Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 49, Issue 8, pp 990–1009 | Cite as

Knowledge connectedness within and across home country borders: Spatial heterogeneity and the technological scope of firm innovations

  • Vittoria G. Scalera
  • Alessandra Perri
  • T. J. Hannigan
Article

Abstract

We explore how knowledge-based connections to domestic and foreign locations affect the technological scope of firm innovations. Inspired by a blend of Economic Geography and International Business perspectives, we propose a theoretical framework that distinguishes between domestic subnational differences and cross-national spatial heterogeneity. Further, we combine the Penrosean view of managerial capabilities with the attention-based theory of the firm. Analyzing a sample of US-based firms between 1990 and 2006, we show that both domestic and international knowledge connectedness affect the technological scope of firm innovations, but their effects are different. The breadth of international knowledge connectedness appears to be positively associated with the technological scope of firm innovations. However, the breadth of domestic knowledge connectedness positively contributes to the technological scope of firm innovations up to a certain point, beyond which the bounded rationality of managers constrains firms’ ability to further leverage subnational heterogeneity. Thus, domestic search is more likely to be challenged by limited managerial bandwidth. Lastly, domestic and international knowledge connectedness significantly interact with each other to explain the technological scope of firm innovations.

Keywords

international and domestic knowledge sourcing knowledge connectedness technological scope knowledge recombination spatial heterogeneity 

Resume

Nous étudions comment les connexions fondées sur les connaissances aux localisations domestiques et étrangères influencent la portée technologique des innovations de la firme. Inspirés par la combinaison des perspectives de la géographie économique et de l'international business, nous proposons un modèle théorique qui distingue les différences infranationales domestiques et l'hétérogénéité spatiale transfrontalière. Par ailleurs, nous combinons la perspective de Penrose sur les capacités managériales avec la théorie de la firme fondée sur l'attention. Analysant un échantillon de firmes basées aux Etats-Unis entre 1990 et 2006, nous montrons que les connectivités domestique et internationale des connaissances influencent la portée technologique des innovations de la firme; mais leurs effets sont différents. L'ampleur de la connectivité internationale des connaissances semble positivement associée à la portée technologique des innovations de la firme. Toutefois, l'ampleur de la connectivité domestique des connaissances contribue de manière positive à la portée technologique des innovations de la firme à un certain point ; point au-delà duquel la rationalité limitée des dirigeants gêne la capacité de la firme à tirer davantage profit de l'hétérogénéité infranationale. Par conséquent, la recherche domestique est davantage susceptible d'être défiée par une bande passante managériale limitée. Enfin, les connectivités domestique et internationale des connaissances interagissent de manière significative l'une avec l'autre pour expliquer la portée technologique des innovations de la firme.

Resumen

Exploramos cómo las conexiones basadas en el conocimiento a sedes domésticas y extranjeras afectan el alcance tecnológico de las innovaciones de la empresa. Inspirados en una mezcla de perspectivas de la Geografía Económica y de los Negocios Internacionales, proponemos un marco teórico que distingue entre las diferencias sub-nacionales domésticas y la heterogeneidad espacial. Además, combinamos la perspectiva penroseana de las capacidades gerenciales con la atención en la teoría de la empresa. Analizando una muestra de empresas ubicadas en los Estados Unidos entre 1990 y el 2006, mostramos que tanto la conectividad al conocimiento interno como el internacional afecta el alcance de las innovaciones de la empresa, pero sus efectos son diferente. La amplitud de la conectividad del conocimiento doméstico contribuye al alcance tecnológico de las innovaciones de la empresa hasta cierto punto, más allá del cual la racionalidad limitada de los gerentes restringe la habilidad de las empresas para beneficiarse de la heterogeneidad sub-nacional. Por tanto, la búsqueda doméstica es más probable que sea desafiada por el limitado ancho de banda gerencial. Por último, la conectividad de conocimiento doméstico e internacional interactúan significativamente entre sí para explicar el alcance tecnológico de las innovaciones de la empresa.

Resumo

Nós exploramos como conexões baseadas no conhecimento com locais domésticos e estrangeiros afetam o escopo tecnológico das inovações da firma. Inspirado por uma mistura de perspectivas de Geografia Econômica e Negócios Internacionais, nós propomos um modelo teórico que distingue entre diferenças domésticas subnacionais e a heterogeneidade espacial transnacional. Além disso, nós combinamos a visão de Penrose de capacidades gerenciais com a teoria baseada na atenção da empresa. Analisando uma amostra de empresas com sede nos EUA entre 1990 e 2006, mostramos que tanto a conexão de conhecimento doméstico quanto a internacional afetam o escopo tecnológico das inovações da firma, mas seus efeitos são distintos. A amplitude da conexão do conhecimento internacional aparenta ser positivamente associada com o escopo tecnológico das inovações da firma. No entanto, a amplitude da conexão de conhecimento doméstico contribui positivamente para o escopo tecnológico das inovações da firma até certo ponto, depois do qual a racionalidade limitada de gerentes restringe a capacidade das empresas de se beneficiar da heterogeneidade subnacional. Assim, é mais provável que a busca doméstica seja desafiada pela limitada largura de banda gerencial. Por fim, a conexão de conhecimento doméstico e internacional interagem significativamente entre si para explicar o escopo tecnológico das inovações da firma.

概要

我们探索基于知识的国内外位置的联系如何影响公司创新的技术范围。受经济地理学与国际商务观点融合的 启发, 我们提出了一个理论框架, 将国内次国家差 异与跨国空间异质性区分开。进一步, 我们将彭罗斯 管理能力观与基于注意力的公司理论相结 合。通过分析1990至2006年间的美国公司的样本, 我们显示, 国内和国际的知识联系对公司创新的技术范围产生影 响, 但效果不同。国 际知识联系的广度似乎与公司创新的技术范围正相关。然而, 国内知识联系的广 度有助于公司创新的技术范围到一定程度, 在这之后管理者的有限理性限 制了公司进一步发挥次国家 级异质性的能力。因此, 国内搜索更有可能受到有限的管理带宽的挑战。 最后, 国内外知识联系明显相互影响, 从而解释公司创新的技术范围。

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Special Issue Editors, in particular Professor Shige Makino, and the anonymous reviewers for the insightful and constructive comments provided in the review process. Further, we would like to acknowledge the valuable guidance of the JIBS Area Editor Ram Mudambi. We are also grateful to John Cantwell, Francesco Castellaneta and Samuele Murtinu, as well as to the participants of the 2016 Academy of International Business Annual Meeting and the 2016 Academy of Management Annual Meeting for their developmental inputs and suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., Galasso, A., & Oettl, A. 2014. Why are some regions more innovative than others? The role of small firms in the presence of large labs. Journal of Urban Economics, 81: 149–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcacer, J., & Chung, W. 2007. Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science, 53(5): 760–776. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida, P., & Phene, A. 2004. Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: The influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9): 847–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. 2004. Architectures of knowledge: firms, capabilities, and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. 1992. Specialization and size of technological activities in industrial countries: The analysis of patent data. Research Policy, 21(1): 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. 1996. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86(3): 630–640.Google Scholar
  7. Awate, S., & Mudambi, R. 2018. On the geography of emerging industry technological networks: The breadth and depth of patented innovations. Journal of Economic Geography, forthcoming.. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbx032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartholomew, S. 1997. National systems of biotechnology innovation: Complex interdependence in the global system. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2): 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, H. 2014. Global integration and innovation: Multicountry knowledge generation within MNCs. Strategic Management Journal, 35(6): 869–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berry, C. R., & Glaeser, E. L. 2005. The divergence of human capital levels across cities. Papers in Regional Science, 84(3): 407–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beugelsdijk, S., McCann, P., & Mudambi, R. 2010. Introduction: Place, space and organization: Economic geography and the multinational enterprise. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(4): 485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beugelsdijk, S., & Mudambi, R. 2013. MNEs as border-crossing multi-location enterprises: The role of discontinuities in geographic space. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5): 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. 2010. The spatial evolution of innovation networks. A proximity perspective. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (120–135). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burgelman, R. A. 1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cano-Kollmann, M., Cantwell, J. A., Hannigan, T. J., Mudambi, R., & Song, J. 2016. Knowledge connectedness: An agenda for future of innovation research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3): 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cantwell, J. A. 1989. Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Cantwell, J. A., Gambardella, A., & Granstrand, O. 2004. The economics and management of technological diversification (Vol. 34). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cantwell, J. A., & Janne, O. 1999. Technological globalisation and innovative centres: The role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy. Research Policy, 28(2): 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. 1991. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1(2): 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Choudhury, P. 2017. Innovation outcomes in a distributed organization: Intrafirm mobility and access to resources. Organization Science, 28(2): 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chung, W., & Yeaple, S. 2008. International knowledge sourcing: Evidence from US firms expanding abroad. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11): 1207–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Ejermo, O., & Karlsson, C. 2006. Interregional inventor networks as studied by patent coinventorships. Research Policy, 35(3): 412–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1): 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fleming, L., King, C., III, & Juda, A. I. 2007. Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18(6): 938–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. 2004. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9): 909–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fritsch, M., & Lukas, R. 2001. Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30(2): 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frost, T. S. 2001. The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries’ innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2): 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. 2002. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6): 899–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. 1998. Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12): 1193–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gambardella, A., & Torrisi, S. 1998. Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Research Policy, 27(5): 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gertler, M. S. 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1): 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review, 79(8): 137–147.Google Scholar
  34. Gittelman, M. 2007. Does geography matter for science-based firms? Epistemic communities and the geography of research and patenting in biotechnology. Organization Science, 18(4): 724–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. 2016. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1177–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hall, B., Jaffe, A.B., & Trajtenberg, M. 2001. The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  37. Hausman, J. A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46(6): 1251–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. 2007. Which tangible and intangible assets matter for innovation speed in start-ups? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4): 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hutzschenreuter, T., & Voll, J. C. 2008. Performance effects of “added cultural distance” in the path of international expansion: The case of German multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hutzschenreuter, T., Voll, J. C., & Verbeke, A. 2011. The impact of added cultural distance and cultural diversity on international expansion patterns: A Penrosean perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 305–329.Google Scholar
  41. Iammarino, S., & McCann, P. 2013. Multinationals and economic geography: Location, technology and innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3): 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kochhar, R., & David, P. 1996. Institutional investors and firm innovation: A test of competing hypotheses. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1): 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lahiri, N. 2010. Geographic distribution of R&D activity: How does it affect innovation quality? Academy of Management Journal, 53(5): 1194–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lahiri, N. 2015. Geographic distribution of R&D activity: How does it affect innovation quality? Academy of Management Journal, 53(5): 1194–2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lerner, J. 1994. The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The Rand Journal of Economics, 25(2): 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Li, P., & Bathelt, H. 2017. Location strategy in cluster networks. Journal of International Business Studies. doi: 10.1057/s41267-017-0088-6.
  49. Li, G., Lai, R., D’Amour, A., Doolin, D. M., Sun, Y., Torvik, V. I., et al. 2014. Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the US patent inventor database (1975–2010). Research Policy, 43(6): 941–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Li, Q., Maggitti, P. G., Smith, K. G., Tesluk, P. E., & Katila, R. 2013. Top management attention to innovation: The role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3): 893–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. 2010. With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1): 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lobo, J., & Strumsky, D. 2008. Metropolitan patenting, inventor agglomeration and social networks: A tale of two effects. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(3): 871–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lorenzen, M. 2004. Localised learning and cluster capabilities: Organization of knowledge and constitution of regional competitive advantage. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  54. Lorenzen, M., & Mudambi, R. 2013. Clusters, connectivity and catch-up: Bollywood and Bangalore in the global economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(3): 501–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. 2002. The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34(3): 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. Maskell, P. 2001. The firm in economic geography. Economic Geography, 77(4): 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. 1999. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2): 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Melero, E., & Palomeras, N. 2015. The Renaissance Man is not dead! The role of generalists in teams of inventors. Research Policy, 44(1): 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Miller, D. J. 2006. Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7): 601–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morgan, K. 2004. The exaggerated death of geography: Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Narula, R. 2014. Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: Balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs. Long Range Planning, 47(1): 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. Chicago: Irwin.Google Scholar
  66. Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. 1996. Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4): 753–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Novelli, E. 2015. An examination of the antecedents and implications of patent scope. Research Policy, 44(2): 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nurmi, N., & Hinds, P. 2016. Job complexity and learning opportunities: A silver lining in the design of global virtual work. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6): 631–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1980. Individuals and information over-load in organizations: Is more necessarily better? Academy of Management Journal, 23(4): 684–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(Summer): 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. 1997. The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2): 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Penner-Hahn, J., & Shaver, J. M. 2005. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2): 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Penrose, E. T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  74. Perri, A., Scalera, V. G., & Mudambi, R. 2017. What are the most promising conduits for foreign knowledge inflows? Innovation networks in the Chinese pharmaceutical industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(2): 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Phene, A., & Almeida, P. 2008. Innovation in multinational subsidiaries: The role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5): 901–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., & Marsh, L. 2006. Breakthrough innovations in the US biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4): 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. 2015. Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3): 856–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reitzig, M., & Sorenson, O. 2013. Biases in the selection stage of bottom-up strategy formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(7): 782–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6): 751–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4): 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Salter, A., Criscuolo, P., & Ter Wal, A. L. 2014. Coping with open innovation. California Management Review, 56(2): 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schotter, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2013. The hassle factor: An explanation for managerial location shunning. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5): 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  85. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2): 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Simon, H. A. 1947. Administrative behavior. A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. Chicago: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  87. Singh, J. 2008. Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Research Policy, 37(1): 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stallkamp, M., Pinkham, B.C., Schotter, A.P., & Buchel, O. 2017. Core or periphery? The effects of country-of-origin agglomerations on the within-country expansion of MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies.  10.1057/s41267-016-0060-x.
  89. Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sturgeon, T. J., Van Biesebroeck, J., & Gereffi, G. 2008. Value chains, networks and clusters: Reframing the global automotive industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(3): 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sullivan, B. N. 2010. Competition and beyond: Problems and attention allocation in the organizational rulemaking process. Organization Science, 21(2): 432–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tzabbar, D., & Vestal, A. 2015. Bridging the social chasm in geographically distributed R&D teams: The moderating effects of relational strength and status asymmetry on the novelty of team innovation. Organization Science, 26(3): 811–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. USPTO. 2014. Handbook of classification. Alexandria: USPTO.Google Scholar
  94. von Hippel, E. 1987. Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16(6): 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wooldridge, J. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vittoria G. Scalera
    • 1
  • Alessandra Perri
    • 2
  • T. J. Hannigan
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Amsterdam Business SchoolAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of ManagementUniversità Ca’ Foscari VeneziaVeneziaItaly
  3. 3.Dropbox IncSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations