Relational learning (RL) H3 (+) H1 (+) H2 (+) Realized absorptive capacity (RACAP) Potential absorptive capacity (PACAP)

Fig.1.Structuralmodelresults.

Source:Ownelaboration.

(1990,p.128)definition,“employeesmustbeabletoapplynew externalknowledgetocommercialends”,thissuggeststhatifall theotherphasesdonotleadtoknowledgeexploitation,theyhave notbeenveryuseful.

WithregardtoZahraandGeorge’s(2002)theory,thefour capa-bilitiesmentionedabovearedistributedbetweentwoconstructs orsubsetsofACAP.PACAPcomprisestheacquisitionand assim-ilationcapabilities,whereas RACAPinvolvesthetransformation andexploitationcapabilities.AccordinglywithLeeandWu(2010, p.124)“Knowledgealoneisnotenough.Afirmneedstohavetools toexploitandappropriatethisknowledgeembeddedinnew orga-nizationalinnovations”.Thismeansthatacquiringandassimilating knowledgemayoccurbutthisdoesnotguaranteethatitwillbe transformedandexploitedefficiently.

The main idea of Zahra and George’s thinking is the com-plementarity of the PACAP and RACAP concepts. According to theseauthors,a firmmayhave thecapabilitytoacquire exter-nalknowledge.However,itdoesnotguaranteetheexploitation ofthisknowledge.Ontheotherhand,afirmmayhavethe capac-itytoleverageandexploitknowledge,butisnotabletoeffectively acquireit.Therefore, PACAPand RACAPhavedifferentrolesyet theireffectisnotisolated,butrathercomplementary.Bothsubsets ofabsorptivecapacitycoexistandparticipateintheimprovement offirmperformance.Thisreasoningleadthemtorethinkthe con-ceptof ACAP. Considering all thearguments stated above, we postulatethefollowinghypothesis(Fig.1):

H1. Potentialabsorptivecapacity(PACAP)ispositivelyrelatedto realizedabsorptivecapacity(RACAP).

Therelationallearning(RL)asantecedentofRACAP,andthe moderatingroleofRLonthePACAP–RACAPlink

Severalstudiessupporttheimportanceofexternalfactorsfor absorptivecapacity.Daghfous(2004)suggestedthatasthefirm doesnotexist alone, butcoexists withdiverseexternal agents, theexternalenvironment playsakeyroleforabsorptive capac-ity.AsNonakaandTakeuchi(1995)stated,knowledge-intensive firmsoperateinopenenvironments,wheretheyareconstantly interactingandexchangingknowledge.Severalworkshave iden-tifiedRLasthesharingofrelevantknowledgeamongthefirmand oneormoreparts–supplier,customer,partner,etc.–This rela-tionshipworks asa jointactivitywhich is essentiallybasedon informationand knowledge sharing.Thiswillcontributetothe enhancementoftheirknowledgebases,capacitiesandcompetitive spiritsthroughrelational-level learning(Leal-Rodríguez,Roldán, Leal,&Ortega-Gutiérrez, 2013b).RLis thereforea multidimen-sionalconstructcomposedbythreefirstorderreflectiveconstructs, namelyinformation sharing, jointsensemaking and knowledge integration.Collectively, these three variables define a general frameworkwhereinterorganizationalknowledgeexchangeoccurs. Thesecomponentswillbedescribedbelow.

Information sharing refers to the exchange of information betweenthefirm and oneormore interestedparties (Selnes& Sallis,2003).Through theexchange of information,both mem-berscanbenefitfromtheachievingofoperationalefficiencies.This

informationexchangemaycomprisematterssuchastheneedsand preferencesofthefinalconsumer,marketstructuresand acquisi-tions,producttechnologies,thepartners’strategiesandfinancial status,aswellastheconcurrenceofunexpectedproblems.

Jointsensemaking dealswiththedevelopmentofknowledge, insight,andassociationsbetweenpastactions,theeffectivenessof theseactions,andfutureactions(FiolandLyles,1985). Organiza-tionsdifferintheformsinwhichtheytakeconscienceorinternally reflect and maturethesame information, and henceit maybe arguedthatdifferencesexistasforthemechanismsofconstruction ofasharedvision.Thesemechanismsusuallyincludemeetings, forums,workshopsandcross-functionalteams.Theaimofthese mechanismsistocreatelearningplatformsbetweenorganizations (Selnes&Sallis,2003).

KnowledgeintegrationisconsistentwithGulati,Lawrence,and Purnam(2005)focusonthecombinationofcooperation(alignment ofinterests)andcoordination(alignmentofactions).Knowledge integrationappears whenthe firmsdevelop memoriestostore knowledge relating to their relationships, collective cognitions, beliefs,routines,idiosyncrasiesandvalues,aswellastheformal andinformalproceduresassociatedwiththewayinwhichtheparts interact.InwordsofCheung,Myers,andMentzer(2011), knowl-edgeintegrationhelpstheparts involved intherelationshipto moreeasilymeettheirviewsandneeds.

Nonaka,Toyama,andKonno(2000,p.12)arguedthat “knowl-edge is transferred beyond organizational boundaries, and knowledgefromdifferentorganizationsinteracts tocreatenew knowledge.Throughdynamicinteraction,knowledgecreatedby theorganizationcantriggerthemobilizationofknowledgeheld byoutsideconstituentssuchasconsumers,affiliatedcompanies.... ordistributors”.Insummary,theorganizationinteractswith out-side constituents to create knowledge and this transcends the boundary betweenselfand other,inside and outside, past and present.RACAPreflectsthefirm’scapacitytoleveragethe knowl-edgethat hasbeenabsorbed, but firmscannot possiblyexploit externalknowledgewithoutfirstacquiringitbyrelationallearning activitiesamongthefirmanditsstakeholders.Theabovereasoning inducestothinkthattheRLactivitiesformanecessaryprecedentto developthetransformationandexploitationcapabilities(RACAP). AccordingtoSpender(1996),inordertoachieveaneffective absorptionandexploitationofknowledge,itisvitaltoensurethe sharingofrelevantknowledgeamongpartnersandorganizational members.Asa result,thefirm’senvironmentwillbe character-izedbyabettercomprehensionandmutualunderstanding(Garvin, 1993).RL can be very helpfulin order toreach this objective. Althoughknowledgesharingandintegrationcouldbethoughtas criticalrequirementsforinnovativeandknowledge-based compa-nies,thetopmanagementdonotalwaysthinkinthesameway.

ZahraandGeorge(2002)positedthatthepassagefromPACAP to RACAP is moderated by a set of social integration mecha-nisms.Thissuggeststhattheyessentiallyconsidertheknowledge absorptionprocessasasocialprocedure.Theresultofthefirm’s operationswiththeirdifferentstakeholders(customers,suppliers, partners,etc.),sharinginformation,tendstobeanenhancement oftheirrespectiveknowledgebasesandcapabilities.Hence, com-plementingtheseauthors’argument,weproposethatRLactivities maycontributetoreducethegapbetweenPACAPandRACAP.We thereforepositthatthelinkbetweenPACAPandRACAPwillbe strengthened(reinforced)whenfirmsengageinorganizationaland RLactivities.Thisrationalehasmovedustosuggestthefollowing hypotheses(Fig.1):

H2. Relational learning (RL) is positively related to realized absorptivecapacity(RACAP).

H3. Relationallearningmoderates(reinforcing)thepositive rela-tionshipbetweenPACAPandRACAP.

Table1 Respondentsdemographics. Number Percentage Gender Male 97 88.2 Female 13 11.8 Age 30–35 7 6.4 35–40 48 43.6 41–45 40 36.4 45–50 15 13.6 Sizeofteam 0–10 63 57.3 11–20 41 37.3 21–50 6 5.4

Source:Ownelaboration.

Method

Datacollectionandsample

Aspopulationofstudywetookunderconsiderationthesetof companiesbelongingtotheSpanishsectorofautomotive compo-nentsmanufacturing.Wedrewoursamplefromalistof“Sernauto”, theAssociationofManufacturersofEquipmentandComponents fortheAutomotiveIndustry1_{inSpain.Fromthetotalof906}

com-paniesthatconformthissector,weidentified427whometour selectioncriteria(tobeknowledge-intensivefirmsandtopursue innovativeness).Apreliminaryversionordraftofthequestionnaire usedinthisstudywasfirstlyassessedbyagroupofpractitioners andacademicsspecializedinthesubjectaswellassomesenior executives. These experts provided us valuable comments and feedbackregardingtheclarity,completeness,understanding, rele-vance,validityandlegibilityofthescalesaswellastheinstructions ofthesurvey.Thedatacompilationtookplaceintheapproximate periodofthreemonths,fromSeptembertoNovember2012.Each respondentwasprovidedwithapackagethatincludedan intro-ductionletter,thequestionnaireandapostagepaidenvelopefor remittingtheirresponse.Weidentifiedtherespondentswhodid notanswerwithinthefirstthreeweeksafterthematerials deliv-eryandsentthemasecondpackageofsurveymaterials.Hence, wefulfilledtwomailingefforts,whichyielded110usablesurveys returned(a 25.7%response rate).Table1 contains some demo-graphicdataaboutthesurveyrespondents.

Measures

Wehavecomposedthequestionnaireonthebasisofthe biblio-graphicreview.Wehaveadaptedandusedexistingvalidatedscales takenfromtheliterature.Alltheitemsandresponsesappearona seven-pointLikertscalewhichrangesfrom“Icompletelydisagree” to“Icompletelyagree”.InordertoevaluateACAP,wehaveused itemsthatwerepreviouslyusedbyJansen,Van DenBosch, and Volberda(2005)andCepeda-Carrión,Cegarra-Navarro,and Leal-Millán(2012).PACAPwasmeasuredthroughtheuseofnineitems, whileRACAPwasassessedwithatotaloftwelveitems.We mea-suredRLbyadaptingtheitemsfromaSelnesandSallis(2003)work. WefollowedtheirtheorizationforthethreedimensionsofRL.The finalconstructismeasuredthrough17items.

1_{http://www.sernauto.es.}

Table2

Measurementmodel:cross-loadings.

PACAP RACAP RL pacap1 0.896 0.234 −0.061 pacap2 0.894 0.197 −0.074 pacap3 0.798 0.181 −0.050 pacap4 0.766 0.217 0.050 pacap5 0.911 0.206 −0.069 pacap6 0.902 0.229 −0.032 pacap7 0.890 0.290 0.033 pacap8 0.912 0.267 −0.052 pacap9 0.913 0.287 0.052 racap1 0.300 0.924 0.690 racap2 0.268 0.896 0.621 racap3 0.253 0.890 0.668 racap4 0.418 0.826 0.573 racap5 0.350 0.727 0.579 racap6 0.146 0.897 0.725 racap7 0.227 0.927 0.668 racap8 0.206 0.855 0.605 racap9 0.038 0.778 0.567 racap10 0.189 0.919 0.702 racap11 0.222 0.850 0.623 racap12 0.195 0.927 0.638 KI −0.034 0.717 0.993 ISH −0.031 0.739 0.992 JSM 0.004 0.734 0.989

Note:PACAP:potentialabsorptivecapacity;RACAP:realizedabsorptivecapacity; RL:relationallearning;KI:knowledgeintegration;ISH:informationsharing;JSM: jointsense-making.

Theboldnumbersreflecttheloadingofeachindicator/dimensiontoitsown con-struct.

Source:Ownelaboration.

Dataanalysis

WehavetestedtheresearchmodelbytheuseofPartialLeast Squares(PLS),avariance-basedSEMtechnique(Roldán& Sánchez-Franco, 2012). PLS simultaneously evaluates the measurement modelandthestructuralmodel.Wedecidedtoapplythistechnique forthefollowingreasons:(1)thesamplesize(n=110)issmalland, accordingtoReinartz,Haenlein,andHenseler(2009),PLSshould beappliedwhenthenumberofobservationsislowerthan250; (2)thisstudyisorientedtowardthepredictionofthedependent variables(Chin,2010);and(3)comparedtocovariance-basedSEM, PLSpresentsanumberofadvantagesintermsoftheestimationof interactioneffects(Chin,Marcolin,&Newsted,2003).Inorderto carryoutthePLSanalysisweusedtheSmartPLSsoftware(Ringle, Wende,&Will,2005).

Results

Inasingle,systematic,andcomprehensiveanalysis,PartialLeast Squaresevaluates(Roldán&Sánchez-Franco,2012):(1)The mea-surementmodel:therelationshipsbetweenthelatentvariables andtheirindicators.(2)Thestructuralmodel:thepartoftheoverall modelthatproposesrelationshipsamongthelatentvariables.

Measurementmodel

PLSassesses the reflective measurement models takinginto accounttheindividualitemreliability,constructreliability, con-vergentvalidity,anddiscriminantvalidity(Hair,Ringle,&Sarstedt, 2011).Individual item reliability is evaluatedby analyzing the standardizedloadings.Inourstudy,allindicatorsanddimensions surpassthebasiclevelof0.7(Carmines&Zeller,1979)(Table2). Constructreliabilityisassessedusingtwomeasuresofinternal con-sistence:composite reliabilityand Cronbach’salpha(Hairetal., 2011).NunnallyandBernstein(1994)advocate0.8or0.9valuefor advancedstagesofresearch.Sinceallconstructsexceed0.9,wecan defendthereliabilityofourlatentvariables(Table3).Convergent

Table3

Constructreliabilityandconvergentvalidity.

CR Cronbach␣ AVE

PACAP 0.968 0.962 0.769

RACAP 0.974 0.970 0.757

RL 0.994 0.991 0.983

Notes:CR:compositereliability;AVE:averagevarianceextracted;PACAP:potential absorptivecapacity;RACAP:realizedabsorptivecapacity;RL:relationallearning.

Source:Ownelaboration.

Table4 Discriminantvalidity. PACAP RACAP RL PACAP 0.877 0 0 RACAP 0.273 0.87 0 RL −0.020 0.736 0.991

Notes:Diagonalelements(bold)arethesquarerootofthevariancesharedbetween theconstructsandtheirmeasures(AVE).Off-diagonalelementsarethecorrelations amongconstructs.Fordiscriminantvalidity,diagonalelementsshouldbelargerthan off-diagonalelements.

Source:Ownelaboration.

validityisusuallyassessedbytheaveragevarianceextracted(AVE) (Fornell&Larcker,1981).AVEvaluesshouldbegreaterthan0.50. Thismeansthat50%ormoreoftheindicatorvarianceshouldbe accountedfor.Consistentwiththissuggestion,AVEmeasuresfor allLV areaboveof0.769(Table3).Finally,thethreemain con-structsachieve discriminantvaliditybothviathecomparisonof thesquarerootofAVEversuscorrelationsbandthecross-loadings table(Table4)(Roldán&Sánchez-Franco,2012).

Structuralmodel

Thestructuralmodelisassessedconsideringthealgebraicsign, magnitudeandsignificanceofthestructuralpathcoefficients,and theR2_{value(Roldán&Sánchez-Franco,2012).Weused}

bootstrap-ping(5000resamples)(Hairetal.,2011)toproducestandarderrors and t-values, which allowevaluating thestatistical significance ofthepathcoefficients.Inaddition,thebootstrappingconfidence intervalsofstandardized regressioncoefficientsarereported.“If a confidence interval for an estimated path coefficient w does notinclude zero,thehypothesis thatwequalszeroisrejected” (Henseler, Ringle,& Sinkovics,2009,p. 306). We have particu-larlyappliedthepercentile approach,which hastheadvantage of being completely distribution free (Chin, 2010). Both direct effectshypothesizedinFig.2(baselinemodel)aresignificant.This conclusionisalsoachievedobservingthepercentilebootstrap95% confidenceinterval(Table5,baselinemodel).Consequently,both H1andH2aresupported.Inthisrespect,theimportantrolethat Relational Learning plays as antecedent of RACAP. RL explains 54.61%ofthevarianceofRACAPhastobeunderlined.Furthermore, RACAPachievesaR2_{valueof0.625(Table5).Thiscanbeconsidered}

veryneartosubstantial(0.67)accordingtoChin(1998).

Following Henseler and Fassott (2010), we have used the product-indicatortechniquetotestthemoderatingrelationship includedinourresearchmodel(H3).Asinregressionanalysis,the predictor(affectivetrust)andthemoderator(familiarity)variables aremultipliedtoobtaintheinteractionterm.Chinetal.(2003) recommendthestandardizationoftheproductindicators.Inour study,thecoefficientofPACAP×RL→RACAP(0.146)isstatistically

Relational learning (RL) Relational learning (RL) 0,288*** (3,938) 0,700*** (15,370) 0,742*** (16,877) 0,146*** (3,938) 0,266*** (3,553) Potential absorptive capacity (PACAP) Baseline model

Model with interaction

Potential absorptive capacity (PACAP) Realized absorptive capacity (RACAP) R2 _{= 0,625} Realized absorptive capacity (RACAP) R2 = 0,644

Fig.2.Researchmodel.

Source:Ownelaboration.

Table5 Structuralmodels.

Hypotheses Baselinemodel Modelwithinteraction Support

R2

RACAP=0.625 R

2

RACAP=0.644,f 2_=0.053

Pathcoefficient Percentilebootstrap 95%confidenceinterval

Pathcoefficient Percentilebootstrap 95%confidenceinterval

Lower Upper Lower Upper

H1:PACAP→RACAP 0.288***_{(3.939) 0.154 0.432 0.266}***_{(3.553) 0.131 0.420 Yes}

H2:RL→RACAP 0.742***_{(16.877) 0.645 0.819 0.700}***_{(15.370) 0.598 0.776 Yes}

H3:PACAP×RL→RACAP 0.146*_{(2.233) 0.026 0.279 Yes}

Notes:PACAP:potentialabsorptivecapacity;RACAP:realizedabsorptivecapacity;RL:relationallearning.

tvaluesinparentheses.

ns:notsignificant(basedont(4999),one-tailedtest)t(0.05,4999)=1.645;t(0.01,4999)=2.327;t(0.001,4999)=3.092.

* _p<0.05. ***_p<0.001.

significant(Table5).TheR-squareforthisinteractionmodelis com-paredtotheR-squareforthebaselinemodel,whichexcludesthe interactionterm(Chin,1998).ThedifferenceinR-squareassesses theoveralleffectsizef2_{fortheinteractioneffect.Theeffectsizef}2

canbecalculatedasf2_=(R2

included−R2excluded)/1−R2included.Values

of0.02,0.15and0.35indicatethattheinteractiontermhasalow, medium,orlargeeffectonthecriterionvariable.Inourcase,the interactiontermachievesaf2_{valueof0.053.Therefore,hypothesis}

3issupported.

Discussionconclusionsandlimitations

Buildinguponthepreviousliterature(Cohen&Levinthal,1990; Zahra&George,2002),thispaperdevelopsaresearchmodelthat linksbothsubsetsofACAP(PACAPandRACAP),andRL.Themost knownandcitedmodelofabsorptivecapacityinthisresearchfield istheoneproposedbyZahraandGeorge(2002),inwhichthey the-orizethattheexistingrelationshipbetweenPACAPandRACAPis moderatedbyasetofsocialintegrationmechanisms.Ourmodel extendsthisideabyfocusingonthemoderatingeffectofRLonthe twodimensionsofACAPand identifyingpotentialexternal con-textsandrelationalcapacitiesthatcanactascatalystsforthese relationships.

OuranalysisindicatesthatPACAPhasanimportantinfluence onRACAPpositivelymoderatedbyRLactivitiesincluding:sharing informationonexperiencesofsuccessandfailurerelatedto prod-ucts/servicesexchangedwithpartners,establishingjointproject teamstoresolveoperatingproblemsarisingfromtherelationship withstakeholders,promotingface-to-facemeetingstoreinforce thepersonalcontactintherelationshipwithothers,etc.Therefore, organizations’managersneedtoobtainhighlevelsofRLtoclose theknowledgegapbetweenPACAPandRACAP.Inaddition,the presentstudyhasshownaveryintensedirectrelationshipbetween RLandRACAP.OurfindingsverifythesignificanceoftheroleofRL activitieswhenitcomestoreinforcethewholeprocessof knowl-edgecreationwithinorganizations.Thisis,inturn,acriticalaspect inordertofosteringinnovations.Ourresultssupportthe classi-caltheoreticalliteraturerelatingtothelinkbetweenknowledge management,absorptivecapacityandinnovativeability.

Thispapermakessomecontributionstothemanagement lit-erature. First, this research provides evidence to support the theoreticalmodelonthebasisofanempiricaltest.Eventhough researchintheabsorptivecapacityareatheoreticallyindicatesthat RLisacatalyst fortheknowledgecreation,transformation, and exploitationprocess (Nonakaetal.,2000;Selnes &Sallis,2003; Zahra&George,2002),theliteraturelacksempiricalevidenceto supportthisassertion.Second,theprocesswefollowedincluded anin-depthliteraturereviewandanempiricalstudyofatypeof knowledge-intensiveorganizations,inthiscasefirmsinthesector ofautomotivecomponentsmanufacturing.Thismethodhelpstofill thegapintheempiricalworkintherelationallearningand absorp-tivecapacityfields,inwhichmeasuresoforganizationalknowledge managementandlearningarerare,andoftenrelyoncrudeproxies. Third,theresultsalsoshedlight onatangiblemeansfor man-agerstoenhancetheirorganization’sknowledgeoutcomesthrough relationallearningactivitieswithothersinthesupplychain man-agement.

Someapparentpracticalimplicationsforseniormanagerscan beidentified.Firstly,thisstudyprovidesatheoreticalandempirical basisforthesuccessivestudyofthefirms’knowledgeabsorption mechanismswithin theautomotivecomponentsmanufacturing industry. To successfully compete and maintain a significant presence inthis sector, characterizedasa knowledge-intensive industry,itisimportantfororganizationstoimplement mecha-nismsthatenablethetransitionfrompotentialtorealizedACAP, allowingthemtoleveragethenewlyacquiredknowledge,totake

advantageofitandtobeabletogeneratenewknowledgein com-binationwiththeonethatalreadypossessed.Secondly,thisstudy providesevidencethatdemonstratestheimportanceofRL activi-tieswhilefacilitatingthistask.Therefore,theseknowledge-based companiesmustactivelyencourage,fosterandengageinactivities ofinformationsharingandexchange,thebuildingofjoint sense-makingorsharedvisionandknowledgeintegration.

Finally, we ought to mention that his study presents some limitations thatshouldbeconsidered: firstly,while weprovide evidenceofcausality,causalityitselfhasnotbeentested.Inthis sense,Fornell(1982)arguedthatthecausalrelationshipsbetween variables are always understood or based on the researcher’s assumptions,theycannotbeproven.Second,thisresearchisbased ontherespondents’individual insightsand perceptions,and in ordertoobtainorelicittheseinsightswehaveemployedonesingle method.Finally,wehavecarriedoutthisstudywithinaspecific geographical context (Spain) and an economic sector (automo-tiveequipmentsandcomponentsmanufacturingsector).Forthese reasons,wemustbecarefulwhilegeneralizingtheseresultsand conclusionstootherscenariosordifferentcontexts.

Appendix.

Questionnaireitems

Potentialabsorptive capacity(PACAP)(1=highdisagreement and7=highagreement)Inmycompany:

•Wehavefrequentinteractionswithtopmanagementtoacquire newknowledge.

•Employeesregularlyvisitotherunitsorprojectteams.

•We collectinformationthrough informalmeans(e.g.,lunches withcolleagues,friends,chatswithpartners).

•Membersdonotvisitotherunitsorprojectteams(reversed).

•Weperiodicallyorganizespecialmeetingswithclients,suppliers orthirdpartiestoacquirenewknowledge.

•Members meet regularly withexternal professionals suchas advisers,managersorconsultants.

•Weareslowtorecognizeshiftsinourmarket(e.g.,competitors, laws,demographicchanges,etc.)(reversed).

•Newopportunitiestoserveourclientsarequicklyunderstood.

•Wequicklyanalyzeandinterpretchangingclientdemands.

Realized absorptive capacity (RACAP)(1=high disagreement and7=highagreement)Inmycompany:

•We regularly consider the consequences of changing market demandsintermsofnewwaystoprovideservices.

•Employeesrecordandstorenewlyacquiredknowledgeforfuture reference.

•Wequicklyrecognizetheusefulnessofnewexternalknowledge forexistingknowledge.

•Employeeshardlysharepracticalexperiences(reverse).

•Welaboriouslygrasptheopportunitiesforourunitfromnew externalknowledge(reverse).

•We periodically meet todiscuss the consequences of market trendsandnewservicesdevelopment.

•Itisclearlyknownhowactivitieswithinourunitshouldbe per-formed.

•Clients’complaintsfallondeafearsinourunit(reverse).

•Wehaveacleardivisionofrolesandresponsibilities.

•Weconstantlyconsiderhowtobetterexploitknowledge.

•Wehavedifficultiesimplementingnewservices(reverse).

Relational learning (RL): Information sharing (1=high dis-agreementand7=highagreement)Inmycompany:

•Weexchangeinformationonsuccessfulandunsuccessful experi-enceswithproductsexchangedintherelationshipwithpartners andsuppliers.

•Weexchangeinformationrelatedtochangesinend-userneeds, preferences,andbehavior.

•Weexchangeinformationrelatedtochangesinmarketstructure, suchasmergers,acquisitions,orpartnering.

•Weexchangeinformationrelatedtochangesinthetechnology ofthefocalproducts.

•Weexchangeinformationassoonasanyunexpectedproblems arise.

•Weexchangeinformationrelatedtochangesintheorganizations’ strategiesandpolicies.

•Weexchangeinformationthatissensitive,suchasfinancial per-formanceandknow-how.

Relationallearning(RL):Jointsensemaking(1=high disagree-mentand7=highagreement)Inmycompany:

•Itiscommontoestablishjointteamstosolveoperational prob-lemsintherelationshipswithpartners,suppliersandcustomers.

•It is commontoestablish jointteamstoanalyze and discuss strategicissuesintherelationshipwithpartners,suppliersand customers.

•Theatmosphereintherelationshipwithpartners,suppliersand customersstimulatesproductivediscussionthatencompassesa varietyofopinions.

•Wehavealotofface-to-facecommunicationinthisrelationship.

Relationallearning(RL):Knowledgeintegration(1=high dis-agreementand7=highagreement)Inmycompany:

•Wefrequentlyadjustourcommonunderstandingof end-user needsandbehavior.

•Wefrequentlyadjust ourcommonunderstandingoftrendsin technologyrelatedtoourbusiness.

•Wefrequentlyevaluateand, ifneeded,adjust ourroutinesin order-deliveryprocesses.

•Wefrequentlyevaluateand,ifneeded,updatetheformal con-tractsinourrelationship.

•Wefrequentlymeetface-to-facetorefreshthepersonalnetwork inthisrelationship.

•Wefrequentlyevaluateand,ifneeded,updateinformationabout therelationshipstoredinourelectronicdatabases.

References

Carmines,E.G.,&Zeller,R.A.(1979).Reliabilityandvalidityassessment.N.07-017, SageUniversityPaperSeriesonQuantitativeApplicationsintheSocialSciences. BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.

Cepeda-Carrión, G., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Leal-Millán, A. (2012). Finding thehospital-in-the-homeunits’innovativeness.ManagementDecision,50(9), 1596–1617.

Cheung,M.S.,Myers,M.B.,&Mentzer,J.(2011).Thevalueofrelationallearningin globalbuyersupplierexchanges:Adyadicperspectiveandtestofthepie-sharing premise.StrategicManagementJournal,32,1061–1082.

Chin,W.W.(1998).Thepartialleastsquaresapproachtostructuralequation mod-elling.InG.A.Marcoulides(Ed.),Modernmethodsforbusinessresearch(pp. 295–336).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Chin,W.W.(2010).HowtowriteupandreportPLSanalyses.InV.EspositoVinzi, W.W.Chin,&J.Henseler,etal.(Eds.),Handbookofpartialleastsquares:Concepts, methodsandapplications(pp.655–690).Berlin:Springer-Verlag.

Chin,W.W.,Marcolin,B.L.,&Newsted,P.R.(2003).Apartialleastsquareslatent variablemodelingapproachformeasuringinteractioneffects:Resultsfroma MonteCarlosimulationstudyandanelectronicmailemotion/adoptionstudy. InformationSystemsResearch,14(2),189–217.

Cohen,W.M.,&Levinthal,D.A.(1990).Absorptivecapacity:Anewperspectiveon learningandinnovation.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35,128–154. Daghfous,A.(2004).Absorptivecapacityandtheimplementationof

knowledge-intensivebestpractices.SAMAdvancedManagementJournal,69(2),21–27. Fiol,C.M.,&Lyles,M.A.(1985).Organizationallearning.AcademyofManagement

Review,10,803–813.

Fornell,C.,&Larcker,D.F.(1981).Evaluatingstructuralequationmodelswith unob-servablevariablesandmeasurementerror.JournalofMarketingResearch,18, 39–50.

Garvin,D.(1993).Buildingalearningorganization.HarvardBusinessReview,73(4), 78–91.

Gulati, R.,Lawrence, P.R., & Purnam, P. (2005).Adaptation in vertical rela-tionships: beyond incentive conflict. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 415–440.

Hair,J.F.,Ringle,C.M.,&Sarstedt,M.(2011).PLS-SEM:Indeedasilverbullet.Journal ofMarketingTheoryandPractice,19(2),137–149.

Henseler,J.,&Fassott,G.(2010).TestingmoderatingeffectsinPLSpathmodels:An illustrationofavailableprocedures.InV.E.Vinzi,W.W.Chin,J.Henseler,&H. Wang(Eds.),Handbookofpartialleastsquares:Concepts,methodsandapplications (pp.713–736).Berlin:Springer.

Henseler,J.,Ringle,C.M.,&Sinkovics,R.R.(2009).Theuseofpartialleastsquares pathmodelingininternationalmarketing.AdvancesinInternationalMarketing, 20,277–320.

Jansen,J.J.P.,VanDenBosch,F.A.J.,&Volberda,H.W.(2005).Managingpotential andrealizedabsorptivecapacity:Howdoorganizationalantecedentsmatter? AcademyofManagementJournal,48,999–1015.

Kim, L. (1997a). Thedynamics of Samsung’s technological learningin semi-conductors.CaliforniaManagementReview,39(3),86–100.

Kim,L.(1997b).Fromimitationtoinnovation:ThedynamicsofKorea’stechnological learning.Cambridge,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Leal-Rodríguez,A.L.,Leal-Millán,A.,Roldán-Salgueiro,J.L.,&Ortega-Gutiérrez,J. (2013).Knowledgemanagementandtheeffectivenessofinnovationoutcomes: Theroleofculturalbarriers.ElectronicJournalofKnowledgeManagement,11(1), 62–71.

Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Roldán, J. L., Leal, A. G., & Ortega-Gutiérrez, J. (2013). Knowledge management, relational learning, and the effec-tiveness of innovation outcomes. Service Industries Journal (forthcoming), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.815735

Lee,C.Y.,&Wu,F.C.(2010).Factorsaffectingknowledgetransferandabsorptive capacityinmultinationalcorporations.TheJournalofInternationalManagement Studies,5(2),118–126.

Nonaka,I.,&Takeuchi,H.(1995).Theknowledge-creatingcompany.NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.

Nonaka,I.,Toyama,R.,&Konno,N.(2000).SECI,Baandleadership:Aunifiedmodel ofdynamicknowledgecreation.LongRangePlanning,33(1),5–34.

Nunnally,J.C.,&Bernstein,I.H.(1994).Psychometrictheory(3rded.).NewYork,NY: McGraw-Hill.

Reinartz,W.,Haenlein,M.,&Henseler,J.(2009).Anempiricalcomparisonofthe efficacyofcovariance-basedandvariance-basedSEM.InternationalJournalof ResearchinMarketing,26,332–344.

Ringle,C.M.,Wende,S.,Will,A.,(2005).SmartPLS2.0(M3)beta.Hamburg,Germany. Roldán,J.L.,&Sánchez-Franco,M.J.(2012).Variance-basedstructuralequation modelling:Guidelinesforusingpartialleastsquaresininformationsystems research.InM.Mora,M.Mora,etal.(Eds.),Researchmethodologies,innovations andphilosophiesinsoftwaresystemsengineeringandinformationsystems(pp. 193–221).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Selnes,F.,&Sallis,J.(2003).Promotingrelationshiplearning.JournalofMarketing, 67,80–95.

Spender,J.C.(1996).Makingknowledgethebasisofadynamictheoryofthefirm. StrategicManagementJournal,17,45–62.

Szulanski,G.(1996).Exploringinternalstickiness:Impedimentstothetransferof bestpracticewithinthefirm.StrategicManagementJournal,17,27–43. Zahra,S.,&George,G.(2002).Absorptivecapacity:Areview,reconceptualization,